Sustainability Recommendations and Practices in School Feeding: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Considering the importance of schools for sustainable food offers and the formation of conscientious citizens on sustainability, this systematic review aimed to verify the recommendations on sus­tainability in school feeding policies and the sustainability practices adopted in schools. The research question that guided this study is “what are the recommendations on sustainability in school feeding policies and the sustainability practices adopted in schools?”. This systematic review was prepared according to PRISMA, and its checklist was registered in PROSPERO. Specific search strategies for Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were developed. The included studies’ methodological quality was evaluated using the Meta-Analysis Statistical Assessment and Review Instrument (MASTARI). A total of 134 studies were selected for a full reading. Of these, 50 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. Several sustainability practices were described. The most cited are school gardens and education activities for sustainability. However, actions carried out in food services were also mentioned, from the planning of menus and the purchase of raw materials (mainly local and organic foods, vegetarian/vegan menus) to the distribution of meals (reduction of organic and inorganic waste: composting, recycling, donating food, and portion sizes). Recommendations for purchasing sustainable food (organic, local, and seasonal), nutrition education focused on sustainability, and reducing food waste were frequent; this reinforces the need to stimulate managers’ view, in their most varied spheres, for the priority that should be given to this theme, so that education for sustainability is universally part of the curricula. The importance of education in enabling individuals to promote sustainable development is reaffirmed in Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4). The development of assessment instruments can help monitor the evolution of sustainable strategies at schools and the main barriers and potentialities related to their implementation.

Full text

REVIEW ARTICLE FOCUS
Sustainability Recommendations and Practices in
School Feeding: A Systematic Review
Emanuele Batistela dos Santos
a Dayanne da Costa Maynard
b Renata Puppin Zandonadi
b
António Raposo
c Raquel Braz Assunção Botelho
a
aDepartment of Food and Nutrition, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Brazil; bDepartment of Nutrition, University of Brasília,
Brasília, Brazil; cCBIOS (Research Center for Biosciences and Health Technologies), Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias,
Lisboa, Portugal
Keywords
school feeding · school meals · sustainability
Abstract
Considering the importance of schools for sustainable food offers
and the formation of conscientious citizens on sustainability, this
systematic review aimed to verify the recommendations on sus-
tainability in school feeding policies and the sustainability prac-
tices adopted in schools. The research question that guided this
study is “what are the recommendations on sustainability in school
feeding policies and the sustainability practices adopted in
schools?”. This systematic review was prepared according to PRIS-
MA, and its checklist was registered in PROSPERO. Specific search
strategies for Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, Lilacs, Google
Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were devel-
oped. The included studies’ methodological quality was evaluated
using the Meta-Analysis Statistical Assessment and Review Instru-
ment (MASTARI). A total of 134 studies were selected for a full read-
ing. Of these, 50 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the
systematic review. Several sustainability practices were described.
The most cited are school gardens and education activities for sus-
Correspondenc e to:
António Raposo , antonio.raposo @ ulusofona.pt
Raquel Braz Assunção Botelho, raquelbotelho @ unb.br
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102 • DOI: 10.1159/000526379
tainability. However, actions carried out in food services were also
mentioned, from the planning of menus and the purchase of raw
materials (mainly local and organic foods, vegetarian/vegan
menus) to the distribution of meals (reduction of organic and inor-
ganic waste: composting, recycling, donating food, and portion
sizes). Recommendations for purchasing sustainable food (organic,
local, and seasonal), nutrition education focused on sustainability,
and reducing food waste were frequent; this reinforces the need to
stimulate managers’ view, in their most varied spheres, for the pri-
ority that should be given to this theme, so that education for sus-
tainability is universally part of the curricula. The importance of
education in enabling individuals to promote sustainable develop-
ment is reaffirmed in Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4). The
development of assessment instruments can help monitor the
evolution of sustainable strategies at schools and the main barriers
and potentialities related to their implementation.
© 2022 by the authors
© 2022 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
information@karger.co
m
www.karger.com/knd
Republication of Foods. 2022;11(2):176. DOI: 10.3390/foods11020176.
Introduction
School feeding programs, widely spread across the globe, are rec-
ognized as an essential st rategy for achieving goals in va rious sec-
tors of society, including education, health, social protection, and
agriculture. Recognized as the most prominent social protection
network globally, even with the effects suffered by the COVID-19
pandemic, they appear as a robust investment in human capital
that will guarantee the economic growth of nations [1]. The rela-
tionship between school feeding and educational and nutritional
outcomes is widely investigated in the literature [2–5]. However,
more recently, its role in conducting actions aimed at sustainabil-
ity has been studied to mitigate the global challenges that threat-
en human and planet health in the 21st century [6–8].
A product of the concern w ith the environmenta l impacts derived
from the world pattern of production and consumption in the
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

84
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
second half of t he 20th century, the term sustai nable development
refers to satisf ying the needs of t he present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [9]. Inte-
grating the sustainability pillars is necessary to increase produc-
tive potential, guaranteeing equal opportunities for all without
putting the environment at risk [10]. The three main pillars (en-
vironmental, economic, and social) have been studied for years,
and, recently, the cultural and health pillars were also linked to
sustainability [11].
Through school meals and educational practices, students be-
come aware of the impacts of individual and collective choices [6,
12–14], c onsequently generat ing better environ mental, econom ic,
and social outcomes. The essential role of education for achieving
a more sustainable future in environmenta l, economic, and social
aspects was recognized by the United Nations in the Decade of
Education for Susta inable Development, which aimed to i ntegrate
the values , principles, and practice s of sustainable development in
all aspects of education [15]. Therefore, education for sustainabil-
ity is a powerful tool capable of providing the knowledge, skills,
and awareness needed by young people to deal with the various
problems that threaten the integrity of the planet and human
health and well-being [16]. In this sense, it is essential to conduct
a process that considers, in addition to global is sues, those that are
local and common to the participants’ routine and that integrates
a holistic perspective, a llowing for informed dec ision-maki ng, in-
dividua lly or collectively [15,17]. The literature also highlights the
importance of using school meals as a tool for nutritional educa-
tion and education for sustainable consumption and practical
learning activ ities, such as school gardens, cooking activities, and
field visits to small local farmers [6, 12, 18–20].
The relationship between sustainability and school feeding also
occurs at the level of decisions made at all stages of meal produc-
tion. It is known that food production is associated with signifi-
cant environmental impacts. Although elements before or after
the meals’ preparation are responsible for most of these effects
(such as field production, transport, and food waste) [21–23], the
choices made by school food services influence this dynamic, de-
termining the deg ree to which they employ actions to mitigate t he
environmental impacts generated in this process. Some examples
are the purchase of organic and local food, encouraging the con-
sumption of fresh vegetables at meals, controlling the supply of
meat, and act ions such as adjusting port ions, donating food, com-
posting, purchasing products with minimum packaging, recy-
cling, and reducing energy and water consumption [24 –30].
The adoption of sustainable practices often generates results that
simultaneously reach the different dimensions of sustainability.
Reducing energy and water consumption in the production of
meals and adjusting the size of food portions, for example, can
represent actions of economic and environmental sustainability
[29]. Also, the donation of food, raw or prepared, provided that it
is in perfec t hygienic and sanita ry condition, can be obse rved from
social and environmental sustainability perspectives [26, 27].
Establishing a close relationship between school meals and small
farmers to purchase locally sourced food favors the increase in
income and class organization. Consequently, the economic de-
velopment of the region, as well as contributing to the food and
nutritional security of farmers and their families [31, 32], goes
beyond environmental to social and economic sustainability di-
mensions. Due to the benef its for both students and fa rmers wide-
ly recognized in the literature, the practice of buying local food is
encouraged by public policies for school meals in different parts
of the world [33, 34].
Therefore, the range of activities involved with school feeding
generates unique challenges and opportunities from the point of
view of sustainability in the environmental, economic, and social
dimensions [7,8 ,12 , 3 5]. In this sense, school feeding programs are
part of t he strateg ies used to achieve the Susta inable Development
Goals of the 2030 Agenda [36].
Although school feeding policies in some countries already pres-
ent recommendations on sustainability in their guiding princi-
ples [34, 37, 38], and the literature presents different sustainabil-
ity practices employed in this context, bringing to light a body of
evidence on this topic will be helpful for decision-makers at the
government level to create or even revise guidelines for their
school feeding policies, incorporating the principles of sustain-
ability. Therefore, the research question that guided this study is
“What are the recommendations on sustainability in school feed-
ing policies and the sustainability practices adopted in schools?”.
In addition, the findings may help policymakers and members of
the school community, within their local context, in the develop-
ment of sustainability practices linked to school and school feed-
ing. Considering the importance of schools to offer sustainable
food and in the formation of conscientious citizens who are able
to act on the challenges related to sustainability in the contempo-
rary world [6], this systematic review aimed to verify the recom-
mendations on sustainability in school feeding policies and the
sustainability practices adopted in schools.
Materials and Methods
This systematic review was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systemat ic Reviews and Me ta-Analyses (PR ISMA), and its check list
[39] was regi stered in PROSPERO [CRD42 021264978]. The protocol was per-
formed according to the following steps.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria were studies that described the recommendations on
sustainability in school feeding policies and the sustainability practices
adopt ed in schools, in environmental, social, and/or economic aspects, with
no date and language limits. Legislations of school feeding policies and pro-
gram s found in the studie s reference lists had t heir full tex t analyzed to iden-
tify sustainability recommendations. The exclusion criteria were: (1) com-
ments, letters, conferences, reviews, abstracts, reports, undergraduate works,
discussion papers, and books, (2) studies carried out outside schools or in
which the school was not responsible for the action, (3) studies in which
practices were not performed or studies where activities were punctual, (4)
studies focused on the supplier or that only reported purchases, and (5) stu-
dies that did not describe sustainability practices (Appendix A).
Information Source
Detailed individual search strategies were developed for each database:
MEDLINE via Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Lilacs. A
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

