a food research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Conceptual Models of Food Choice: Influential Factors Related to Foods, Individual Differences, and Society

Pin-jane chen.

1 Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition Foundation, Via Madre Teresa di Calcutta, 3/a, 43121 Parma, Italy; [email protected]

Marta Antonelli

2 Division on Impacts on Agriculture, Forests and Ecosystem Services (IAFES), CMCC Foundation—Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change, Viale Trieste 127, 01100 Viterbo, Italy

Associated Data

Understanding individual food choices is critical for transforming the current food system to ensure healthiness of people and sustainability of the planet. Throughout the years, researchers from different fields have proposed conceptual models addressing factors influencing the food choice, recognized as a key leverage to improve planetary and human health. However, a multidisciplinary approach is needed to better understand how different factors are involved and interact with each other in the decision-making process. The present paper reviews and analyzes existing models, providing an intact point-of-view by integrating key elements into a bigger framework. Key determinants of general food choice are identified and categorized, including food-internal factor (sensory and perceptual features), food-external factors (information, social environment, physical environment), personal-state factors (biological features and physiological needs, psychological components, habits and experiences), cognitive factors (knowledge and skills, attitude, liking and preference, anticipated consequences, and personal identity), as well as sociocultural factors (culture, economic variables, political elements). Moreover, possible directions of influence among the factors towards final food choice were discussed. The need of multidisciplinary impulses across research field with the support of empirical data are crucial for understanding factors influencing food choice as well as for enriching existing conceptual models. The framework proposed here would serve as a roadmap for facilitating communications and collaborations between research fields in a structural and systematic way.

1. Introduction

1.1. consumer food choice: an important role in achieving healthy and sustainable food system.

Global food systems possess a complex and multi-faceted set of challenges, regarding both human and environmental health, from farm to fork. From a human society point of view, there are still 690 million people who suffer from hunger while food insecurity is predicted to increase due to the present Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic and the consequent economic shock [ 1 ]. Meanwhile, 677.6 million adults, equal to 13.1% of the population worldwide, are obese [ 2 ], resulting in a double burden of malnutrition. The high prevalence of overweight and obesity, especially in urban areas, can be related to a change in lifestyle, low levels of physical activity [ 3 ], and unhealthy diets [ 4 ] based on the interaction between individual characteristics on food choices and obesogenic environments. Especially, obesogenic environments are recognized as crucial drivers of the increasing prevalence of obesity epidemic [ 5 , 6 ], including microenvironments at individual level (e.g., school, workplace, home, neighborhood) and macroenvironments at societal level (e.g., education and health systems, government policy, society’s attitudes and beliefs) [ 7 ]. The outcome of food choice is based on interactions between environmental and individual factors [ 8 ].

Individual food choices, embedded in the pattern of food consumptions, evolved according to the changes of natural environment, biological basis, physical need, lifestyle, and development of technology [ 9 ]. In the modern society, owing to increasing national wealth and urbanized living, people consume more animal proteins as well as processed food. At the same time, consumptions of whole food or minimally-processed foods such as whole grains, legumes, and other sources of fiber decreased [ 10 ]. Some studies have highlighted that eating patterns and food choice have changed with the change of global food systems and food supply, resulting in a shift toward increased intake of unhealthy food [ 11 ]. The change of global food supply chains influences the food environments, [ 12 ]. Particularly, food choice with ultra-processed food significantly increased, owing to the easy access, cheap price and marketing strategies [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. The vicious cycle has been created between food choice and the consequence of food choice as it is confirmed that consumption of heavily-processed foods is significantly associated with higher BMI and increased likelihood of being obese [ 13 , 14 , 16 ]. On the other hand, overweight and obese individuals tend to show more liking and to select more energy-dense foods [ 17 , 18 , 19 ].

Given that negative impacts on human beings as well as on the planet (e.g., pre- and post- production activities in food system produces up to 37% of the total anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas emissions [ 20 ]) have considerably grown, promoting healthier and more sustainable food choices and better diets have been a new multidisciplinary research impulse [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. According to Food and Agriculture Organization [ 26 ], sustainable healthy diets are dietary patterns that promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact; are accessible, affordable, safe, and equitable; and are culturally acceptable. Grunert [ 22 ] has pointed out that consumers have great potential in making food chains more sustainable by choosing more sustainable food production and rejecting less sustainable alternatives through their food choices. For example, choosing low-impact foods (e.g., minimally-processed plant-based foods) and increasing use efficiency of agricultural input offer larger environmental benefits [ 27 ]. While food choices with heavily-processed food have negative impacts on the environment [ 28 ], lowering consumption of more discretionary products (e.g., oils and sugar) can reduce land use, emission, and freshwater withdrawals [ 29 ]. Thus, promoting healthier and more sustainable dietary patterns, rooted in food choices at individual level, has been recognized as a potential and crucial solution [ 30 ]. A number of multidisciplinary studies have shed light on the importance of addressing the role of individual food choice in tackling the current nutrition and also environmental crisis [ 31 , 32 , 33 ].

1.2. Exploring Factors Influencing Consumer Food Choice and Constructing the Conceptual Models

1.2.1. three main categories of factors influencing food choices: food-related features, individual differences, and society-related features.

A rich body of literature has focused on exploring factors influencing individual food choice. Due to the complex nature of food choice, proposed factors as well as the categorization of factors differed from one study to another. However, although works from different research fields (e.g., nutrition, psychology, social science, marketing, etc.) provided evidence with different perspectives, the factors affecting food choices can be leveled into three main categories: (1) Food-related features: intrinsic features such as color and aroma, and extrinsic features such as information and packaging [ 34 , 35 ]); (2) individual difference: biological (e.g., hunger, appetite, and taste), physical (e.g., access, skills of cooking, and time), psychological (e.g., mood and stress), cognitive (e.g., attitudes or preference, beliefs, and knowledge), and social (e.g., family, and peers) factors (see [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]); (3) society-related features: culture, economic variables such as price and income, and policy, e.g., [ 39 ].

1.2.2. The Role of Food Environments as Factors Influencing Food Choices

In addition to the three main categories, in recent years, ‘food environments’ have been defined and recognized as important factors influencing people’s food choice. According to Swinburn, et al. [ 40 ], food environment equals to the collective physical, economic, policy, and sociocultural surroundings, opportunities, and conditions that influence people’s food choices and nutritional status. In fact, ‘food environments’ include different factors from the aforementioned three main categories, such as physical and social environments as well as economic, policy, and sociocultural environments. Some studies attempted to provide a more holistic point of view by integrating the role of food environments. For example, an early paper [ 41 ] proposed that food consumption is based on food preference, under the influence of food characteristics (e.g., taste, texture, and cost), individual characteristics (e.g., nutritional status, knowledge, and attitudes to health), and environment characteristics (e.g., season, degree of urbanization, and size of family). Rozin [ 42 ] specified the influence of biological (physiological and evolutionary/adaptive), psychological (preference and context), social (sociology), and cultural (anthropology) factors on food choice.

It has been concluded that there are social and environmental influences on food choice (e.g., modelling influences, eating competence family environment, food labels, taste, appearance, personal food history, habits, and familiarity) as well as psychological influences on eating behavior (perceived behavioral control and motivation) [ 43 ]. Leng, et al. [ 44 ] pointed out the determinant of food choice, including dietary components (e.g., highly palatable foods), physiological mechanisms (e.g., neural mechanism of hunger and satiety as well as motivation and reward based on foods), cognitive-affective factors (perceived stress, health attitude, anxiety, and depression), familial, genetic, and epigenetic influences on personality characteristics, and diverse cultural and social pressures. Castro, et al. [ 45 ] focused on factors influencing choice in food retail environments such as shelf display and product factors (shelf display, branding, nutrition labeling, and food sampling), pricing and price promotion factors, in-store and customer decision-making factors (customers’ implicit beliefs about the relationship between taste and healthfulness), and store environment factors (e.g., smaller aisles). Bauer and Reisch [ 46 ] summarized that food decisions are affected by individual (psychological, physical, neurological), social, and environmental factors.

1.2.3. Development of Early Conceptual Models of Food Choice as the Prototypes

It is recognized that food choices are multifaceted, situational, dynamic, and complex [ 47 ]. Thus, a multidisciplinary approach and a holistic picture are needed to understand not only how different factors are involved but also how the factors are structured and interact with each other in the decision-making process. To this aim, comprehensive conceptual models of food choice behavior have been developed for understanding the process of making food choices. Furst, et al. [ 48 ] proposed the model with factors involved in food choice being categorized into three components: life course, influences, and personal system. According to the authors, the life course includes the personal roles and the social, cultural and physical environments to which a person has been and is exposed. A person’s life course generates a set of influences: ideals, personal factors, resources, social framework and food context. These influences inform and shape people’s personal systems, including conscious values, negotiations and unconsciously operationalized strategies that may occur in a food-related choice situation. In another model [ 49 ], features of food, personal state, and socio-economic factors were included. The features of food (e.g., chemical properties and nutrient content) can trigger physiological effects (e.g., hunger) that directly influence food choice. Moreover, food features can influence a person’s perception (e.g., taste and texture) which contribute to the formation of attitudes under the influence of socio-economic context (e.g., price, brand, and culture). The attitudes then influence the output of food choice. Finally, personal psychological factors such as personality, mood, and beliefs can influence final food choice directly or by affecting the attitudes. Similarly, the model proposed by Steenkamp [ 50 ] demonstrated that properties of food (physiological effects and sensory perception) personal-related factors (biological, psychological, socio-demographic), and environmental factors (economic, cultural, marketing) all contribute to the food decision process which involves need recognition, search for information, evaluation, and the final food choice.

In addition, Grunert, et al. [ 51 ]’s total food quality model distinguishes “before” from “after” purchase evaluations. Cost cues, extrinsic quality cues, intrinsic quality cues, and the perception of these cues all contribute to expected quality (taste, health, convenience, and process), which influence purchase motive fulfillment and intention to buy. Moreover, this model includes the time domain, showing the important influence of experienced quality after purchase on future choices. So far, all these models focus on individual and social determinants of food choice. Sobal, et al. [ 52 ] proposed that factors in the bio-physical environment (e.g., biodiversity, land, air, water, energy) as well as in the social environment (e.g., knowledge, capitals, policy) affect the consumer behavior.

These conceptual models of food choice can be seen as the prototype. They introduced not only factors involved in the food decision-making process but also constructed the model emphasizing the relationship among the factors and indicating the process or pathway contributing to the final food choice.