85
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
search for gray literat ure was performed on Google Scholar and for disserta-
tions and t heses in ProQ uest Global. Add itionally, we exa mined the refe rence
lists of t he selected ar ticles as relevant s tudies could have bee n missed durin g
the data search. The last search in all databases was carried out on 30 June
2021.
Search Strategy
The appropriat e combinations of tru ncation and key words were selected and
adapted for the search in each mentioned database (Table S1—Supplementa-
ry Mater ials). We used Ray yan softwa re (Qatar Computer Resea rch Institute
(QCRI)) to select and exclude duplicate articles, and all references were ma-
naged by Mendeley desktop software.
Study Selection
Two phases were necessary for the selection. In phase 1, researchers I (EBS)
and II (DCM) i ndependently re viewed the tit les and abstr acts of all r eferences
identified from databases. EBS and DCM excluded the articles that did not
meet the eligibility criteria. In phase 2, the full texts of the selected articles
were fully read by the same reviewers (EBS, DCM), and only those that met
the inclusion criteria were included. In both phases, the disagreements were
discussed until a consensus was reached between the two reviewers. A third
reviewer (R BAB) made the final decision in situations without consensus.
EBS, an examiner, critically evaluated the list of references of the selected
studie s. Additional st udies were added by t he third exa miner (RBAB) and t he
expert (RPZ).
Data Collection Process
Two reviewers independently (EBS, DCM) collected the following characte-
ristics from the selected studies by authors and year of publication, country
of research, the objective of the study, methods, sustainability dimensions,
and main results referring to the identified sustainability practices. Calibra-
tion exercises were conducted before sta rting the rev iew to ensure consisten-
cy among reviewers. Disagreements were solved by discussion, and the third
reviewer (R BAB) adjudicated unresolved disagreements. These data were
synthe sized by three re viewers (EBS, DCM, and RBAB) using a sta ndardized
table conta ining the follow ing informat ion: reference, authors, ye ar, country,
objectives, type of school management (public, private), teaching stage (ac-
cording to the teaching stages of each country), participants (individuals,
schools, or municipalities), sustainability dimensions (environmental, eco-
nomic, and social), a nd main results referring to t he identified sustainabilit y
practices.
Risk of Individual Bias in the Included Studies
The quality criteria were synthesized using a statistical review assessment
instrument (MASTARI) and the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol to assess
the risk of bias in the studies. The instrument for assessing the risk of bias
included seven questions:
1. Were the practices identified characterized?
2. Has the practice been implemented in schools?
3. Did the practices present a positive implementation response?
4. Was the study design appropriate?
5. Was the statistical analysis adequate to the objective of the study?
6. Did the results answer the main question?
7. In the case of the schools, was the sample of establishments selected for
analysis representative and randomly determined?
The categorization of the risk of bias followed the percentage of “yes” score:
“High” for up to 49%, “Moderate” for between 50 and 69%, and “Low” for
more than 70%.
Results
The researchers retrieved 1763 studies from the electronic data-
bases; 1319 titles and abstracts were evaluated after removing the
duplicates, and, after reading the abstracts, 134 studies were se-
lected for a fu ll reading. Of t hese, 50 met the eligibi lity criteria and
were included in the systematic review. At the same time, recom-
mendations on sustainability were found in 11 governmental
school feeding policies or programs and 5 in other available non-
governmental school feeding programs/initiatives retrieved from
the studies’ reference lists (Figure 1). The latest available versions
were evaluated for governmental and non-governmental school
feeding policies or programs.
Studies Characteristics
Regarding sustainability practices, the studies included (n = 50)
were conducted between 1991 and 2021, in the following coun-
tries: United States (n = 22), Brazil (n = 7), Spain (n = 3), Italy (n =
3), South Africa (n = 2), Canada (n = 2), England (n = 2), Denmark
(n = 1), Finland (n = 1), Ghana (n = 1), India (n = 1), Japan (n = 1),
Wale s (n = 1), Kenya (n = 1), and Tanzania (n = 1). A parallel study
was carried out in the United States and Cuba. The characteristics
of the analyzed studies are presented in Table1.
In the United States , where the largest number of stu dies was iden-
tif ied (n = 22), sustainabi lity practices ma inly involved education-
al activities for sustainability [20, 44, 53, 56, 57, 59–61, 69], waste
Fig . 1. Flowchart of the systematic review search process. Adapted from PRIS-
MA protocol.
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

86
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Tab le 1. Main descriptive characteristics and results from the included studies
Author (Year)
Country
Objectives School Management (SM)
Teaching Stage (TS)
Participants (P)
Sustainability Dimension (SD)
Main Sustainability Practices Identified
Mann (1991) [40]
USA
To assess the solid waste management practices in school food, and to
develop and assess a decision model for solid waste management in school
food services.
SM: Public, private
TS: Not informed
P: School food service directors (n = 458)
SD: Environmental, economic
Recycling, purchase of bulk products, and
reusable dispensing devices.
Ghiselli (1993) [41]
USA
To analyze waste and disposal practices in Indiana’s school food service, and
the feasibility of reducing it through permanent service and product
recycling.
SM: Public, private
TS: Elementary, middle, high school
P: School food service directors (n = 237)
SD: Environmental, economic
Recycling.
Hackes; Shanklin (1999) [42]
USA
To identify resource allocation decisions, policies, and procedures used by
school food service directors that were based on pollution prevention,
product stewardship, and sustainable development.
SM: Not informed
TS: Not informed
P: School food service directors (n = 168)
SD: Environmental, economic
Recycling; energy policy: solid waste and water.
Albertse, Mancusi-Materi (2000) [43]
South Africa
To illustrate how the initiation of school children into innovative technologies
has fostered mechanisms of social mobilization towards enhanced food
security in South Africa.
SM: Not informed
TS: Not informed
P: Students, parents (n = not informed)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Irrigation system for water reuse and school
garden.
Wadsworth (2002) [44]
USA
To conduct a curriculum assessment of an after-school program on food
choices that minimize energy, natural resources used, and pollution
generated in food processing, packaging, and transportation.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: Students (n = 240)
SD: Environmental
Nutritional education focused on the
sustainability of the food system; Cooking
activities.
Lima (2006) [45]
Brazil
To analyze the management of a School food service unit in the State of
Santa Catarina, based on the introduction of organic foods.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: Representatives of the Department of Education, a state school,
the School Feeding Council, students (n = 21)
SD: Environmental
Organic school garden and feeding program;
Control of non-organic waste generation.
Vogt (2006) [46]
USA
To identify district/community characteristics supporting buying food locally,
the perceived benefits and barriers in buying locally, and generate solutions
to encountered issues in California.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: School food service directors, farmers (n = 37)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Participation in the “Farm-to-School” program
(local foods), school garden, recycling,
composting, and vegetarian/vegan meals.
Sonnino (2009) [47]
Italy
To examine how city authorities have integrated different (and at times
contrasting) quality conventions in school meals in Rome.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: Representatives of the sectors involved in school feeding (n =
not informed)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Purchase of organic food; Adoption of social
and environmental criteria for contracting food
services.
Izumi, Alaimo, Hamm (2010) [48]
USA
To identify why farmers, school food service professionals, and food
distributors participate in farm-to-school programs and the opportunities
and challenges for purchasing food at local schools.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: School food service professionals, farmers, food distributors (n =
18)
SD: Local, economic, social
Participation in the “Farm-to-School” (local
food).
Baca (2011) [49]
USA
To investigate the status of food waste management programs, recycling of
packaging waste, and cost of waste hauling in school nutrition programs in
the USA.
SM: Not informed
TS: Not informed
P: Child nutrition directors (n = 79)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Food donation, composting, donation of waste
for animal feed, recycling.
Bennell (2012) [50]
Wales
To explore the development of the Education for Sustainable Development
and Global Citizenship through case studies of Welsh primary schools.
SM: Not informed
TS: Elementary, middle
P: Students, teachers, support staff (n = 46)
SD: Environmental, economic
School garden, recycling, energy audit, and
sustainability aspects.
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

87
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Author (Year)
Country
Objectives School Management (SM)
Teaching Stage (TS)
Participants (P)
Sustainability Dimension (SD)
Main Sustainability Practices Identified
Bucher (2012) [51]
USA/Cuba
To examine how pedagogies of sustainability are embedded in socio-cultural
contexts and policy structures and driven by the localized actions of teachers.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, primary, high school
P: Teachers, community members (n = 12)
SD: Environmental, social
Environmental education; school garden.
Jones et al. (2012) [12]
England
To examine the associations between the promotion of sustainable food and
student self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption and associated
behaviors.
SM: Not informed
TS: Elementary
P: Students (n = 1435)
SD: Environmental
Participation in a sustainable food program
(education for sustainability, use of sustainable
food).
Lombardini, Lankoski (2013) [52]
Finland
To examine the effects of forced restriction of food choice through a natural
field experiment, the Helsinki vegetarian day.
SM: Not informed
TS: Elementary, high school, vocational
P: Schools (n = 43)
SD: Environmental
Vegetarian day.
O’Brien (2013) [53]
USA
To explore efforts by some independent schools to develop education and
act in ways that promote environmental sustainability and social equity.
SM: *Independent
TS: High school
P: Schools (n = 5)
SD: Environmental, social
Education for sustainability.
Orme et al. (2013) [54]
England
To report on an evaluation of the Food for Life Partnership program, a multi-
level initiative in England promoting healthier nutrition and food
sustainability awareness for students and their families.
SM: Not informed
TS: Elementary
P: Teachers, students (n = 152)
SD: Environmental
Formation of a leadership group in a
sustainable food program (tasting new dinners;
visits to local farmers to buy and prepare food
to share with the school).
Rilla (2013) [55]
USA
To examine the design features of schoolyard gardens in the Unified School
District of Los Angeles and see how they are a way to encourage community
involvement.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, middleP: Schools (n = 5)
SD: Environmental
School garden.
Shuttleworth (2013) [56]
USA
To investigate the curricular, pedagogical, and assessment strategies of three
teachers when they teach the social issues of sustainability education.
SM: Public, private
TS: Elementary, middle, high school
P: Teachers (n = 4)
SD: Environmental, locial
Education for sustainability.
Barnett (2014) [57]
USA
To examine the founding and first ten years of operation of a charter school
committed to ecological literacy and sustainability.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, middle
P: Founders, alumni (n = not informed)
SD: Environmental
Ecological literacy.
Galli et al. (2014) [8]
Italy
To explore the role of new public-private partnerships for promoting more
sustainable school meal services, by drawing on the theory of co-production.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: Representatives from the food service and education sector,
parents (n = not informed)
SD: Environmental, social
Short supply chain; organic food; use of food
produced on confiscated land; exchange of
mineral water for filtered water; single dish
menu.
He, Mikkelsen (2014) [58]
Denmark
To examine the possible influence of organic food policies on Danish school
feeding systems on the development of healthier school food environments.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: School food service supervisors (n = 92)
SD: Environmental
Organic food.
Keller (2014) [59]
USA
To examine how educators are fostering sustainability through cultivating
nature awareness in young children.
SM: Public, independent
TS: Elementary
P: Scholar, education director, teachers, principal (n = 6)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Ecological literacy; school garden; field trips to
farmers; local and organic foods.
Table 1 (continued)
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

88
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Author (Year)
Country
Objectives School Management (SM)
Teaching Stage (TS)
Participants (P)
Sustainability Dimension (SD)
Main Sustainability Practices Identified
Bamford (2015) [60]
USA
To discover the relationships between educational experience and
sustainability attitudes and behaviors, the motivation behind these behaviors,
and establish their role in educational programs.
SM: Not informed
TS: Elementary
P: Students, teachers (n = 102)
SD: Environmental, social
Sustainability curriculum; school garden; field
trips.
Black et al. (2015) [24]
Canada
To describe the development of a tool to assess the integration of healthy
and environmentally sustainable food initiatives in schools and characterize a
sample of schools using this tool.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, secondary
P: Food service worker, teachers, school administrators (n = not
informed)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
School garden; composting; local, organic food
with minimal packaging; vegetarian dishes.
Coe (2015) [61]
USA
To understand how a school gardening program and its ecology curriculum
influences students’ environmental perceptions and attitudes.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: Students (n = 21), parents (n = 3), staff (n = 3)
SD: Environmental
Ecology curriculum; organic school garden;
rainwater collection cistern; composting.
Fabri et al. (2015) [62]
Brazil
To identify and analyze the use of regional foods in the school meals of a
Brazilian city.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: City (n = 1)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Regional food.
Strohl (2015) [20]
USA
To investigate how science education is structured to develop scientifically
literate students.
SM: Not informed
TS: Elementary
P: Teachers (n = 2)
SD: Environmental
School garden; food literacy; scientific literacy;
cooking activities.
Triches (2015) [14]
Brazil
Report the actions taken with schoolchildren in a municipality, combining
changes in food consumption and production and linking health and
sustainability.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: City (n = 1)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Local foods; organic school garden; teaching
for sustainability; cooking activities; use of
returnable juice bottles.
Fernandes et al. (2016) [63]
Ghana
To describe the adaptation of the School Meals Planner Package to reality in
Ghana during the 2014 to 2015 school year.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: Districts of Ghana (n = 42)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Meal package plan (local food).
Bareng-Antolin (2017) [64]
USA
To identify practices, perceived benefits, barriers, and resources needed to
implement and maintain a gardening program in high schools.
SM: Public; Private
TS: High school
P: Teachers; School administrators or staff, community volunteers,
support organizations (n = 42)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
School garden; food donation.
Borish, King, Dewey (2017) [65]
Kenya
To understand how a school feeding and agroforestry program impacts the
surrounding community’s human, financial, natural, and social capital.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: Community members (n = 64)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Agroforestry project (teaching on agroforestry
practices).
Laurie, Faber, Maduna (2017) [66]
South Africa
To evaluate knowledge, perceptions, and practices about food production
among students and educators, management, and gardening activities in the
National School Feeding Program schools.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: Garden administrators, garden workers, teachers, students (n =
3355)
SD: Environmental, economic
School garden.
Soares et al. (2017) [67]
Spain
To identify and characterize initiatives that promote the purchase of locally-
sourced foods to supply schools and the schools carrying out the initiatives.
SM: Public, private
TS: Kindergarten, elementary, high school, special school
P: Informants from the Ministries of Education and Agriculture (n =
Not informed)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Local foods; organic food.
Table 1 (continued)
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