1.3. Aim of This Review and the Proposed Framework

Individual food choice is crucial as it largely affects our health and our planet, with multifactorial determinants rooted in food-related features, individual differences, and society-related features. Moreover, interactions between factors also contribute to the final food choices via direct and/or indirect mechanisms. It is important to understand factors influencing our food choice and thus possible interventions and policy recommendations can be applied for improving food choice to successfully transform the food systems. In addition to early conceptual models of food choice, in recent years, there is abundant literature focusing on expanding and enriching the conceptual models of food choice. However, no single perspective, theory, framework, or model can provide an entire picture of food choice mechanism and properly explain it as influential factors have been categorized in different ways. For example, even though most of the models considered physiological factor as individual difference, some models referred it as a factor of properties of food e.g., [ 50 ]. Factors influencing food choice are not clearly leveled across domains of food itself, individuals, and society. Thus, the present paper aims to (1) systematically review existing conceptual models of food choice; (2) summarize and re-categorize factors affecting food choices following the three main categories: food-related features, individual differences, and society-related features; (3) analyze the direction of influences among factors in the conceptual models; and (4) develop and provide a conceptual framework which disentangles the complex and multifactorial nature of individual food choice. Our framework is developed from Eertmans, Baeyens and Van Den Bergh [ 34 ]’s model with the categorization of factors influencing food choices as follows: food-internal factors, food-external factors, personal-state factors, cognitive factors, and sociocultural factors.

2. Materials and Methods

The present review aims at introducing factors influencing individual food choice with a proposed conceptual model by including academic publications as well as gray literature. The inclusion of publications is based on the following criteria: (1) studies had to be published in English; (2) studies which were based on healthy adult population; (3) studies focused on general food choice instead of specific food choice (e.g., ethnic food and functional food); (4) studies which were conducted not within specific social cultural context (e.g., specific to certain community or town); (5) studies which proposed at least a conceptual model of food choice. The following databases were used for our search: PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar with keywords as follows: ‘Consumer food choice factor’ and ‘Food choice conceptual model’. The selection process followed the PRISMA guideline ( Figure 1 ). In total, 280 records were screened, and 61 records were excluded (1 non-English publication, 1 comment, 59 unrelated to the topic of factors influencing consumer food choice). For full-text articles assessed for eligibility, first, 32 publications discussing factors affecting food choice without proposed conceptual models were excluded. A total of 18 publications reported non-conceptual models (e.g., economic-psychological model, computation models, predictive models, etc.) were not included. A total of 21 publication focusing on factors affecting other food-choice-related dependent variables (e.g., willingness to pay, nutritional label use, choice of brand, etc.) were rejected. Second, 11 publications targeting non-healthy-adult population (preschoolers, adolescents, order adults, people with eating disorder, etc.) and 31 publications addressing food choice within specific sociocultural context (e.g., Brazilian Amazon, two urban food deserts, low-income consumers, etc.) were excluded. We excluded also 16 publications addressing food choice of specific food (e.g., traditional food, functional food, snacks, etc.). Finally, 22 publications emphasizing the intervention for improving food choice and 10 publications examined the methodology or tools (e.g., questionnaire and interview) for measuring food choice were not included. A final set of 59 publications has been analyzed. The analysis focuses on two outcomes. First, we summarized the factors influencing food choice including intrinsic and extrinsic features related to food, individual differences in personal state and in cognitive functions, and factors at societal level such as culture, economy, and policy. Second, we introduced the structures of conceptual models of food choice and indicated the direction and interaction of aforementioned factors in the decision-making process. Details on papers included in the review are reported in Supplementary Materials Table S1 .

PRISMA flow diagram indicates the selection process of publications related to conceptual models of food choice: 1 61 records were excluded (1 non-English publication, 1 comment, 59 unrelated to the topic of factors influencing consumer food choice); 2 32 publications discussing factors affecting food choice without proposed conceptual models were excluded; 18 publications reported non-conceptual models (e.g., economic-psychological model, computation models, predictive models, etc.) were not included; 21 publications focusing on factors affecting other food-choice-related dependent variables (e.g., willingness to pay, nutritional label use, choice of brand, etc.) were rejected; 11 publications targeting non-healthy-adult population (preschoolers, adolescents, order adults, people with eating disorder, etc.) and 31 publications addressing food choice within specific sociocultural context (e.g., Brazilian Amazon, two urban food deserts, low-income consumers, etc.) were excluded. We excluded also 16 publications addressing food choice of specific food (e.g., traditional food, functional food, snacks, etc.) and 22 publications emphasizing the intervention for improving food choice and 10 publications examined the methodology or tools (e.g., questionnaire and interview) for measuring food choice were not included. A final set of 59 publications has been analyzed.

Each conceptual model of food choice was analyzed with factors included in the models being categorized into the following main factors affecting food choice according to our proposed framework developed from Eertmans, Baeyens and Van Den Bergh [ 34 ]’s model ( Figure 2 ): food-internal factors, food-external factors, personal-state factors, cognitive factors, and sociocultural factors. Table 1 lists in detail all the factors included in these main factors. We also summarized the directions of influence among the factors from available models.

The proposed framework of factors influencing food choice developed from Eertmans et al. (2001)’s model [ 34 ]. The lines in the figure indicate the interactions between different factors.

Factors influencing individual food choice included in our proposed framework.

3.1. Factors Influencing Food Choice in Conceptual Models

In this section, we summarize the basic factors included in the conceptual models of general food choices.

3.1.1. Food-Internal Factor: Sensory and Perceptual Features

Food-internal factor is defined as features possessed by the food itself such as sensory (e.g., flavor, taste, smell, and texture) and perceptual (e.g., color, portion size, nutrition and health value, and quality) properties. Twenty-six models have proposed that the sensory and perceptual features influence the food choice [ 21 , 32 , 34 , 41 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. A review paper summarized that visual and odor cues contribute to identifying food in the near environment, guiding food choice and memory for eating, while tastes and textures influence meal size and the development of satiety after consumption [ 72 ]. Another literature review concluded that odor exposure induces appetite while taste and texture contribute to satiation based on eating rate and oral exposure duration of food in the mouth, playing an important role in a (macro)nutrient sensing system [ 73 ].

3.1.2. Food-External Factors: Information, Social Environment, Physical Environment

In our definition, information about the food item (e.g., nutritional labels, health claims, packaging, aesthetics, ethics of production history, brand, and advertisement) is defined as one of the food-external factors. Twenty-eight models have included food-related information as factors influencing the food choice [ 21 , 22 , 24 , 32 , 34 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 70 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]. In addition to these models, there is a rich body of literature focusing on the effects of food label and food label use on food choice. Food labeling provides information on essential characteristics of food items and food label use has been recognized as an important component of strategies tackling unhealthy diets and obesity. For example, Cowburn and Stockley [ 84 ] reviewed papers reporting consumer understanding or use of nutrition labels and concluded that improvements in presenting and designing nutrition labeling could make a contribution towards making the existing point-of-purchase environment more conducive to the selection of healthy choices. Interpretational aid such as verbal descriptors and recommended reference values is needed to help consumers assess the nutrient information in order to improve overall diet. Cecchini and Warin [ 85 ] did a meta-analysis and confirmed that nutrition labeling, especially interpretive labels (e.g., traffic light labels), may be an effective approach to empowering consumers in choosing healthier products and in reducing calorie intake. More recently, a review explored how consumers value and response to nutrition information on food labels against information on environmental and/or social responsibility [ 86 ]. Consumers generally have a positive view of environmental and social responsibility food labeling schemes while the most preferred attribute was organic labeling, inferring to information related to health. In brief, interpretive nutrition labels with the combination labeling containing healthy and sustainable attributes can be propriate and effective in promoting healthy and sustainable food choice. Oostenbach, Slits, Robinson and Sacks [ 57 ] examined the effect of nutrition claims on food choice. The influences of nutrition claims depend on the type of claim and food with the claim. For example, nutrition claims can influence consumers’ perception that the product is healthier and less tasty. However, nutrition claims can make the appropriate portion size appear larger, resulting in the underestimation of the energy content of food products. Nutrition claims also influence food purchase intentions, moderated by the perceived healthfulness of the relevant food products and the health consciousness of individuals.

In addition to food-related information, the food environments are considered as food-external factors which also largely affect the food choice. We further divided food environments into two factors, namely social environment (e.g., intrapersonal factor and social norms from family, peers, and media including ethical concern, as well as social context when food choice is made) and physical environment (e.g., product availability, accessibility, and convenience; in-store characteristics such as shelf display, order, placement, and time). Thirty-four models indicated that social environment contributes to the food choice decision [ 21 , 23 , 34 , 41 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 70 , 71 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ]. In the social environment, family and the home food environment are important influences on dietary intake but this influence is more profound for children and adolescents, not adults [ 100 ]. Instead, for adults, individual food choices are influenced by interactions with others beyond the family unit (e.g., coworkers, peers, and close friends). It is suggested that not only the context of shared meals but also social norms and attitudes among members of a group have impacts on types or amounts of foods that individuals consume no matter whether people eat together or not [ 100 ]. Indeed, social modeling determines what and how much people choose to eat, using others’ eating behavior as a guide. The effect increases when individuals desire to affiliate with the model or perceive themselves to be similar to the model. The effect reduces for choosing specific food (e.g., healthy food or snack foods) as well as meals (e.g., breakfast and lunch) [ 101 ].

Twenty-eight models pointed out that physical environment contributes to the food choice decision [ 23 , 32 , 34 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 66 , 70 , 71 , 75 , 76 , 80 , 82 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 94 , 102 ]. For the physical environment, studies have indicated that food choices and eating behaviors, as well as risk for obesity, are influenced by the physical availability and accessibility of food products in the workplace, surrounding neighborhood, retail food stores, as well as restaurants [ 100 ]. A review done by Castro, Majmundar, Williams and Baquero [ 45 ] confirmed that food retail environments do shape customer food choices of healthy or unhealthy items and energy intake, including product location on the shelf, the appearance of the products on the shelf, the brands available (i.e., customers are more likely to choose familiar over unfamiliar brands), as well as product attributes. For example, feeling confined by smaller aisles may encourage consumers to make more varied choices [ 45 ]. Finally, some models also included ‘time’ as an influential factor, mainly referring to time availability for food preparation and home cooking [ 48 , 59 , 70 , 75 , 92 ]. According to a review, lack of time can result in changes in food consumption patterns such as a decrease in food preparation at home, and an increase in the consumption of convenience or ready-prepared foods [ 103 ].

3.1.3. Personal-State Factors: Biological Features and Physiological Needs, Psychological Components, Habits, and Experiences

In our definition, personal states which affect food choice include biological features (e.g., genetic factors, personal dietary patterns and metabolism, physical condition such as health) and physiological needs (e.g., hunger, appetite, and weight status), psychological components (e.g., emotion, motivation, personality), and personal habits and experiences. Sixteen models have included biological features and physiological needs as factors affecting food choice [ 21 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 61 , 66 , 71 , 77 , 83 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 95 ]. Except for biological features which are difficult to change, dietary decisions can be regulated by physiological functions such as circulating metabolic hormones and neural mechanism involved in food intake and appetitive behaviors [ 44 ]. Vice versa, extreme and narrow food choices could result in fluctuation and unbalanced weight and health status (i.e., the strongest predictors of weight gain were dieting and unhealthy weight control behaviors) [ 44 ].

Psychological components appeared in twenty-nine models [ 21 , 23 , 25 , 34 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 71 , 74 , 79 , 80 , 83 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 93 , 95 , 98 , 102 ]. According to these models, the majority of studies focused on how emotion is involved in food decision-making. For instances, the model proposed by Gutjar, de Graaf, Kooijman, de Wijk, Nys, Ter Horst and Jager [ 74 ] was dedicated to exploring the role of food-evoked emotion in food choice. Food-evoked emotions, which can be sorted into two dimensions (valence and arousal), add predictive value to solely liking ratings, and may guide consumers’ choice behavior. For taste-based choice, the combination of liking and emotional valence had stronger prediction. For package-based choice liking, emotional valence and emotional arousal together have a stronger predictive value [ 74 ]. In addition to emotion, motivation is also frequently involved in the models. However, the motivation to choose one food over another is driven by the emotional, hedonic and metabolic properties of the foods [ 44 ]. In other words, the motivation is actually driven by other factors. Thus, we did not include “motivation” as a factor in our categories.

Comparably fewer models mentioned about previous experiences and/or habits [ 21 , 47 , 49 , 61 , 71 , 75 , 83 , 89 , 90 ]. In these models, experiences were categorized as a psychological factor related to the function of memory while habits were categorized as a situational factor. However, experiences and habits are composed by multi-factors such as emotion, memory, and learning [ 55 ]. Moreover, the process of consciousness needs to be considered [ 104 , 105 ]. Thus, in our opinion, when we include experiences and habits under the frame of food choice, it is better to categorize them into personal-state factor, stressing the contribution of experiences and habits to the person at the moment of making food choice.

3.1.4. Cognitive Factors: Knowledge and Skills, Attitude, Liking and Preference, Anticipated Consequences, and Personal Identity (Demographic Features, Belief, and Value)

Before reaching the final output of food choice behavior, cognitive factors have their impacts on food decision-making. Possessing knowledge (especially nutritional and food-related knowledge) [ 24 , 34 , 48 , 52 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 64 , 70 , 78 , 79 , 82 , 88 , 93 , 94 , 97 , 106 , 107 ] as well as food management skills [ 41 , 48 , 52 , 75 , 83 , 90 , 92 , 97 ] can have great influence on food choice. For example, nutrition knowledge has been shown to be a partial mediator of the socio-demographic variation in food intake, especially for fruit and vegetables, implying that knowledge is an important factor in explaining variations in food choice [ 108 ].

The second factor is evaluation-based [ 50 ], including attitude [ 21 , 24 , 25 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 79 , 82 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 102 , 107 , 109 , 110 , 111 ], liking [ 34 , 63 , 74 , 88 ], and preference [ 58 , 69 , 87 , 94 ]. The potential differences among these three components towards food choice can be as follows: attitude represents the implicit evaluation towards food items. Usually, the attitude is based on valence (positive and negative) but it can be also based on other concepts (e.g., healthiness) [ 112 ]. Liking, instead, focus on the sensory evaluation of food [ 113 ]. Finally, preference is based on comparison (i.e., preferring food item A than item B). For example, the preference of obese people for foods was affected more by fat content than by carbohydrate or sucrose content [ 114 ].

The third cognitive factor includes expected consequences [ 34 , 48 , 51 , 54 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 68 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 88 , 92 , 95 , 109 , 110 ] regarding the concern for health consequences (e.g., benefits or risks) of food consumption [ 34 ]. For example, consumers are prone to choose foods which give desirable consequences such as expected longer life [ 115 ].

Last but not least, personal identity, including demographic features such as age, gender, ethnic identity, and education [ 23 , 24 , 41 , 47 , 50 , 59 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 82 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 93 , 94 , 95 ] can also affect food choices. For instance, food choices represent personal identity as well as the story of families, migrations, assimilation, resistance, and changes over times [ 116 ]. Possessing a healthy eating identity was significantly associated with greater fruit and vegetable intakes [ 117 ]. Moreover, personal belief and value, shaped by culture and society, also contribute to the decision of food choice [ 21 , 23 , 25 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 64 , 70 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 90 , 95 , 96 , 107 , 111 ]. Indeed, two early studies have pointed out the potential role of personal belief and value in maintaining goal-directed behavior, especially for health-related food choice [ 118 , 119 ].

3.1.5. Sociocultural Factors: Culture, Economic Variables, and Political Elements

For previous factors, the influences are mainly at individual level. The final category, sociocultural factors, focuses on societal level. According to Larson and Story [ 100 ], the influence of macroenvironment on individual food choice includes (1) income, socioeconomic status, and price of food, reported by twenty-nine models [ 32 , 41 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 82 , 87 , 88 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 94 ]; (2) cultural norms and values are reported by seventeen models [ 41 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 70 , 71 , 76 , 88 , 89 , 94 , 97 , 98 ]; (3) agricultural and food policy and regulations, reported by nine models [ 52 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 76 , 88 , 89 , 94 , 98 ].

About income and cost of food, Larson and Story [ 100 ] specified that the monetary and time costs of buying and preparing foods (e.g., nutrient-dense foods cost more than foods that are higher in energy), especially ones with health values, are additional barriers to good nutrition for low-income groups. Indeed, higher cost of healthy choices or diets can strengthen socioeconomic disparities in diet quality [ 120 ]. Nevertheless, price elasticities for foods can be also a strategy in changing consumer demand, shifting the purchase of unhealthy food to healthier food. The example [ 121 ] showed that a 10% increase in soft drink prices should reduce consumption by 8% to 10%. Price and promotion in the food retail environment do affect consumers’ purchase intentions and choice [ 45 ]. The quantity and quality of food along the supply chain can be affected by agriculture and food polices, resulting in altered food price, directly or indirectly influencing the choice, affordability, as well as the right to nutritious food of the consumer [ 100 ]. Finally, we could not ignore the fact that food choice and eating behaviors are influenced by cultural factors, especially shared values and beliefs, which shape perceptions of food and the concept of healthiness [ 100 ].

3.2. Influences among Factors in Conceptual Models of Food Choice

Thirty-two conceptual models of food choice indicated possible directions of influence among the factors towards final food choice [ 41 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 87 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 102 , 109 , 110 ].

3.2.1. Possible Influences among Factors in Conceptual Models of Food Choice

For most of the conceptual models, the directions of influence among factors affecting food choice are demonstrated with theoretical basis or literature review e.g., [ 57 , 61 , 66 , 76 , 77 , 90 , 97 ]. The early-established models can be seen as the porotypes [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], allowing consecutive research to expand or enrich the models with new data or evidence. About integrating and expanding existing models, as an example, Rose, Bodor, Hutchinson and Swalm [ 87 ] integrated the factor of accessibility around the neighborhood based on an economic model of food consumption. Food cost, taste, preference, and income influenced the food choice for purchasing. The food cost can be directly influenced by in-store price or indirectly affected by the placement of food store via travel cost. In-store characteristics such as product varieties as well as shelf space and placement had impacts on promotional effect and social acceptability, which then further influenced tastes and preferences. Tastes and preferences also can be directly influence by demographic variables such as age, race-ethnicity, and education. The framework proposed by Marreiros and Ness [ 56 ] combined main features of the Engel-Blackwell-Miniard model [ 122 ] regarding consumers decision-making, and the main constructs of the total food quality model [ 51 ] developed for food products concerning mainly consumers quality evaluation. The author bridged these two models with the emphasis on the relationships between them [ 56 ].

About adopting and enriching existing models, for instance, the models shown in Connors et al. [ 54 ] and in Sobal and Bisogni [ 47 ] were both adopted from Furst et al. [ 48 ] with modifications or elaborations. The life course and experience created influences including ideals, personal factors, resources, social factors, and context. In the model of Sobal and Bisogni [ 47 ], these influences then had an impact on personal food system built upon values, situation, and strategy. The personal food system affected food behavior, which then had a feedback loop in shaping the aforementioned factors (life course experience, the created influence, and personal food system). In the model, the personal food system was composite of value, managing relationships, health, taste, cost, convenience, and strategies. However, there was no feedback loop [ 54 ].

To briefly conclude, few models have clearly indicated the direction of influence among the factors with experimental data or with mathematical modeling. There is a need of empirical data to support and to disentangle the interactions between the factors.

3.2.2. Direction of Influence among Factors in Conceptual Models of Food Choice

In general, the more specific factors the model addressed, the clearer indications of directions of influence could be made, supported by experimental data. For example, in the model of Gutjar et al. (2015), both sensory (intrinsic) and packaging (extrinsic) information trigger emotional responses but liking was based on sensory information [ 74 ]. Both emotional responses and liking then contribute to the prediction of food choice.

Structural equation modeling is frequently used to investigate the directions of influence among factors towards certain food choice. For healthy food choice including fruit and vegetables, factors such as intention, action planning, and self-efficacy, with a person’s understanding of nutrition information, can better explain healthy food choice behavior [ 64 ]. The mediating roles of food mavenism, food knowledge, food involvement, and equality-universalist values were reported in increasing vegetable intakes [ 93 ]. Moreover, market availability, interest in healthy eating, and time pressure significantly influence choice of plant-based convenience foods [ 92 ]. Intention, self-identity and past behavior were proved as direct predictors of fruit and vegetable intake [ 91 ]. For food with environmentally-sustainable attributes, personal norms regarding the use of organic food affect attitudes toward the use of organic produce in institutional settings, which is partly mediated by own purchase of organic products [ 96 ]. Choice of convenience food with environmentally-sustainable attributes is positively related to consumer food shopping habits, food-related environmental behavior, gender, income, and knowledge [ 102 ]. Another study also pointed out that likelihood of buying healthy convenience food is affected by overall liking of the meal, which is affected by liking of sensory specific product attributes like appearance, flavor, and odor [ 63 ].