89
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Author (Year)
Country
Objectives School Management (SM)
Teaching Stage (TS)
Participants (P)
Sustainability Dimension (SD)
Main Sustainability Practices Identified
Garcia (2018) [68]
Brazil
To analyze the actions of the National School Feeding Program in the city of
Marechal Cândido Rondon-PR.
SM: Public
TS: Kindergarten, elementary, high school, special school
P: Family farmers, nutritionists, managers, cooks, teachers (n = 125)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Sustainability training; partnerships for
environmental preservation, short circuit sales,
and certification of organic food; competition
and recipe booklet for the use of organic
products and valorization of work.
Huston (2018) [69]
USA
To highlight how leadership affects the implementation of education
forsustainability in two K-6 elementary schools in rural New England.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: School staff members (n = 23)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Education for sustainability; participation in the
“Farm-to-School” program; student
participation in the local food pantry.
Lagorio et al. (2018) [27]
Italy
To use a case study in Italy to illustrate an effective and reliable strategy to
reduce food waste in public school canteens.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, high school
P: Municipal Councillors of Social Policies and of Education (n = 2)
SD: Environmental, social
Portion adequacy; food donation
Lehnerd (2018) [70]
USA
To investigate the adoption and the potential impacts of the Farmers’ Market
Nutrition Incentive and Farm to School programs.
SM: Not informed
TS: Elementary, middle
P: Farmer, food service administrators or principals, students (n =
721)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Participation in the “Farm to School” program
(school garden; local foods)
Powell, Wittman (2018) [71]
Canada
To investigate the farm-to-school movement in British Columbia, where
concerns related to education and health have been the main vectors of
farm-to-school mobilization.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: Farm-to-school actors (n = 30)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Participation in the “Farm-to-School” program
(local food, food literacy, school garden).
Roy et al. (2018) [72]
India
To explore and further explain the phenomena of supplier participation in
addressing the sustainability-oriented objectives of a supply chain.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, upper elementary
P: Unit President, purchasing, quality end operation managers (n =
4)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Sustainable management of supply chains.
Elkin (2019) [73]
USA
To explore the three domains of sustainability of the Farm-to-School program
(classroom, cafeteria, and community) developed in a California School
District.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, middle
P: School district (n = 1)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Participation in the “Farm-to-School” program
(local food, school garden; teaching about
food, farming, and agriculture).
Lopes, Basso, Brum (2019) [74]
Brazil
To evaluate the functioning of the market generated by the National School
Feeding Program in the school network of Ijuí, RS, Brazil, from the standpoint
of short agrifood chains.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: Education Secretary, nutritionist, school director (n = 3)
SD: Environmental
School Garden; environmental education.
Santos et al. (2019) [75]
Brazil
To implement a school vegetable garden using recyclable materials. SM: Public
TS:Elementary
P: School (n = 1)
SD: Environmental, economic
Organic school garden with recycled material
(tires).
Blondin et al. (2020) [25]
USA
To assess the Meatless Monday campaign’s nutritional, environmental, and
environmental impacts in the National School Lunch Program in a US school
district.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: School district (n = 1)
SD: Environmental, economic
Reduced meat supply.
Table 1 (continued)
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

90
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Author (Year)
Country
Objectives School Management (SM)
Teaching Stage (TS)
Participants (P)
Sustainability Dimension (SD)
Main Sustainability Practices Identified
Derqui, Grimaldi, Fernandez (2020) [26]
Spain
To understand the level of awareness about food waste generated, of
interventions applied to minimize it, and to categorize the schools and
prioritize a list of interventions to reduce food waste in school canteens.
SM: Public, private
TS: Elementary, high school
P: School headteachers (n = 420)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Certification and training (sustainability);
flexible servings; composting; food donation;
noise reduction,; communication (adjustment
of the quantity produced); reduced use of
paper/water/energy.
Izumi et al. (2020) [35]
Japan
To explore factors that minimize lunch waste in Tokyo elementary schools
and consider how such factors can be modified and applied in US schools.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary
P: School dietitians (n = 5)
SD: Environmental, economic
Social norms (avoid waste); exposure to
unknown/unappreciated foods; pedagogical
practices; portion adequacy; recycling;
composting.
Prescott et al. (2020) [76]
USA
To identify potential school meal recovery options, their prevalence, and
systems factors influencing school food waste recovery across three Northern
Colorado school districts.
SM: Public
TS: Not informed
P: Individuals engaged in food recovery (n = 28)
SD: Environmental, social
Composting; sharing table; food donation.
Virta, Love (2020) [77]
USA
To identify how fishes are implemented in school programs, their impacts,
and the enabling factors to support these programs.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, middle, high school
P: Seafood processors, Oregon Seafood Commission leaders,
school district food service leaders, school kitchen managers (n =
6)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Participation in the “Fish to School” program
(offer and education about local seafood).
Perez-Neira et al. (2021) [30]
Spain
To assess the greenhouse gas emissions reduction of agroecological policies
implemented in public food procurement, specifically for school canteens.
SM: Public
TS: Pre-School, lementary
P: School canteens (n = not informed)
SD: Environmental, economic, social
Purchase of local, organic, and seasonal food
(agro-ecology policies).
Rector et al. (2021) [78]
Tanzania
To assess the state of adolescent school nutrition interventions in Dodoma,
Tanzania.
SM: Public
TS: High School
P: School administrators, teachers, students, parents (n = not
informed)
SD: Environmental
School garden.
Toledo (2021) [79]
Brazil
To evaluate the “Educational Garden” Program to promote adequate and
healthy food in the school environment.
SM: Public
TS: Elementary, high school
SD: Environmental
School Garden; environmental education.
* Independent schools: Non-profit private schools independent in philosophy, administration, and funding.
Table 1 (continued)
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

91
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
reduction [40–42, 46, 49, 61, 76], school gardens [20, 46, 55, 59–61,
64], and participation in programs that promote closer ties be-
tween schools and producers [46,48,69,70,73,77]. Practices such
as food donation [49,64,69,76], strategies for the rational use of
water and energy [42 , 61], the offer of vegetarian/vegan menus or
with reduced meat supply [25,46], and the use of local and organ-
ic foods (not mentioning participation in specific programs for
this purpose) [59] were less mentioned. The study was carried out
in parallel in the United States and Cuba in the context related to
the experiences of urban school gardens in Philadelphia (USA)
and Havana (Cuba) [51].
In Canada, the identified sustainability practices (n = 2) involved
school gardens, purchase of local and organic foods, participation
in programs that promote closer ties between schools and local
farmers, waste reduction, and the use of vegetarian dishes [2 4, 71].
In Brazil, the only country in Latin America in which studies were
identified (n = 7), the most cited practices were related to school
gardens [14, 45, 74, 75, 79] and educational activities for sustain-
ability, including trai ning for those involved in the operationaliza-
tion of the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) [14, 68, 74,
79]. However, the studies also cited activities to reduce waste [14,
45, 75], use of local [14] and regional [62] foods, partnerships for
the development of sustainability activities (such as environmen-
tal preservation), and to encourage both the use of organic food
and to value the work of those involved in all food production [68].
Among European countries, three studies were conducted in
Spain and Italy, two in England, and one in Denmark, Finland,
and Wales. The most common practices involved were buying lo-
cal and organic food [8, 30, 47, 58, 67]. In Italy, socio-environmen-
tal criteria in hiring school food services were also mentioned
[47]. Among the European studies, practices linked to changes in
menus or portions were also identified [8, 26, 27, 52], sustainabil-
ity certification [26], waste reduction and energy and/or water
savings [26, 50], participation in a program to encourage sustain-
able eating [12, 54] , school garden [50], and practices aimed at
social sustainability (such as food donation and the use of food
from land confiscated from criminal organizations) [8, 26, 27].
On the African continent, two studies were identified in South
Africa [43, 66] and one in Ghana [63], Tanzania [78], and Kenya
[65]. The identified practices focused on activities related to
school gardens [43, 66, 78]. However, the teaching of agroforestry
practices, water-saving, and the development and adoption of a
meal planning package nutritionally balanced meals, with locally
sourced ing redients, were also identif ied in the studies [43, 63, 65].
Among Asian countries, one study was identified in Japan [35]
and one in India [72]. In Japan [35], the study demonstrated that
the reinforcement of social norms not to waste and factors related
to the planning of menus, pedagogical practices, and recycling
and composting activ ities, contr ibuted to reducing t he food waste
in schools. In India, the sustainable management of supply chai ns
was studied based on one of the companies responsible for the
school feeding program, which considers the integration of eco-
nomic and non-economic issues in the generation of value in the
supply chain [72].
In 20% of the studies (n = 10), it was impossible to identify infor-
mation about the responsibility for managing schools. Most stud-
ies were performed in public schools (64%; n = 32). Studies con-
ducted in public and private schools corresponded to 14% (n = 7),
and only one study was conducted in a private school. All stages
of the education system, including the earliest (pre-school) and
the final years (high school), were mentioned, but the stage refer-
ring to primary or elementary education was identified in most
studies (68%; n = 34). In 27.4% of the studies (n = 14), it was im-
possible to obtain this information. The studies used quantitative
(30%; n = 15), qualitative (48%; n = 24), or mixed methods (22%;
n = 11).
Identified Sustainability Practices
The environmental dimension of sustainability was identified in
all studies that cited sustainability practices (n = 50), alone (26%;
n = 13), or together with the other c onsidered dimen sions. In most
studies (44%; n = 22), it was possible to identify practices related
to the three sustai nability dimensions (environmenta l, economic,
and socia l). The combination of environmental and so cial dimen-
sions was identified in 14% of the studies (n = 7), and the environ-
ment with economic dimension in 16% (n = 8). It is important to
highlight that for identifying the sustainability dimensions, some
practices, in isolation, represented the attendance of more than
one of the mentioned dimensions. In contrast, in other cases, the
identification of different sustainability dimensions in the same
study resulted from different practices cited by the authors. Sus-
tainability practices adopted in schools are presented in Table1.
The activities were described according to the dimensions of sus-
tainability (Figure 2).
The involvement with school gardens and education activities for
sustainability represented the most commonly reported practic-
es, being identified in 36% (n = 18) [14,20,24,43,45,46,50,51,55,59
,60,61,64,66,74,75,78,79] and 28% (n = 14) [14,20,35,44,51,53,56,5
7,59,60,61,69,74,79] of t he studies, respect ively. Among the stud ies
that described the use of school gardens, 8% (n = 4) [14,45,61,75]
described the cultivation of organic foods and, in the context of
education practices for sustainability, travel field studies [59,60]
and cooking activities [14,20,44,69] were also cited.
Another frequently cited category of sustainability practices con-
cerns schools food supply initiatives. Actions to purchase or en-
courage the employment of local or short-chain foods, including
participation in programs such as “Farm to School” and “Fish to
School” were cited by 26% (n = 13) of the studies [8, 14, 24, 30, 46,
48, 59, 67, 69–71, 73, 77] and organic foods were observed in 18%
(n = 9) [8, 24, 30, 45, 47, 58, 59, 67, 68]. Participation in a sustain-
able food consumption promotion program (4%; n = 2) was also
identified [12, 54]. Although little mentioned, practices that inte-
grated socio-environmental and economic dimensions in the
contracts (4%; n = 2), the use of regional (2%; n = 1), seasonal (2%;
n = 1), and produced foods in lands confiscated from criminal
organizations, were also observed [8, 30, 47, 62, 72].
Regarding the adoption of measures to reduce waste, recycling
[35, 40–42, 46, 49, 50] and composting [24, 26, 35, 46, 49, 61, 76]
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