For newly emerged food such as genetically modified (GM) food, perceived benefits and risks play a significant role in shaping behavioral intentions towards GM food [ 110 ], the attitude to GM technology being the main driver of consumers’ beliefs about risks and benefits. Public attitudes toward GM food are being formed from trust in science and in public authorities under different cultural contexts, which determines consumer’s final purchasing decisions [ 109 ]. Finally, some studies examined factors affecting ethical food choice, suggesting that ethical consumption and purchase intention have a direct influence on choice behavior with significant association between social, emotional, and epistemic values with ethical consumption intentions [ 62 ]. In addition, universalism was shown having impact on food choices with less meat or free-range meat. This impact was mediated by prevention-oriented food choice motives and motive-congruent animal friendly attitudes [ 60 ]

Supplementary Materials Table S2 summarizes the directions of influence of factors affecting food choices based on publications with empirical data we included.

4. Discussion

4.1. main findings: the multifactorial nature of individual food choice.

In recent years, research as well as large scale initiatives have been launched, substantiating the imperative for individuals and governments to improve population health by taking substantial actions in the domain of individual food choice and eating behavior [ 11 ]. Since consumers’ daily food choices have great potential in transforming towards healthier and more sustainable food systems [ 11 , 22 ], the first and essential step before considering interventions is understanding factors influencing individual food choice in a structural and systematic way. The present paper provides an insight into the complex and multifactorial nature of individual food choice by analyzing factors included in conceptual models.

The early development of conceptual models of food choice can be dated back to the 1990s. There were three main types of models. The first one, which can be seen as the prototype of the models, already demonstrated three levels of factors influencing the final choice, namely food features, personal system, and environment [ 41 , 48 , 49 ]. The second type focuses on the effect of price, quality, and value [ 51 , 65 ]. While the third one, the model proposed by Sobal, Khan and Bisogni [ 52 ] took into consideration a broader view including relationships of the food and nutrition system to other systems such as environmental system, governmental system, health care system, cultural system, economic system, and even transportation system. The conceptual models we include in the analysis mainly follow the three-level framework of food features, personal system, and environment. However, different models might include different numbers of factors with different ways of categorization within and across these three levels. Thus, the present review analyzed existing conceptual models of food choice, summarized influential factors affecting food choice, then re-categorized and integrated the results from the literature into a proposed three-level framework of factors influencing food choice, namely food-related features, individual differences, and society-related features. The ultimate goal is to provide a clear and simple roadmap for facilitating future development of research in the field of consumer food choice and maximize the contribution from individual studies. Being on the same page, the framework may help researchers communicate the idea, compare research data, and replicate existing results with ease. In our framework, influential factors determining food choice are categorized into food-internal factor (sensory and perceptual features), food-external factors (information, social environment, physical environment), personal-state factors (biological features, physiological needs, psychological components, habits, and experiences), cognitive factors (knowledge and skills, attitude, liking and preference, anticipated consequences, and personal identity), and sociocultural factors (culture, economic variables, political elements).

In our samples, five most frequently addressed factors in the models are as follows: (1) social environment which belongs to food-external factors [ 21 , 23 , 34 , 41 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 70 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ]; (2) personal-state focusing on psychological component [ 21 , 23 , 25 , 34 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 71 , 74 , 79 , 80 , 83 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 93 , 95 , 98 , 102 ]; (3) economic variables such as income, socioeconomic status, and price [ 21 , 32 , 41 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 75 , 76 , 79 , 82 , 87 , 88 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 94 ]; (4) food-related information which also belongs to food-external factors [ 21 , 22 , 24 , 32 , 34 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 70 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]; and (5) physical environment which also belongs to food-external factors [ 23 , 32 , 34 , 41 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 66 , 70 , 71 , 75 , 76 , 80 , 82 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 94 , 102 ].

The results reflect the facts that (1) social environment is the most addressed factor influencing food choice; (2) due to the availability of research evidence, factors such as food information, food environment, and economic variables are easier to be manipulated and measured in the experimental settings. Thus, the role of these factors in influencing food choice is more carefully and clearly examined and concluded; (3) compared to studies from other field, the complex mechanisms and interactions between food perception (food-internal factor) and bio-physiological (personal-state) still need more investigation and the results should be integrated into the conceptual models of food choice; (4) while some factors affecting food choice could be universal (e.g., life course, (see [ 48 ]), large-scale and cross-cultural studies are needed to address factors influencing cultural-specific choices (see [ 123 ]). In addition, considering the obesogenic environment nowadays, despite the growing body of literature focusing on the role of cognitive function and food environment in food choice e.g., [ 124 , 125 , 126 ], we would like to emphasize the importance of understanding the complicated cognitive decision-making process (see [ 55 ]) and disentangling the interaction between cognitive functions and food environments, especially food-related information and physical environment (food-external factor) in order to develop effective intervention for helping individuals make better choice that is good for human health and the planet [ 127 , 128 , 129 ].

About the direction of influence among the factors in the conceptual models, fewer conceptual models are supported with empirical data [ 57 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 74 , 78 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 96 , 102 , 106 , 109 ].

Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials summarizes the directions of influence of factors affecting food choices based on publications with empirical data we included. We observed that factors proposed in theory of planned behavior (attitude, norms, and intention) and their effects are frequently examined with experimental settings and thus empirical data was obtained. Some other factors and the effects are also frequently investigated such as liking, food or nutritional knowledge, personal values, emotion, income, and sensory properties of food. Future studies should explore other factors and their effects on food choices.

In conclusion, the more specific factors the model addressed, the clearer indications of direction of influence could be made, supported by experimental data. We appreciate the multifactorial nature of individual food choice and the effort of including as many factors as possible in the models in providing a more intact and holistic view. However, the trade-off of expanding the models should be recognized too. In this case, interdisciplinary research is expected for constructing a holistic conceptual model of food choice supported by empirical data from studies in different fields (see [ 55 , 89 ]).

4.2. Implication of Factors Influencing Healthy and/or Sustainable Food Choice

In recent years, research has shed light on the factors affecting food choice towards healthier and more sustainable products. New conceptual models of food choice have been proposed to further depict how different factors essentially affect healthier and sustainable food choices. Through the literature review, the models were framed according to four types of choices: (1) healthier food choice [ 24 , 68 , 79 , 80 ]; (2) sustainable food choice [ 22 , 24 , 81 , 107 , 111 ]; (3) organic food [ 21 , 24 , 25 ]; and (4) fruit and/or vegetable [ 69 , 70 ].

For food-internal factors, the nutritional properties and the health value of the food items are especially important for the choice [ 68 , 69 ]. Health value [ 130 ] is an important index, including absence of contaminants [ 131 ]. For food-external factors, information based on nutrition facts, sustainability labels, and organic identity were included in the models as important drives [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 79 , 80 , 81 ]. Moreover, some studies pointed out that certification of origin and food miles, recycling packaging, as well as indications of local, traditional, ethic, and environmentally friendly products, can affect the food choice [ 130 , 131 , 132 ]. Social interaction and engagement in social institutions in social environment are important for making food decision, especially for fruits, vegetables, and organic food [ 21 , 23 , 70 ]. For physical environment, the availability of healthy or sustainable food products and the accessibility to nutrition environment, supermarket, or local stores are critical [ 23 , 80 , 130 , 133 ].

As personal-state factors, psychological components such as personality [ 23 ] as well as emotion [ 25 , 133 ] have impacts on healthier and organic food choice. Some other studies also mentioned motivation and intention as important factors contributing to the final food choice [ 23 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 ]. Cognitive factors such as belief, attitude, awareness, self-concept, and positive outcome expectation were addressed in determining food choice [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 107 ]. Finally, sociocultural context and familiarity based on cultural habits could affect food choices [ 69 , 70 ]. Income and economic situation are still a crucial determinant [ 69 , 79 ]. Food price heavily affects whether consumer will choose healthier and more sustainable food or not [ 69 , 70 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 137 ]. For making healthier and more sustainable food choice available, policy plays an essential role not only with healthy food eating policy but also with policies related to food supply chain, especially how food is produced, and environmental sustainability [ 35 , 88 ].

4.3. Future Research Directions

The present review provides an analytic framework of disentangling the complex and multifactorial nature of individual food choice with the aim of shifting towards healthier and more sustainable food systems. Recently, the European Commission has placed consumer food choice as one of the important targets for achieving a more healthy and sustainable EU food system. In 2017, over 950,000 deaths in EU (1/5 of population) were related to unhealthy diets. Thus, the “Farm to Fork” strategy [ 138 ], at the core of the European Green Deal, was launched in May 2020 which emphasized the importance of shifting towards healthier and sustainable diets in the EU by empowering citizens as consumers, to reverse the overweight and obesity trends, as well as to lower the environmental footprints. In addition, Outcome Report FOOD 2030 Pathways Workshop [ 139 ] indicated a pathway of research and innovation to develop innovative, healthy, sustainable and personalized nutrition solutions to reduce risk factors for Noncommunicable diseases, malnutrition, and micronutrient deficiencies. More importantly, consumers will be empowered to have a long-lasting, healthy, pleasurable, nutritional and sustainable diet tailored to individual parameters. It has been pointed out that there is a need for research to better understand the factors influencing consumer choice such as food environment, policies, gender, information, education, marketing, incentives, and lifestyles.

In line with the goal set by the European Commission in the transformation of food systems, we confirmed that citizens as consumers—and their choices—should be placed at the very center of the problem of both human and planetary health, which calls for urgent investigation and solutions from academic field in providing opportunities and possibilities. Thus, it is crucial to understand individual food choice, factors affecting the choice, and possible interventions. Haddad, et al. [ 140 ] have proposed a new global research agenda for food with ten research priorities suggested. Among them, identify entry points for change, agree on what constitutes a healthy diet, make more data on diets widely available, tackle different forms of malnutrition simultaneously, study supply and demand, and identify the economic levers for change are closely related to addressing the important role of consumers’ choices in realizing healthier and more sustainable food systems. Lusk and McCluskey [ 141 ] further identified priority areas for future research, including dietary-related diseases and efficacy of policies designed to improve dietary choice, trust in the food system and acceptance of new food and farm technologies, environmental impacts of food consumption, changing consumer preferences, and food safety. Regarding data quality and availability, uncertainty in underlying biological and physical sciences, as well as applications of behavioral economic remain as challenges. In our opinion, future research examining factors influencing individual’ food choice should also take into account: (1) the need of multidisciplinary impulses and collaboration across research field such as sensory science, cognitive science, social science, as well as business studies; (2) the structural and systematic way (e.g., using the proposed framework as guiding map) of investigating the effect of food-choice related factors as well as the interactions among the factors; (3) the trade-off between the number of factors included in the framework and the capability to investigate and clearly explain the effect of s single factor and the effect of combining different factors; and (4) enriching and improving the framework with empirical observation or data based on a feedback mechanism.