92
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
were the most reported, described in 14% (n = 7) of the analyzed
studies. These represent important strategies for the control of
organic and inorganic waste. Food donation was a practice identi-
fied in 10% (n = 5) of the studies [26, 27, 49, 64, 76] and food por-
tion size adjustment in 6% (n = 3) [26, 27, 35]. Sharing tables [76],
single-course menu [8], reinforcement of social norms [35], dona-
tion of food waste for animal feeding [49], team communication
to adjust the amount produced, and noise reduction in the cafete-
ria to allow a more comfortable environment [26] were also iden-
tified practices for the reduction of organic waste, to a lesser de-
gree than the others previously mentioned. Other less cited prac-
tices involving the control of non-organic waste generation were
the use of reusable devices [4 0, 45], the purchase of products in
bulk or with minimum packaging [24, 40], the use of returnable
bottles [14] , reduced use of paper [26], or the replacement of min-
eral water by filtered water [8].
The adoption of strategies that involved saving water or energy
was cited in 10% (n = 5) of the studies [26, 42, 43, 50, 61], repre-
sented by activities such as reduced use of energy, energy audits,
reduced use of water, and installing a cistern for collection rain-
water or irrigation system for water reuse.
As for menu actions, practical studies were identified as offering
vegetarian/vegan meals [24, 46, 52], reducing meat supply [25],
planning a menu that included the exposure of students to unfa-
miliar or unappreciated foods [35], and the adoption of a meal
planning package that facilitated the planning of nutritionally
balanced meals with locally sourced ingredients [63].
Although mentioned in only one study, partnerships for the de-
velopment of sustainability activities (such as environmental
preservation) and certification were also identified [26, 68].
Sustainability Recommendations in School Feeding Poli-
cies/Programs
Among the 11 policies under govern ment responsibility identif ied
in the studies that mentioned sustainability recommendations,
73% (n = 8) were national in scope, 18% (n = 2) state, and 9% (n =
1) municipal. The European continent had the highest number of
policies/programs (64%; n = 7), identified in Italy, England, Fin-
land, Spain, Sweden, and Germany [37,80,81,82,83,84,85]. School
feeding policies/programs were also identified in Brazil, Japan,
and the United States [34,86,87,88,89] (Table2).
The most mentioned aspe cts were the origin a nd type of food used
in school meals, such as organic, local or shorter transport dis-
tances, seasonal, agroecological, and sustainable [34, 37, 80–87].
Other examples cited in this category, although less frequently,
were reducing meat, inc reasing consumption of vegetables, re duc-
ing carbon emissions, typical foods, and respecting local tradi-
tions [34, 37, 82, 84, 86].
Nutrition education practices and sustainable consumption and
recommendations for reducing food waste and non-organic resi-
dues were also identified [34, 37, 80, 81, 84, 86, 88, 89]. School gar-
dens, fair trade, valuing workers involved in food production, en-
ergy reduction, and animal welfare, although observed, were less
frequent [34, 37, 80, 84, 86, 88].
Fig. 2. Identified sustainable practices in schools according to the environmental, economic, and social dimensions.
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

93
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Tab le 2. Identified Sustainability recommendations in governmental school food policies documents.
Year (Reference) Document Document Type Responsibility City/Country Identified Sustainability Recommendations
Municipality of Barcelona
(2020) [82]
This Is Not a Drill. Climate Emergency Declaration,
Barcelona.
Declaration Municipal Barcelona (Spain) Implementation and promotion of healthier and low-carbon diets in schools
through the use of seasonal, local and organic foods; reduction of animal
protein intake (especially red meat) and ultra-processed foods.
The National Food Agency
(2021) [84]
Good school meals. Guidelines for primary schools,
secondary schools, and youth recreation centers.
Guideline National Sweden Topics on menu planning (including, among others, reducing meat and
increasing vegetables, legumes, fruits, and cereals, choosing organic foods, and
observing seasonality), measures to prevent food waste, reducing energy
consumption, and transport distance.
Brazil (2009)/Brazil
(2020) [34, 86]
Law n° 11.947, from 16 June 2009/Resolution FNDE n° 06,
May 2020.
Law/Resolution National Brazil Support for sustainable development through purchasing local food from family
farming, preference for organic and agroecological food, observation of
sustainability in menu planning, and nutrition education actions, seasonality;
local traditions.
Italian Ministry of Health
(2021) [37]
National guidelines for hospital, care, and school catering
Decree 28 October 2021.
Guideline National Italy Seasonality; local, short-chain, organic, and typical foods; environmental
protection; animal welfare; local traditions; fair trade; food recovery; reduction of
food waste and non-organic residues; food education aimed at conscientious
and sustainable consumption; social and environmental criteria for contracts.
Cabinet Office Japan
(1954) [88]
School Lunch Program Act. Law National Japan Respect for nature; a positive attitude towards environmental conservation; a
sense of valuing the work of those involved in food production; food education;
generation of a correct understanding of the production, distribution, and
consumption of food.
United States Department of Agriculture
(2015) [89]
Updated Offer versus Serve Guidance for the National
School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program
Effective Beginning School Year 2015–2016.
Guidance National USA The possibility of the student refusing some of the foods offered to reduce food
waste in school feeding programs.
Santa Catarina
(2018) [87]
Law 17.504, 10 April 2018. Law/Resolution State Brazil Preference for the purchase of organic vegetables by schools, foreseeing a
gradual increase in the percentage of purchases.
National Nutrition Council
(2017) [81]
Eating and learning together–recommendations for school
meals.
Recommendations National Finland Sustainable development and environmental issues concerning food
acquisition, food choices, and waste reduction, citing, among others,
seasonality; favoring the consumption of domestic vegetables; assembly of
dishes by students; possibility of repetition.
Department for Education
(2021) [80]
School food standards practical guide. Guidance National England It recommended sustainable procurement, including the use of fresh, seasonal,
sustainable, and locally sourced ingredients, sustainable fish purchase, waste
reduction, and school gardens.
Consejo Interterritorial de Sistema
Nacional de Salud
(2010) [83]
Consensus document about food in educational centers. Consensus National Spain It informed that the possible incorporation of organic food in school lunches
might have advantages about sustainability and protection of the environment.
However, it considered no evidence to affirm that organic foods are nutritionally
better or safer.
Senate Administration
(2017) [85]
Reorganization of the school lunch at open and affiliated
all-day primary schools and for support centers in Berlin.
Handout State Berlin (Germany) The establishment of criteria for quality assessment, considered a priority about
the price when hiring school food suppliers (organic food corresponds to one of
the quality criteria).
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

94
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Regarding other non-governmental programs and initiatives (n =
5), two were identified in the United States [9 0, 91] , two were glob-
al in scope [92, 93], and one was identified in England [94]. The
set of activities obser ved in these programs involved encouraging
the purchase of local, seasonal, and sustainable food [91, 92, 94],
school gardens [91, 94], visit s to local farmers [91, 94], cook ing and
nutritional education activities [91, 94], waste reduction [90], and
specific actions for each school to train people to generate envi-
ronmental and sustainability awareness [93] (Table3).
Risk of Bias
Among the studies analyzed, 49 had a low risk of bias and 1 had
a moderate risk. All studies implemented the practices and an-
swered the main research question (Table S2—Supplementary
Materials).
Discussion
In 2019, the EAT-The Lancet Commission established universal
strategies and recommendations to achieve food system transfor-
mation, striving for human health and environmental sustain-
ability. The need to improve availability and access to healthy
foods from sustainable food systems and educate individuals on
these topics using food programs was reinforced [95]. Therefore,
the school is an opportune locus for sustainability practices. The
environmenta l, economic, and social ef fects of the actions ca rried
out in school food services and the education process will echo
both in society’s present and future.
Vegetable gardens and education activities for sustainability were
the most cited practices among the studies. School gardens are
essential tools to support community and school feeding pro-
grams by using their produce in student meals and training veg-
etable growing skills [19 ,43, 66]. However, the support of the
school administration, the availability of space and resources to
purchase tools and supplies, teacher training, the integration of
the garden into the school curriculum, sharing activities with
community members, and the presence of a coordinator to orga-
nize activities are identified as key factors in determining the re-
sults of the implementation and continuity of school gardens [66,
96, 97].
Education plays a central role in enabling students to think and
act critically on current and future global challenges, including
climate change, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss,
poverty, and inequality [16]. Therefore, the literature has strongly
recommended and ev idenced the association bet ween school gar-
dens and educational processes aimed at health, environment,
and sustainability [19, 24, 61]. Gonsalves et al. [19] emphasize the
role of school gardens “in environmental and nature education,
in local food biodiversity and conservation, food, eco-literacy, di-
ets, nutrit ion and health, and ag ricultura l education, contributing
to the search for a food system more sustainable.”
The importance of education in enabling individuals to promote
sustainable development is reaffirmed in Sustainable Develop-
ment Goal 4 (SDG 4). SDG 4 is integrated with other indivisible
goals, comprising the environmental, economic, and social di-
mensions of Agenda 2030, an action plan for people, the planet,
and prosperity [98].
In line with this purpose, schools can observe efforts to integrate
environmental education, ecological literacy, or education for
sustainability in their curricula [14, 56, 57, 60, 69]. However, a re-
cent study [99] that assessed the extent to which environmental
issues are integrated into primary and secondary education poli-
cies and curricula in 46 member states of the United Nations Ed-
ucational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
demonstrated that despite 92% of the documents making some
reference to environmental issues, the depth of this inclusion was
low. Terms such as “climate change” and “biodiversity” were ra re-
ly mentioned. What has been done is not enough to ensure that
Tab le 3. Other available non-governmental school feeding programs/initiatives retrieved from the studies.
Initiative Country Description
Food for Life Partnership (FFLP)
[94]
England A program with a whole-school approach that addresses healthy, tasty, and sustainable eating through four areas of development:
food quality, food leadership and food culture, food education, and community and partnerships. “Food quality” includes, among
other factors, the use of fresh, seasonal, local, and organic foods, meat that meets animal welfare standards, marine conservation
certified fish, and eggs from free range hens. “Nutritional education” includes the development of cooking skills, planting food and
visiting or receiving visits from farmers, in addition to ethical and environmental issues around food choices.
Eco-Schools [93] Global A global program of sustainable schools that aims to train people with an environmental and sustainability conscience. The
program is based on seven steps, the: formation of an Eco Committee (in which students play a main role) to discuss
environmental and social actions for the school, conduction of a sustainability audit, preparation, monitoring, and evaluation of the
action plan, linking of activities to the curriculum, information and involvement with the community, and production of an
ecological code that represents the school’s commitment to sustainability.
World Food Programme (WFP)’s
Home Grown School Feeding [92]
Global An initiative in which the World Food Program works with governments to develop school food policies that seek to improve
student nutrition and support the local economy through the connection between school food and local farmers.
Smarter Lunchrooms Movement (SLM)
[90]
USA The initiative generated by research in schools is used to create lunchrooms that encourage healthy food choices and reduce
waste, using a strategy with little or no cost.
Farm to School (FTS) [91] USA It connects schools and local food producers to offer fresh and healthy food to students. It is based on local food purchasing
activities, education about food, nutrition, health, agriculture, and hands-on learning activities (school gardens, including visits to
local farmers and culinary classes).
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

95
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
learning helps in confronting current global challenges. The doc-
ument recommends, among other actions, that greater emphasis
needs to be placed on env ironmental issues in education, integr at-
ing them into curricula and overcoming the focus on cognitive
knowledge, and training all teachers and school leaders in educa-
tion for sustainable development [99]. Also, considering the food
system’s environmental, economic, and social impact s, the efforts
to integrate themes involving sustainable food consumption into
educational practices a re worthy of note [1 2, 44 ]. These approach-
es are fundamental because education can increase adherence to
different sustainability practices since, although observed in this
study, many had a low frequency of realization.
The use of local or organic foods, often set by government regula-
tions, stems from concerns about students’ health, the living condi-
tions of farmer s, and the environment [34, 47, 48, 70, 100]. Initiatives
involving the use of local and organic foods were also frequently
cited among the analyzed studies [8, 14, 24, 30, 47, 58, 59, 67].
The creative food purchase policy incorporates social and envi-
ronmental criteria into the contracts, going beyond economic
considerations and encouraging the purchase of local food [33].
Examples of buying local and organic food are worldwide, as in
the Brazi lian case at the National School Feeding Program, where
the purchase of food from local farmers is a compulsory item pro-
vided in its legal framework. Organic food is preferred in public
purchases, t he standardized instr uments for this ty pe of purchase
in the country’s program [34]. Through Home Grown School
Feeding, the World Food Program (WFP) works with govern-
ments in 46 countries to develop national policies that provide
adequate food for students and ensure local development by pur-
chasing food from family farmers [92]. There are also experiences
linked to the Farm To School programs, which purchase local
food and develop educational activities related to agriculture,
food, health, and nutrition [70 , 71]. All initiatives that connect
schools to family farmers are vital because the benefits of school
meals go beyond t he boundaries of schools a nd reach family far m-
ers. These involve economic (increase in income, price support,
and inclusion in the market), social (food security, living condi-
tions, and social inclusion), and environmental (crop diversifica-
tion and greater production of organic food) aspects [31].
Reducing food wa ste and controlling non-organ ic waste represent
initiatives that must be implemented in school food services.
Studies in different parts of the world have demonstrated that
these places are major food waste generators, causing environ-
mental, economic, and social impacts [101, 102, 103, 104]. Con-
cerning non-organic waste, a study carried out in northern Colo-
rado, USA identified that factors such as the speed of the service
line, t he qual ity of food, t he cost, and the dif ficulty ma nagers have
in understanding the impact of their decisions at a systemic level,
affected the ability to reduce or recover these wastes [105].
In our systematic review, composting was the most cited practice
for reducing the generation of organic waste and recycling non-
organic waste. However, it is important to highlight that even
among the studies in which the performance of waste manage-
ment practices was cited, they were often not reported among the
participants or were reported by a minority of them [26, 40, 41,
42, 46, 49, 76], demonstrating that adopting waste reduction strat-
egies in school meals is not yet routine practice.
Among the strategies to promote the reduction of food waste, the
literature discusses the importance of integrating this theme and
the sustainability of the food system in pedagogical practices, in
addition to actions aimed at improving operations and planning,
team communication, and the involvement of students in waste
management activities [35, 102]. Food donation can represent a
successful experience to mitigate t he impacts of the production of
meals by reducing waste and serving people in vulnerable situa-
tions, wit h relatively few investments [27]. However, the main bar-
riers related to food donation and food recovery in this context
involve concerns about responsibility, cost, inconsistent food
waste, policy confusion, and the sanitary quality of food [76]. As
for non-organic waste, among other recommendations, a study
indicated that school food services could incorporate packaging
waste in purchasing processes, as they do not always control the
packaging used by manufacturers [10 5].
The adoption of some strategies related to saving water and en-
ergy was mentioned among the analyzed studies. In school feed-
ing, stud ies that reported the environmental i mpacts of the choic-
es made by food services regarding the origin and types of food
purchased (fresh or not, and from different groups, such as meat
and vegetables) demonstrated a significant contribution from
phases before the production of meals [21, 23, 106]. However, con-
sidering that during the production of meals both water and en-
ergy a re essential factors for the oper ation of the service, t he train-
ing of a school ’s employees and the monitoring of t he intended use
of these resources is necessary. Instruments created to evaluate
sustainability practices in food services, which include among
their analysis categories the rational use of energy and water, are
helpful tools in this regard [107, 108].
Environmental and health damage to the population generated by
how the food system has been operated is already well established
[109]. Two of the factors contributing to the harmful effects of this
modus operandi are meat production, especially red meat, and food
waste, which are responsible, among other factors, for a significant
emission of greenhouse gases into the environment and/or con-
sumption of freshwater [2 3, 10 6, 110 , 111]. Therefore, some practices
related to the offer of vegetarian/vegan menus, with a reduction in
the meat offering, the adequacy of the portion sizes, or the adoption
of the single-course scholar menu have been reported in the litera-
ture [8, 25–27, 35, 112]. Some instruments have been proposed to
allow the planning of more environmentally sustainable menus
based on reducing carbon and/or water footprints while addressing
nutritional, economic, and cultural dimensions [7, 113–116]. In ad-
dition, the definition of criteria for planning sustainable menus in
the context of school meals has also been described [117].
Other less ment ioned strateg ies involved using regional food s, en-
vironmenta l certif ication, and the development of part nerships to
carry out environmental preservation activities.
According to Morgan [118], “the creation of a sustainable school
foodservice is the litmus test of a country’s commitment to sus-
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