4.4. Limitations

The present review has three main limitations. First, we focus on the three-level categorization of factors influencing food choice, namely food-related features, individual differences, and society-related features. However, recent research also pointed out the important roles in determining food choice, played by natural environment such as climate change [ 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ], natural resources [ 146 , 147 , 148 ], as well as food production and supply chain [ 149 ]. Ideally, these factors should be also included into the conceptual framework. Second, the present study summarizes factors affecting food choice proposed in the conceptual models. The keywords we used for literature search may limit the inclusion of publications investigating a single or fewer factor(s) with experimental settings and empirical data. Thus, more meta-analyses are needed for understanding how different but specific factors contribute to food choice. Finally, this review does not include publications focusing on methodology used for understanding factors affecting food choices such as the development and validation of questionnaires (e.g., food choice questionnaire), which contain valuable information about the constructs of factors that are crucial for food choice decision. Thus, further examination with the inclusion of the results of factor analyses from food-choice-related questionnaires is recommended.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contribution of Katarzyna Dembska in providing insightful comments and suggestions to the manuscript.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/12/1898/s1 , Table S1: Factors included in the conceptual models of food choice. Table S2. Direction of influence of factors affecting food choices based on publications with empirical data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.-J.C. and M.A.; methodology, P.-J.C.; formal analysis, P.-J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, P.-J.C.; writing—review and editing, M.A.; supervision, M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Resource Library
• Food Insufficiency During COVID-19
• Interactive Data Tools
• Best Practices
• Mapping Tools

Working to End Hunger in America

Frac improves the nutrition, health, and well-being of people struggling against poverty-related hunger in the united states through advocacy, partnerships, and by advancing bold and equitable policy solutions..

• Take Action
• Donate to FRAC

In the News

New Food Research & Action Center Applauds Revisions to WIC Food Package, Strengthening Nutrition and Health Equity for Millions

• Report Reveals Drop in School Meals Participation After Pandemic-era Child Nutrition Waivers Expired
• Food Research & Action Center Urges Senate to Pass Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act to Combat Child Hunger
• Food Research & Action Center Applauds Congress for Releasing FY 2024 Spending Bill to Fully Fund WIC, Rejecting Harmful SNAP Policy Rider

Congress Needs to Fully Fund WIC for FY 2024

Hunger & Poverty in America

Food Insufficiency during COVID-19

Afterschool Suppers: A Snapshot of Participation – October 2021 and October 2022

Summer EBT Resource Center

Healthy School Meals for All

Expanded Child Tax Credits: A Transformational Opportunity to Help Families Put Food on the Table Research Brief

Budget Reconciliation 101

USDA Guidelines on Using Existing Authority to Implement SFSP and SSO Meal Delivery

• Apr 25 Implementing Community Eligibility at Lower Eligibility Levels
• May 09 Promoting School Breakfast: Tips and Tricks for Marketing Your Program
• May 23 Boosting Breakfast in Older Youth

Apr 11, 2024 Food Research & Action Center President Steps Down, Interim Leader Named

Apr 09, 2024 Food Research & Action Center Applauds Revisions to WIC Food Package, Strengthening Nutrition and Health Equity for Millions

Mar 21, 2024 Report Reveals Drop in School Meals Participation After Pandemic-era Child Nutrition Waivers Expired

GENYOUth’s newest Youth Insights report, Fostering Wellness in Youth: Cultivating Healthy Eating for the Future, offers a comprehensive overview of how schools and key stakeholders can foster healthy eating among youth and provides insights directly from students. Today’s students have a strong sense of responsibility for their health and wellness. We know because we ask them. GENYOUth Insights elevates youth voice through original, timely research on topics that matter to students and their schools.

In early March 2024, USDA released their final two reports on the Summer EBT demonstration projects. The reports evaluated the last seven years of the program: the first report covered 2015 to 2018, and the second covered 2019 to 2022. These reports differed from the previous evaluations of the demonstration projects in that they did not include an experimental design to evaluate the impact of the Summer EBT benefit. Instead, these reports evaluated the implementation and administration of the grants and examined patterns in household usage. These reports found that parents and caregivers appreciated Summer EBT and saw the program as a critical resource that helped fill nutritional gaps. They felt the program provided flexibility in where they could purchase food and allowed families to purchase more nutritious foods.

The Food Research & Action Center’s (FRAC) recently released report, The Reach of School Breakfast and Lunch During the 2022–2023 School Year, reveals that just over 14.3 million children received a school breakfast, and 28.1 million children received a school lunch on an average day during the 2022–2023 school year — a decrease of 1.2 million children in breakfast, and 1.8 million children in lunch compared to the 2021–2022 school year.

For the first time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, school breakfast and lunch returned to normal operations for the 2022–2023 school year.

Recent Publications & Data

School meals are an important tool for combatting childhood food insecurity, yet far too many children missed out on the nutrition they need for their health and learning with the expiration of the pandemic-era nationwide waivers that allowed schools to offer school meals to all students at no charge, according to FRAC’s latest report. Learn more in The Reach of School Breakfast and Lunch During the 2022–2023 School Year.

Congress must adhere to bipartisan and public support to preserve consumer choice for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the FY 2024 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the upcoming Farm Bill, and any other legislative vehicles. Learn more about preserving consumer choice in SNAP in FRAC’s latest-one pager. 

School lunch participation in the five states that implemented Healthy School Meals for All policies during the 2022–2023 school year increased compared to prepandemic participation levels. Learn more in FRAC’s latest report, The State of Healthy School Meals for All: California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Vermont Lead the Way.

The bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill directed USDA to update the Thrifty Food Plan. The resulting update in 2021 was the first in the plan’s history and led to a necessary and long overdue increase in SNAP benefits. Learn why the Thrifty Food Plan adjustment should be protected from efforts to eliminate or weaken it in the 2024 Farm Bill and in other legislation in FRAC’s new one-pager, Continuing the Thrifty Food Plan Adjustment Is Good for Everyone. 

‘Opportunity Crops’ Could Boost Nutrition across Africa

Cary Fowler, the U.S. State Department’s leading figure on global hunger, explains a new way to improve nutritious food supply

Richard Schiffman

Snake Steak Could Be a Climate-Friendly Source of Protein

Pythons turn their food into meat pretty efficiently, a study finds, making them an intriguing alternative to climate-unfriendly cows

Meghan Bartels

CRISPR Will Likely Not Solve Bird Flu

New research shows that CRISPR, the gene editing technique, could make chickens more resistant to bird flu. But its use raises many ethical and scientific issues

Carol Cardona, Michelle Kromm

Tubby Labradors May Be at the Mercy of Their Genes, Not Just Too Many Treats

One in four Labrador retrievers carries a gene that tricks their brain into thinking they’re starving

Is Raw-Milk Cheese Safe to Eat?

Recent bacterial outbreaks from consuming cheese made from unpasteurized milk, or “raw milk,” raise questions about the safety of eating these artisanal products

Riis Williams

People with Food Allergies Can Treat Symptoms with Asthma Medication, FDA Decides

New research demonstrates that Xolair, an injectable asthma medication, can reduce severe reactions to peanuts, milk and eggs by dulling an overactive immune response

Andrew Chapman

Why Does Fruitcake Last So Long?

The holiday fruitcake is a timeless dessert—literally

Jocelyn Solis-Moreira

Morel Mushrooms Can Be Deadly, Food Poisoning Cases Show

A deadly food poisoning outbreak highlights how little we know about morel mushrooms

Keely Larson, KFF Health News

World Leaders Agree to a Climate Deal on Food for the First Time

The first global declaration on reducing emissions from food production is a start, researchers say — but it sidesteps contentious issues such as meat consumption

Carissa Wong, Nature magazine

Gluten’s Complex Chemistry Contributes to Delicious Baked Goods

Gluten’s unique chemistry gives foods like bread and rolls their airy, stretchy textures

Kristine Nolin, The Conversation US

How Long Do Thanksgiving Leftovers Last?

Food scientists break down what food is the first to go bad and simple ways of extending leftovers’ shelf life

Cranberries Are a Scientific Delicacy

From self-pollination to bogs, cranberries are a Thanksgiving classic with many fascinating botanical and genetic features

Serina DeSalvio, The Conversation US

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

• 25 Jan 2021
• Working Paper Summaries

India’s Food Supply Chain During the Pandemic

Policy makers in the developing world face important tradeoffs in reacting to a pandemic. The quick and complete recovery of India’s food supply chain suggests that strict lockdown measures at the onset of pandemics need not cause long-term economic damage.

• 08 Jun 2020

Food Security and Human Mobility During the Covid-19 Lockdown

COVID-19 represents not only a health crisis but a crisis of food insecurity and starvation for migrants. Central governments should ensure that food security policies are implemented effectively and engage with local governments and local stakeholders to distribute food to migrants in the immediate term.

• 29 May 2020

How Leaders Are Fighting Food Insecurity on Three Continents

The pandemic could almost double the number of people facing food crises in lower-income populations by the end of 2020. Howard Stevenson and Shirley Spence show how organizations are responding. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 31 Jan 2019
• Cold Call Podcast

How Wegmans Became a Leader in Improving Food Safety

Ray Goldberg discusses how the CEO of the Wegmans grocery chain faced a food safety issue and then helped the industry become more proactive. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 15 Nov 2018

Can the Global Food Industry Overcome Public Distrust?

The public is losing trust in many institutions involved in putting food on our table, says Ray A. Goldberg, author of the new book Food Citizenship. Here's what needs to be done. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 15 Mar 2018

Targeted Price Controls on Supermarket Products

Governments sometimes consider targeted price controls when popular goods become less affordable. Looking at price controls in Argentina between 2007 and 2015, this study’s findings suggest that new technologies like mobile phones are allowing governments to better enforce targeted price control programs, but the impact of these policies on aggregate inflation is small and short-lived.

• 26 Jun 2017
• Research & Ideas

How Cellophane Changed the Way We Shop for Food

Research by Ai Hisano exposes cellophane's key role in developing self-service merchandising in American grocery stores, and how its manufacturers tried to control the narrative of how women buy food. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 31 May 2017
• Sharpening Your Skills

10 Harvard Business School Research Stories That Will Make Your Mouth Water

The food industry is under intense study at Harvard Business School. This story sampler looks at issues including restaurant marketing, chefs as CEOs, and the business of food science. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 18 Nov 2016

Standardized Color in the Food Industry: The Co-Creation of the Food Coloring Business in the United States, 1870–1940

Beginning in the late 19th century, US food manufacturers tried to create the “right” color of foods that many consumers would recognize and in time take for granted. The United States became a leading country in the food coloring business with the rise of extensive mass marketing. By 1938, when Congress enacted the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the food coloring business had become a central and permanent component of food marketing strategies. This paper shows how food manufacturers, dye makers, and regulators co-created the food coloring business. Food-coloring practices became integrated into an entire strategy of manufacturing and marketing in the food industry.

• 16 May 2016

Food Safety Economics: The Cost of a Sick Customer

When restaurants source from local growers, it can be more difficult to assess product safety—just another wrinkle in high-stakes efforts to keep our food from harming us. Just ask Chipotle. John A. Quelch discusses a recent case study on food testing. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 15 May 2007

I’ll Have the Ice Cream Soon and the Vegetables Later: Decreasing Impatience over Time in Online Grocery Orders

How do people’s preferences differ when they make choices for the near term versus the more distant future? Providing evidence from a field study of an online grocer, this research shows that people act as if they will be increasingly virtuous the further into the future they project. Researchers examined how the length of delay between when an online grocery order is completed and when it is delivered affects what consumers order. They find that consumers purchase more "should" (healthy) groceries such as vegetables and less "want" (unhealthy) groceries such as ice cream the greater the delay between order completion and order delivery. The results have implications for public policy, supply chain managers, and models of time discounting. Key concepts include: Consumers spend less and order a higher percentage of "should" items and a lower percentage of "want" items the further in advance of delivery they place a grocery order. Encouraging people to order their groceries up to 5 days in advance of consumption could influence the healthfulness of the foods that people consume. Similarly, asking students in schools to select their lunches up to a week in advance could considerably increase the healthfulness of the foods they elect to eat. Online and catalog retailers that offer a range of goods as well as different delivery options might be able to improve their demand forecasting by understanding these findings. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 20 March 2024

On the value of food systems research

Nature Food volume  5 ,  page 183 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1110 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Every study has limitations; the question is whether it moves the field forward and what this entails for each community.

A great deal of research is exclusively assessed in terms of technical quality, a metric that is arguably easier to measure in exact than non-exact sciences and that doesn’t say much about the impact of the research results to society. Its relevance is therefore limited when it comes to food systems research, which involves social and cultural elements and is motivated by grand societal challenges such as the fight against hunger, poverty and climate change. Questions related to food security and the sustainability of food systems, no matter whether they are approached through a nutritional, environmental or socioeconomic lens, tend to involve a great deal of complexity and context specificity.

Given the above, a question we ought to ask when assessing a food systems study is whether it moves the field forward and offers a substantial contribution despite its limitations. Equally important is to ask whether these limitations are transparently laid out. Ideally, the study would have a well-defined analytical framework and discuss the potential implications of its main assumptions, particularly if they are likely to change conclusions in a significant way. The line that marks the divide between ‘substantial’ and ‘non-substantial’ or ‘significant’ and ‘non-significant’, as used above, is to be drawn by the relevant research community — and is bound to change over time, based on that community’s understanding of what is useful or insightful in light of the field’s uncertainties. In the scientific peer-review process, the feedback of reviewers — as representatives of the research community — is key to making such a call.

What makes a piece of research valuable when it comes to food systems isn’t necessarily its degree of technical advance, but rather the conceptual advance it represents and the potential impact associated with it. For instance, the angle through which a problem is addressed and how it is framed can yield arresting and important conclusions, even when calculation methodologies remain unaltered. This point is well illustrated by food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which were traditionally reported for each sector (transport, energy, industry, and so on) and supply stage (production, processing, distribution, consumption and waste) separately but have been more recently combined under ‘systems emissions’. While their breakdown informs sectoral policies, the sum of all GHG emissions is needed for synergies and trade-offs to be properly identified and accounted for 1 . Besides, the global overview of emissions is crucial for creating awareness around the impact of food choices and catalysing mitigation action. The message that food systems are currently responsible for a third of all current anthropogenic GHG emissions 2 , so widely publicized, was determinant for food systems to be placed at the centre of the climate agenda and to receive due attention from world leaders.

A recently proposed food classification system based on the degree of food processing that has singled out ultra-processed foods (UPFs) 3 provides another interesting case for reflection on how to evaluate research. Some scientists were critical of this new categorization, arguing that processing in itself isn’t what makes a food item good or bad for people and the environment, and highlighting mixed evidence on the impact of UPFs on biochemical risk factors for disease 4 . Others found it extremely useful for eliciting the association between the consumption of UPFs and many of their distinctive characteristics, which are themselves harmful to human health (either directly, like high sugar and/or additive content, or indirectly, through shifts in consumers’ preferences towards impoverished diets) and the environment. Undeniably, this classification has stimulated a healthy debate around modern dietary habits, the intricate factors behind them, and public policies’ sole focus on nutritional characteristics of foods.

As the examples above suggest, two more points deserve attention when thinking of the value — and contribution — of food systems research. The first point is about clarity over what a study can and cannot answer, and consequently what it should be used for. The combined account of food-related GHG emissions sheds light on food systems’ total footprint, underscoring the need for coordinated policies, but doesn’t replace sectoral granularity. Likewise, a food classification system based on UPFs may not say much about processing as a food engineering technique, yet it highlights important issues surrounding these products. The second point refers to the scope of the analysis and the multiplicity of aspects that are considered given the urgency of food systems transformation. Whether that’s done in a meaningful way and to a sufficient extent is for the food community to judge.

Rosenzweig, C. et al. Nat. Food 1 , 94–97 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crippa, M. et al. Nat. Food 2 , 198–209 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Costa Louzada, M. L. & Pereira Machado, P. Ultra-processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system (FAO, 2019); https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf

Gibney, M. J. & Forde, C. G. Nat. Food 3 , 104–109 (2022).

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

On the value of food systems research. Nat Food 5 , 183 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00960-9

Download citation

Published : 20 March 2024

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00960-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Australia has a food allergy crisis impacting 10 per cent of infants, but critical research is underway

When Rupert Hastings first tried peanut butter at just six months old he reacted almost instantly.

Within 20 seconds, he had hives all over his face, which spread to his body. Then his eyes and lips started to swell.

"My friend's a nurse and I messaged her pictures of Rupert's reaction. She said I'd probably take him to hospital, so that's what we did," Rupert's mother, Emily says.

"It was scary."

Now, Rupert is 15 months old and is severely allergic to peanuts and egg, and mildly allergic to Brazil nuts and sunflower seeds. 

Emily says the journey has been "incredibly hard".

"We found the information hard to gather and then decipher what was the best course for Rupert and we still don't know what the best course of action is," she says.

They had been seeing an allergist in Brisbane, but are now travelling 1,000km to Sydney to see a specialist in oral immunotherapy. 

It's a treatment for allergies, not currently approved in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

"But reading through all the research papers and speaking to some other families who have had really great results on it, I think it's something that we definitely need to explore," Emily says.

"That's something that we have to weigh up as his parents.

"Do we strictly avoid the allergy and the peanut, and he lives his life for the rest of time with an Epipen, constantly avoiding 'may contain' or anything that has peanuts in it?

"Or do we try something and in the process risk anaphylactic reactions, but potentially desensitise him to peanuts so that he has a freer life?"

'We've got a big problem'

Allergic disease is one of Australia’s greatest public health challenges, with one in 10 children developing a proven food allergy in their first year of life.

The most common in the first twelve months is egg, but generally it is outgrown by six years old.

However, three quarters of those with an allergy to peanuts, tree nuts, sesame and seafood carry the allergy into adulthood.

According to data released to the ABC, the number of children being admitted to hospital with anaphylaxis is also rising.

In Queensland alone, there was a more than 300 per cent increase in the number of children between 0-17 years who were admitted to hospital with anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock due to adverse food reaction in the past decade to the 2022/2023 financial year.

Queensland Health says it is unclear whether this reflects a true increase in allergy prevalence or improvements in awareness, diagnosis, and healthcare practices in the past 10 years.

However, national figures from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care also reflect a rise in emergency presentations for anaphylaxis — 51 per cent in the five years to 2019/2020.

But there is still a lack of specialist services available to families, and the Australian Department of Health says the only approved treatment available for severe food allergies is adrenaline in emergencies.

The current advice is still strict avoidance of the allergens. For families like the Hastings, it means constantly being on edge.

"It's always on our mind, we have to watch what we eat if we go out to restaurants," Emily says.

"And obviously, we have to pack an Epipen for him wherever we go, so it's something that you can't forget about.

"I'm now back at work, and that's something to consider when he's not in my care — about what can potentially go wrong.

"All those things that you think about normally as a parent, it's then heightened by the fact that this is something that is severe.

"You think about allergies and you think, 'Oh yeah, that would be hard', but until you're faced with it, and it's your own child's life, it's a whole different ball game."

Paediatric immunologist and allergist Dr Jane Peake says Australia is known to be the “allergy capital of the world”.

“We've got a big problem in Australia,” she says.

“There’s still a lot of work to do, but I do think that there’s a lot of inroads starting to happen.”

In Queensland, the only public paediatric multidisciplinary specialist immunology and allergy clinic is at the Queensland Children’s hospital.

In 2023, QPIAS Specialists saw almost 7,000 patients from across the state — 1,595 of them were new patients.

Riley Bloomfield has been travelling from Rockhampton with his mum Nicole for years to see Dr Peake — first for a dust mite allergy, and now for dairy and beef.

"We’d have to come back to Brisbane every six months while he was undergoing that desensitisation [for dust mites] and that lasted three to four years," Nicole says.

"It’s definitely made a difference to his day-to-day life, just for that dust mite allergy.  To get rid of that at least has been huge, and that’s all thanks to the clinic here."

Dr Peake says work is underway to educate and upskill general practitioners, paediatricians, nurses, pharmacists and dieticians, to help manage mild allergies, or allergy concerns across the country. 

"We do need more allergists and immunologists in Australia and there is a number of doctors in training," Dr Peake says.

"[But] we need to continue to look at how we make best use of our time and so we're always looking at new ways of managing patients.

"One of the positive things that came out of COVID is the fact that we can now do a lot of telehealth consultations. So we're often doing that with patients for the first time, particularly if they live in rural or remote areas."

Inquiry recognised Australia's allergy problem

The exact cause in the rise of Australia's food allergy is still unknown.

Placed under the spotlight in a 2019 bipartisan parliamentary inquiry, 24 recommendations were made to address the critical need for a national action plan.