96
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
tainable development, as it involves nothing less than the health
and well-being of young people and vulnerable people”. In this
sense, several efforts were made to strengthen the role of school
feeding in achievi ng Table A1 nutritionally adequate diets for stu-
dents and meet the principles of susta inability in t he three dimen-
sions: environmental, economic, and social. However, it is note-
worthy that, despite the general premise established in the litera-
ture of the potential effects of sustainability practices in school in
mitigati ng global challenges , the wide scope of school feeding and
the variability of characteristics and challenges experienced be-
tween different regions of the globe, including different regula-
tions, economic, social, pol itical and cultural cond itions, dema nd
specific solutions, adapted to each local context.
Limitations
This review has some limitations. First, it was not possible to state
that the school feeding policies/programs that mentioned con-
cerns about sustainability were exhausted, since the policies were
Tab le A1. Full-text articles excluded, with reasons.
Author (Year) Reason for
Exclusion
Alexandre et al. (2016) [119] 2
Amarante (2016) [120] 1
Andreatta et al. (2021) [121] 4
Anton-Peset, Fernandez-Zamudio and Pina (2021) [13] 2
Batlle-Bayer et al. (2021) [122] 3
Braun et al. (2018) [123] 4
Brena (2017) [124] 3
Carvalho (2009) [125] 5
Coleman et al. (2011) [126] 1
Colombo et al. (2019) [7] 3
Colombo et al. (2020) [127] 2
Constanty (2014) [128] 4
Constanty and Zonin (2016) [129] 4
Conner et al. (2010) [130] 2
Damapong, Kongnoo and Monarumit (2013) [131] 1
Dirks (2011) [132] 3
Eich (2015) [133] 5
Ellinder et al. (2020) [113] 2
Elnakib et al. (2021) [134] 2
Colombo (2021) [135] 3
Ferderbar (2013) [136] 2
Filippini et al. (2018) [137] 5
Fitzsimmons and O‘Hara (2019) [138] 4
Franzoni (2015) [139] 4
Gaddis and Jeon (2020) [38] 1
Ghattas et al. (2020) [140] 2
Granillo-Maciías (2021) [141] 3
Green (2016) [142] 2
Gregolin et al. (2017) [143] 4
He (2013) [144] 1
Hendler, Ruiz and Oliveira (2021) [145] 3
Henry-Stone (2008) [146] 3
Hodgkinson (2011) [147] 3
Johnston et al. (2009) [148] 5
Jones (2012) [149] 5
Kipfer (2018) [150] 3
Koch (2000) [151] 2
Lalli (2020) [152] 5
Lauffer (2019) [153] 2
Lawless (2013) [154] 3
Lindgren (2020) [112] 3
Løes; Nölting (2011) [28] 1
Løes; Nölting (2009) [155] 1
McCarty (2013) [156] 2
Medina (2009) [157] 5
Melão (2012) [158] 4
Author (Year) Reason for
Exclusion
Mikkola (2010) [159] 1
Moss Gamblin (2013) [160] 5
Mosiman (2014) [161] 4
Morgan and Morley (2003) [162] 1
Morgan and Sonino (2007) [33] 1
Morgan (2008) [118] 5
Mota, Silva and Pauletto (2021) [163] 5
Muansrichai, Panyasing and Yonvanij (2015) [164] 5
Nunes et al. (2018) [165] 4
Nuutila, Risku-Norja and Arolaakso (2019) [166] 3
Orr (2020) [167] 3
Otsuki (2011) [168] 4
Padilha et al. (2018) [169] 4
Osowski and Fjellström (2018) [170] 1
Polo et al. (2017) [171] 1
Prescott et al. (2019) [172] 2
Rambing et al. (2020) [173] 5
Redman (2013) [174] 2
Resque et al. (2019) [175] 4
Ribeiro, Ceratti and Broch (2013) [176] 4
Rodrigues et al. (2020) [107] 2
Santos et al. (2014) [177] 4
Schachtner-Appel (2019) [178] 2
Scott (2011) [179] 2
Silva and Sousa (2013) [180] 4
Silva and Pedon (2015) [181] 4
Silva, Gehlen and Schultz (2016) [182] 4
Silva, Dias and Amorim (2015) [183] 4
Soares (2011) [184] 4
Soares et al. (2017) [185] 4
Solof (2014) [186] 2
Szinwelski et al. (2015) [187] 4
Trott (2017) [188] 2
Turpin (2009) [189] 4
Vasconcelos, Vieira and Rodrigues (2014) [190] 2
Valadão and Sousa (2018) [191] 1
Wade (2019) [192] 3
Wickramasinghe et al. (2016) [193] 1
Legend – Exclusion criteria: (1) Comments, letters, conferences, reviews,
abstracts, reports, undergraduate works, discussion papers, and books, (2)
studies carried out outside sch ools or in which the school was not responsible
for the action, (3) studies in which practices were not performed or studies
where activities were punctual, (4) studies focused on the supplier or that
only reported purchases, and (5) studies that did not describe sustainability
practices.
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