In 2022, federal government funding saw the establishment of the National Allergy Centre of Excellence (NACE) and the National Allergy Council.

The NACE, now the country's peak allergy research body, will help accelerate research and streamline the start-up of clinical trials across the country.

The Murdoch Children's Research Institute, which hosts the NACE, has become the lead site for several allergy trials, and Professor Kirsten Perrett is the principal investigator on eight.

"For the first time we have an Australian allergy research body, bringing together experts in drug, food, insect and respiratory allergic disease to address this national critical problem," Professor Perrett says.

"This is a critical step forward in our fight against all aspects of allergic disease.

"The clinical trials network helps to give Australian families faster access to emerging treatment options, many of which are already under investigation overseas."

Fifteen-year-old Ted Wardle is taking part in one of the multi-centre national trials called Aravax, which is investigating a novel immunotherapy injection.

He's struggled with a peanut allergy from birth, and says it impacts his daily life.

"If I'm hanging out with my friends I always have to double check what I'm about to eat or sometimes I won't be able to eat the same things that my friends will have," he says.

"It's always a presence… I've got to be careful, I've got to check what I'm about to eat.

"[Otherwise] I get rashes, my throat can close up, I get really itchy – I could die."

The trial is currently looking for four to 11 year olds in Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia.

The injection aims to retrain the immune system to tolerate peanut allergens and reduce the risk of severe reactions. 

At MCRI and Queensland Children's Hospital, another peanut trial is underway using a drug patch, VITESSE.

"Which has been very promising," Dr Jane Peake says. 

"That was in young children aged one to three. We're now enrolling patients from four to seven."

It works by exposing a small amount of peanut protein via the skin, designed to desensitise a person through repeated exposures.

The trial is currently recruiting four to seven year olds in Victoria, Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. 

'People are looking for that holy grail'

Researchers hope with ongoing support from the Australian government, community and industry partners, they can keep the "momentum going".

"To change the trajectory of allergic disease in Australia, it’s going to take a collaborative approach," Professor Perrett says. 

Dr Peake says people often look at Australia as being very "conservative" in the way it manages allergies.

"I think that's because we do seem to have allergies in the more severe end of the spectrum," she says.

"But more importantly, I think we're really very keen to be sure that we're doing safe evidence-based care."

Dr Peake says it isn't a "one size fits all".

"And I think we have to be really careful to select the right patients for any treatment option, and to consider always the pros and the cons of those treatments," she says.

"I think we have a lot of people looking for that holy grail, the cure of their child's allergies, and I think that that's still probably a little bit elusive."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

'life-changing' injection for food allergies approved in us, not yet on the cards in australia.

'Bans do not work': New national guidelines say education is key to managing food allergies

Toddler with severe dairy allergy taken to hospital after being fed chocolate cake at WA daycare

Australia is the food allergy capital of the world. How did this happen and what can we do about it?

• Infant Health

Could fishponds help with Hawaiʻi’s food sustainability?

• April 18, 2024

Indigenous aquaculture systems in Hawaiʻi, known as loko iʻa or fishponds, can increase the amount of fish and fisheries harvested both inside and outside of the pond. This is the focus of a study published by a team of researchers at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa Hawaiʻi Institute of Marine Biology ( HIMB ). Today, aquaculture supplies less than 1% of Hawaiʻi’s 70 million pounds of locally available seafood, but revitalization of loko iʻa has the potential to significantly increase locally available seafood.

According to historical accounts, loko iʻa can create surplus fish inside the pond, but their role as a nursery ground seeding surrounding fish populations has received less attention.

“We have demonstrated the ability of Indigenous aquaculture systems to produce a surplus of fish as well as supplement fisheries in the surrounding estuary,” said lead author and marine biology PhD candidate Anne Innes-Gold. “We have heard people voice the idea that historically, loko iʻa provided nursery grounds that may have supplemented fish populations in the estuary. Our study is the first that we are aware of to demonstrate this idea in academic literature.”

Hawaiʻi’s unique aquaculture system

The Indigenous aquaculture systems found in Hawaiʻi boast a design found nowhere else in the world, and are among the most productive and diverse of their kind. Loko iʻa historically yielded nearly 2 million pounds of fish annually, and hoaʻāina (land tenants) and kiaʻi (caretakers) initially managed them with a “take what you need” mentality to ensure the resource persisted. Most loko iʻa were destroyed in the 20th century, and by 1994 only six of 500 historical loko iʻa were still operating.

“As aquaculture continues to provide a growing proportion of our seafood globally, revival of Indigenous aquaculture systems will be beneficial to sustainably maintain and increase our seafood supply,” said Innes-Gold.

Restoration success story

One success story of loko iʻa restoration is the Heʻeia Fishpond, located in Windward Oʻahu and stewarded by Native Hawaiian nonprofit, Paepae o Heʻeia. Their mission is to link Indigenous knowledge with contemporary management to promote cultural sustainability and restore and maintain a loko iʻa for the local community. The benefits of restoring loko iʻa and related systems can help boost local food production, and provide community members with a space to nourish their bodies and minds, connect with ʻāina , practice reciprocity and promote cultural education.

This work was funded by Hawaiʻi Sea Grant, the Heʻeia National Estuarine Research Reserve, and the National Marine Fisheries Service-Sea Grant Fellowship in Population and Ecosystem Dynamics. With their foundational work complete, Innes-Gold and her team plan to simulate potential climate change impacts in a loko iʻa system.

–By Maria Frostic

Related Posts:

• Native predatory fish help control invasive species…
• Sea cucumber cultivation challenged by climate change
• Hawaiian Word of the Week: Loko Iʻa
• previous post: Immunotherapy shows promise for aggressive breast cancer
• next post: Pacific Disaster Center, Ghana address increasing climate and disaster risks

If required, information contained on this website can be made available in an alternative format upon request. Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

About Calendar COVID-19 Updates Directory Emergency Information For Media MyUH Work at UH

Gagana Samoa

Kapasen Chuuk

Kajin Majôl

ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi

• Administrative

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Science & Research
• About Science & Research at FDA
• FDA Grand Rounds
• FDA Grand Rounds: Whole Genome Sequencing: A Powerful Scientific Tool that Delivered During the 2023 Pseudomonas Outbreak in Eye Drops - 04/09/2024

Webcast | Virtual

Event Title FDA Grand Rounds: Whole Genome Sequencing: A Powerful Scientific Tool that Delivered During the 2023 Pseudomonas Outbreak in Eye Drops April 9, 2024

About the Speaker

Michelle Cockrell, B.S. Microbiologist Office of Regulatory Affairs Irvine Medical Products Laboratory U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Michelle Cockrell received her undergraduate degree in Microbiology from the University of Oklahoma in 2017. She worked as a clinical microbiologist and molecular biologist for the Oklahoma State Department of Health where she developed an interest in whole genome sequencing and its significance as a tool for public health. In 2021, she moved to Irvine, California to start her career with the Food and Drug Administration. Now, she works as a microbiologist and lead for the whole genome sequencing workgroup for the Irvine Medical Products Laboratory.

About the Presentation

Whole Genome Sequencing has been used in FDA’s Human and Animal Food Laboratories for several years, but what about in the medical products laboratories? This presentation will discuss the application of this method as an additional analysis used during the 2023 Pseudomonas outbreak in eye drop products. ORS’ collaboration with the CDC and CFSAN partners led to key information that linked the outbreak strain to the implicated products, providing a scientific basis for FDA to pursue regulatory action.

Learning Objectives

• Define whole genome sequencing and state its basic purpose.
• Describe how whole genome sequencing can determine relatedness among isolates.
• Discuss how whole genome sequencing was used to link the implicated products to the outbreak strain during the 2023 Pseudomonas outbreak in eyedrops.

To Register

FDA employees MUST register in BOTH the following:  

• ZOOM REGISTRATION *Once you have registered in ZOOM, you will receive a confirmation email with the webcast URL
• LMS REGISTRATION  

Non-FDA employees must register in:  

After Zoom webcast registration, you will receive a link via email to access the live webinar. You must log in with the username and password created when you registered.  Please pre-register at least two days before the event to ensure you receive the access link and outlook invitation for the session. We will discuss applications for this analysis and share finding from completed work. For technical assistance please contact: [email protected]  

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Advancing technology for aquaculture

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, aquaculture in the United States represents a $1.5 billion industry annually. Like land-based farming, shellfish aquaculture requires healthy seed production in order to maintain a sustainable industry. Aquaculture hatchery production of shellfish larvae — seeds — requires close monitoring to track mortality rates and assess health from the earliest stages of life. 

Careful observation is necessary to inform production scheduling, determine effects of naturally occurring harmful bacteria, and ensure sustainable seed production. This is an essential step for shellfish hatcheries but is currently a time-consuming manual process prone to human error. 

With funding from MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Water and Food Systems Lab (J-WAFS), MIT Sea Grant is working with Associate Professor Otto Cordero of the MIT Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professor Taskin Padir and Research Scientist Mark Zolotas at the Northeastern University Institute for Experiential Robotics, and others at the Aquaculture Research Corporation (A.R.C.), and the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, to advance technology for the aquaculture industry. Located on Cape Cod, A.R.C. is a leading shellfish hatchery, farm, and wholesaler that plays a vital role in providing high-quality shellfish seed to local and regional growers.

Two MIT students have joined the effort this semester, working with Robert Vincent, MIT Sea Grant’s assistant director of advisory services, through the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). 

First-year student Unyime Usua and sophomore Santiago Borrego are using microscopy images of shellfish seed from A.R.C. to train machine learning algorithms that will help automate the identification and counting process. The resulting user-friendly image recognition tool aims to aid aquaculturists in differentiating and counting healthy, unhealthy, and dead shellfish larvae, improving accuracy and reducing time and effort.

Vincent explains that AI is a powerful tool for environmental science that enables researchers, industry, and resource managers to address challenges that have long been pinch points for accurate data collection, analysis, predictions, and streamlining processes. “Funding support from programs like J-WAFS enable us to tackle these problems head-on,” he says. 

ARC faces challenges with manually quantifying larvae classes, an important step in their seed production process. "When larvae are in their growing stages they are constantly being sized and counted,” explains Cheryl James, A.R.C. larval/juvenile production manager. “This process is critical to encourage optimal growth and strengthen the population." 

Developing an automated identification and counting system will help to improve this step in the production process with time and cost benefits. “This is not an easy task,” says Vincent, “but with the guidance of Dr. Zolotas at the Northeastern University Institute for Experiential Robotics and the work of the UROP students, we have made solid progress.” 

The UROP program benefits both researchers and students. Involving MIT UROP students in developing these types of systems provides insights into AI applications that they might not have considered, providing opportunities to explore, learn, and apply themselves while contributing to solving real challenges.

Borrego saw this project as an opportunity to apply what he’d learned in class 6.390 (Introduction to Machine Learning) to a real-world issue. “I was starting to form an idea of how computers can see images and extract information from them,” he says. “I wanted to keep exploring that.”

Usua decided to pursue the project because of the direct industry impacts it could have. “I’m pretty interested in seeing how we can utilize machine learning to make people’s lives easier. We are using AI to help biologists make this counting and identification process easier.” While Usua wasn’t familiar with aquaculture before starting this project, she explains, “Just hearing about the hatcheries that Dr. Vincent was telling us about, it was unfortunate that not a lot of people know what’s going on and the problems that they’re facing.”

On Cape Cod alone, aquaculture is an $18 million per year industry. But the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries estimates that hatcheries are only able to meet 70–80 percent of seed demand annually, which impacts local growers and economies. Through this project, the partners aim to develop technology that will increase seed production, advance industry capabilities, and help understand and improve the hatchery microbiome.

Borrego explains the initial challenge of having limited data to work with. “Starting out, we had to go through and label all of the data, but going through that process helped me learn a lot.” In true MIT fashion, he shares his takeaway from the project: “Try to get the best out of what you’re given with the data you have to work with. You’re going to have to adapt and change your strategies depending on what you have.”

Usua describes her experience going through the research process, communicating in a team, and deciding what approaches to take. “Research is a difficult and long process, but there is a lot to gain from it because it teaches you to look for things on your own and find your own solutions to problems.”

In addition to increasing seed production and reducing the human labor required in the hatchery process, the collaborators expect this project to contribute to cost savings and technology integration to support one of the most underserved industries in the United States. 

Borrego and Usua both plan to continue their work for a second semester with MIT Sea Grant. Borrego is interested in learning more about how technology can be used to protect the environment and wildlife. Usua says she hopes to explore more projects related to aquaculture. “It seems like there’s an infinite amount of ways to tackle these issues.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Research project webpage
• MIT Sea Grant
• Abdul Latif Jameel Water and Food Systems Lab (J-WAFS)
• Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
• Aquacultural Research Corporation
• Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance
• Northeastern University Institute for Experiential Robotics

Related Topics

• Civil and environmental engineering
• Mechanical engineering
• Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP)
• Agriculture
• Environment
• Sustainability
• Supply chains
• Artificial intelligence
• Computer vision
• Undergraduate
• Collaboration

Related Articles

J-WAFS announces 2023 seed grant recipients

Meet the Oystamaran

More than a meal

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Featured video: Moooving the needle on methane

Read full story →

The many-body dynamics of cold atoms and cross-country running

Heather Paxson named associate dean for faculty of the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences

Preparing MIT’s campus for cardiac emergencies

Researching extreme environments

To build a better AI helper, start by modeling the irrational behavior of humans

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

News and features

New research reveals there are more school-based than regular foodbanks nationwide.

Image shows weekly stall offering cereal, milk, pasta and other long-life grocery items as well as fresh produce set up in a primary school playground. William Baker, University of Bristol

Press release issued: 17 April 2024

Research shows schools have increasingly stepped in as a fourth emergency service and are now the biggest source of charitable food and household aid for families struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.

The working paper , led by the University of Bristol, reveals there are more than 4,000 school-based food banks in primary and secondary schools across England, which equates to one in every five schools running one. The study also found school food banks are more prevalent in deprived areas and schools, highlighting the severity of child food insecurity and the challenges facing low-income families.

The report calls for greater awareness amongst policy makers and reform, including an overhaul of the social security system, to address the growing issue.

Lead author Dr William Baker, Senior Lecturer at the University of Bristol School of Education, said: “Our research shows there are now, quite shockingly, more food banks inside schools than outside of schools in England. In recent years inflation has sent the cost of essentials spiralling, while other forms of state support have withered due to swingeing cutbacks. Schools are on the frontline in responding to food poverty and many are offering crisis services to struggling families.

“Teachers and support staff see the devastating effects of poverty and the cost-of-living crisis daily, so they have felt compelled to act. The result is a flourishing patchwork of food banks, pantries, and food clubs, which have become well-established, are often highly organised operations distributing more than just food and are an indictment of this country’s retreating welfare state. I’ll never forget the stark image of dozens of boxes of new school shoes, bought out of school funds, stacked up ready for distribution as if this was business as usual.” 

The survey data used in the study indicates food banks exist in more than a fifth (21%) of schools and this rises to a third (33%) in schools with the high numbers of students from deprived backgrounds.

Charitable and third sector organisations, chiefly The Trussell Trust and The Independent Food Aid Network, remain key players operating 1,646 and 1,172 food banks respectively. But the latest data indicates schools now outstrip this, running an estimated 4,250 food banks.   

“The fact so many schools now offer a food bank raises the possibility they may have already become completely normalised and institutionalised within schools in England,” Dr Baker added. 

The report builds on Dr Baker’s  previous research  which uncovered how school food aid operations varied in size and structure, ranging from discreet food parcels given to parents and funded by staff donations to larger-scale, well-advertised regular provision with food supplied by large supermarkets and food waste charities. Examples of this included a free, help yourself pantry in the form of a shed next to the playground and a weekly stall set up at school pick-up time for parents to select what they need. In addition to food, schools were providing essential children’s clothing and footwear. Household products including soap and washing powder, or in some cases even a free laundry service, were also on offer.

The report claims policy makers are largely unaware of the nature and scale of the problem, in contrast to previous high-profile media campaigns for universal free school meals and holiday food vouchers during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Dr Baker said: “There is a policy vacuum around charitable food aid in schools in England and across the UK. Although much attention has been given to free school meal provision, the pressing wider problem of children going hungry routinely at home due to rocketing food costs and other budget pressures, such as fuel prices and interest rates, isn’t being properly addressed. 

“The fact schools are running food banks en masse is falling under the radar with no national support, guidance, or oversight. Food charity is not the solution: people need secure, fairly-remunerated jobs, and support through the benefits system so they can afford to properly feed and clothe their kids.”

The report also aims to spark serious consideration about whether schools should be filling this role, and to such an extent, in the first place. But since food insecurity and school food banks look likely to stay for the foreseeable future, the report calls for more training so staff are better equipped to tackle the issue and best practice can be shared.

Over the past 15 years, the number of food banks in the UK has risen dramatically, growing from dozens to many thousands. The report recounts how they have become a safety net amidst an ongoing period of austerity and welfare state decline.

There are also global implications and the paper furthers international debates about the development of food banking systems, child poverty, declining welfare states and how schools are filling the gap to support vulnerable families.

‘Feeding hungry families: food banks in schools in England’ by Will Baker et al. in  Bristol Working Papers In Education Series

Elgin Courier-News | Food that helps feed more than 1,000 at…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

• Elgin Courier-News Opinion
• Elgin Courier-News Sports
• All Suburbs

Breaking News

Elgin courier-news | off-duty chicago police officer fatally shot in gage park, elgin courier-news, elgin courier-news | food that helps feed more than 1,000 at antarctic research bases for a year procured by elgin company.

Talk about a cool job.

Food for two of the three U.S. research bases located in the frozen tundra of Antarctica is procured by Elgin-based St. Charles Trading Inc., which obtains enough to feed more than 1,000 for a year, according to Vanessa Baker, the company’s marketing director.

“McMurdo Station peaks out at around 1,000 people who rotate in and out and go into the field on different science projects or support the other stations,” Baker said. “The South Pole Station maxes out at about 150 people.”

The items the company secures come from a variety of suppliers, including ADM, Cargill, Morton Salt, Riviana Rice and Kraft, she said. The items are shipped to Kaiyuh Services in California, which transports it all to one of the most remote and coldest places on earth.

St. Charles Trading has been working with Kaiyuh on the Antarctica project since 2020. All told, the effort involves ordering and transporting four metric tons of food, Baker said.

While fresh food is delivered a number of times during Antarctica’s summer — winter in the Northern Hemisphere — most things they need are obtained by the Elgin company, which was founded in 1984 and employs about 100 people.

For example, they can’t get fresh milk delivered so St. Charles Trading sends a year’s supply of powdered milk via Kaiyuh Services, Baker said.

Forecasting and planning for the food order is being done now. In May, a draft order will be sent to Kaiyuh Services.

“We have 12 weeks to bring the order into our warehouse in California,” Kaiyuh project manager Brian Eisenstatt said in a news release on the massive effort. “Once it’s all brought in, that’s when we start packing.”

Packing takes from mid-September until Thanksgiving. Goods are put into specialized food containers that are transported to Port Hueneme in California, where they are loaded onto a resupply vessel en route to New Zealand, Eisenstatt said in the release.

In New Zealand, the ship picks up a few more things before heading to Antarctica. The food should arrive at McMurdo Station on Ross Island by mid-February, where it will be warehoused. The order being readied now will be consumed from October 2024 through February-March 2025.

The items and ingredients provided by St. Charles Trading might not be eaten until 2025. All of the food from the Elgin company can be frozen, an important consideration as it’s going to be stored in a non-temperature-controlled warehouse.

“Over the winter in Antarctica, the food goes into a deep freeze and over the summer, when the sun beats down on the roof of the warehouse containing food that isn’t temperature-sensitive, it can get up into the 50s and 60s,” Eisenstatt said.

For every single researcher working in Antarctica, there are four to five support staff who are responsible for such things as cooking, cleaning, maintaining vehicles and fueling the station, he said.

“There’s so much involved in keeping that place running,” Eisenstatt said. “It is so remote. They must be very self-sustaining.”

Mike Danahey is a freelance reporter for The Courier-News.

More in Elgin Courier-News

Elgin Courier-News | No argument that dam removal would help Fox River but big questions remain on its Elgin impact, mayor says

Elgin Courier-News | 13th ‘Next Level’ cooking competition almost proved to be the last for ECC-trained chef

Daily Southtown Sports | Baseball and local scores for the Southland, Aurora, Elgin, Naperville and Lake County

Aurora Beacon-News Sports | Rick Armstrong’s Aurora-Elgin area softball rankings and player of the week

Trending nationally.

• Jennifer Lopez ‘disappointed’ by ’embarrassing’ concert sales but vows to move on
• Disney, Universal report leg injuries, loss of consciousness on rides
• O.J. Simpson did not die surrounded by loved ones, says lawyer
• Aspen home sells for $108 million, making Colorado one of the few states with $100+ million houses
• DeSantis signs school chaplains bill opposed by pastors, Satanists, ACLU