97
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
found in the studies reference lists that had their full text ana-
lyzed. I n addition, some of these policies , written in a non-Englis h
language, were translated through a translation platform. There-
fore, some information may have been lost due to language barri-
ers. Despite these limitations, these findings evidenced different
recommendations that reinforced the importance of actions,
which range d from the choice of sustaina ble foods to t he strengths
of nutrition and sustainable consumption practices education.
Conclusions
There is an imminent need to ensure the prosperity of nations,
anchored in the priorities of protecting the health of people and
the planet and guaranteeing adequate living conditions, reducing
social inequalities. It involves offering food in terms of education,
enabling students to make conscious choices consistent with this
need. In this sense, schools and school feeding programs have all
the necessary characteristics for developing practices that aim at
sustainability in the environmental, economic, and social dimen-
sions, given their scope and the different perspectives that can be
worked.
The present study identified sustainability recommendations in
16 governmental and non-governmental policies/programs. Rec-
ommendations for purchasing sustainable food (organic, local,
and seasonal), nutrition education focused on sustainability, and
reducing food waste were frequent.
Several sustainability practices were described in this systematic
review, such as the use of school gardens and education activities
for sustainability. Actions carried out in food services were also
mentioned, from the planning of menus and the purchase of raw
materials (mainly local and organic foods, vegetarian/vegan
menus) to the distribution of meals (especially practices to reduce
waste organics and inorganics such as composting, recycling, do-
nating food, and adjusting portion sizes).
The findings reinforce the need to stimulate managers’ views, in
their most varied spheres of power, for the priority that should be
given to this theme, so that education for sustainability is univer-
sally part of the curricula, and so that food services can equip
themselves with the knowledge and tools necessary to carry out
sustainability practices in their daily activities.
Lastly, further investigations to evaluate these practices are need-
ed to examine the evolution of their adoption and the main bar-
riers and potentialities related to their implementation. With a
specific look at the school field, assessment instruments can help
with this monitoring.
The authors would like to acknowledge the “National Council for
Scientific and Technological Development–CNPq”.
Supplementary Materials
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/ar-
ticle/10.3390/foods11020176/s1, Table S1: Databases and terms
used to search references on sustainability practices adopted in
schools; Table S2: Quality criteria of the studies selected for the
systematic review.
Author Contributions
E.B.d.S., conceptualization, investigation, methodology, writing—original
draft, writing—review and editing; D.d.C.M., investigation and methodolo-
gy; R.P.Z., data curation, formal analysis, supervision, validation and wri-
ting—review and editing; A.R., writing—review and editing, visualization,
project ad ministrat ion. R.B.A. B., data curat ion, formal ana lysis, super vision,
valid ation and writ ing—review and e diting. Al l authors have read and a greed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
No data availability.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Copyright notice
Dos Santos E B, da Costa May nard D, Zandonadi R P, Raposo A, B otelho RBA:
Sustainability Recommendations and Practices in School Feeding: A Syste-
matic Rev iew. Foods. 2022;11(2):176 (DOI: 10.3390/foods11020176) © 2022 by
the authors (R epublication, P ublisher’s Note removed), licens ed under CC BY
4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed).
1 WFP. State of School Feeding Worldwide 2020.
World Food Programme; Rome, Italy: 2020. p.
260.
2 Aurino E., Gelli A., Adamba C., Osei-Akoto I.,
Alderman H. Food for thought? Experimental
Evidence on the Learning Impacts of a Large-
Scale School Feeding Program. J. Hum. Re-
sour. 2020; 57 doi:
References
3 Jomaa L.H., McDonnell E., Probart C.
School feeding programs in developing
countries: Impacts on children’s health and
educational outcomes. Nutr. Rev. 2011; 69:
83–98. doi:
4 Metwally A.M., El-Sonbaty M.M., El Etreby
L.A., Salah El-Din E.M., Abdel Hamid N.,
Hussien H.A., Hassanin A.M., Monir Z.M. Im-
pact of National Egyptian school feeding pro-
gram on growth, development, and school
achievement of school children. World J. Pedi-
atr. 2020; 16: 393–400. doi:
5 Locatelli N.T., Canella D.S., Bandoni D.H. Pos-
itive influence of school meals on food con-
sumption in Brazil. Nutrition. 2018; 53: 140–
144. doi:
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

98
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
6 Oostindjer M., Aschemann-Witzel J., Wang Q.,
Skuland S.E., Egelandsdal B., Amdam G.V.,
Schjøll A., Pachucki M.C., Rozin P., Stein J., et
al. Are school meals a viable and sustainable
tool to improve the healthiness and sustain-
ability of children´s diet and food consump-
tion? A cross-national comparative perspec-
tive. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017; 57: 3942–
3958. doi:
7 Colombo P.E., Patterson E., Elinder L.S.,
Lindroos A.K., Sonesson U., Darmon N., Par-
lesak A. Optimizing School Food Supply: Inte-
grating Environmental, Health, Economic, and
Cultural Dimensions of Diet Sustainability
with Linear Programming. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health. 2019; 16: 3019. doi:
8 Galli F., Brunori G., Di Iacovo F., Innocenti S.
Co-Producing Sustainability: Involving Par-
ents and Civil Society in the Governance of
School Meal Services. A Case Study from Pisa,
Italy. Sustainability. 2014; 6: 1643–1666. doi:
9 WCED. Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development: Our Com-
mon Future. Oxford University Press; Oxford,
UK: 1987. p. 400.
10 United Nations Report of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Develop-
ment; Proceedings of the UN Conference on
Environment and Development; Rio de Janei-
ro, Brazil. 3–14 June 1992; p. 72.
11 Von Koerber K., Bader N., Leitzmann C.
Wholesome Nutrition: An example for a sus-
tainable diet; Proceedings of the Nutrition So-
ciety; Berlin, Germany. 20–23 October 2015;
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press;
2017. p. 34.
12 Jones M., Dailami N., Weitkamp E., Salmon
D., Kimberlee R., Morley A., Orme J. Food sus-
tainability education as a route to healthier eat-
ing: Evaluation of a multi-component school
programme in English primary schools.
Health Educ. Res. 2012; 27: 448–458. doi:
13 Antón-Peset A., Fernandez-Zamudio M.A.,
Pina T. Promoting food waste reduction at pri-
mary schools. A case study. Sustainability.
2021; 13: 600. doi:
14 Triches R.M. Promoção do consumo alimentar
sustentável no contexto da alimentação esco-
lar. Trab. Educ. Saúde. 2015; 13: 757–771. doi:
15 UNESCO UN. Decade of ESD. [(accessed on
31 December 2021)]. Available online: https: //
en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-
development/what-is-esd/un-decade-of-esd
16 UNESCO Education for Sustainable Develop-
ment. [(accessed on 25 November 2021)].
Available online: https: //en.unesco.org/
themes/education-sustainable-development
17 Wamsler C. Education for sustainability: Fos-
tering a more conscious society and transfor-
mation towards sustainability. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 2020; 21: 112–130. doi:
18 Benn J., Carlsson M. Learning through school
meals? Appetite. 2014; 78: 23–31. doi:
19 Gonsalves J., Hunter D., Lauridsen N. Agro-
biodiversity, School Gardens and Healthy
Diets: Promoting Biodiversity, Food and Sus-
tainable Nutrition. Routledge; London, UK:
2020. School gardens: Multiple functions and
multiple outcomes; p. 345.
20 Strohl C.A. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Califor-
nia; Davis, CA, USA: 2015. Scientific Literacy
in Food Education: Gardening and Cooking in
School.
21 Mistretta M., Caputo P., Cellura M., Cusenza
M.A. Energy and environmental life cycle as-
sessment of an institutional catering service:
An Italian case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;
657: 1150–1160. doi:
22 Jungbluth N., Keller R., König A. ONE TWO
WE—life cycle management in canteens to-
gether with suppliers, customers and guests.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015; 21: 646–653. doi:
23 De Laurentiis V., Hunt D.V.L., Rogers C.D.F.
Contribution of school meals to climate
change and water use in England. Energy Pro-
cedia. 2017; 123: 204–211. doi:
24 Black J.L., Velazquez C.E., Naseam A., Chap-
man G.E., Carten S., Edward J., Shulhan S.,
Stephens T., Rojas A. Sustainability and public
health nutrition at school: Assessing the inte-
gration of healthy and environmentally sus-
tainable food initiatives in Vancouver schools.
Public Health Nutr. 2015; 18: 2379–2391. doi:
25 Blondin S.A., Cash S.B., Griffin T.S., Goldberg
J.P., Economos C.D. Meatless Monday Nation-
al School Meal Program Evaluation: Impact on
Nutrition, Cost, and Sustainability. J. Hunger
Environ. Nutr. 2020: 1–13. doi:
26 Derqui B., Grimaldi D., Fernandez V. Building
and managing sustainable schools: The case of
food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 243: 118533.
doi:
27 Lagorio A., Pinto R., Golini R. Food waste re-
duction in school canteens: Evidence from an
Italian case. J. Clean. Prod. 2018; 199: 77–84.
doi:
28 Løes A.-K., Nölting B. Increasing organic con-
sumption through school meals-lessons
learned in the iPOPY project. Org. Agric.
2011; 1: 91–110. doi:
29 Maynard D.d.C., Vidigal M.D., Farage P., Zan-
donadi R.P., Nakano E.Y., Botelho R.B.A. Envi-
ronmental, Social and Economic Sustainability
Indicators Applied to Food Services: A Sys-
tematic Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12: 1804.
doi:
30 Perez-Neira D., Simón X., Copena D. Agroeco-
logical public policies to mitigate climate
change: Public food procurement for school
canteens in the municipality of Ames (Galicia,
Spain) Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021; 45:
1528–1553. doi:
31 Cervantes-Zapana M., Yagüe J.L., De Nicolás
V.L., Ramirez A. Benefits of public procure-
ment from family farming in Latin-AMERI-
CAN countries: Identification and prioritiza-
tion. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 277: 123466. doi:
32 Da Cunha W.A., de Freitas A.F., Salgado
R.J.S.F. Efeitos dos programas governamentais
de aquisição de alimentos para a agricultura
familiar em Espera Feliz, MG. Rev. Econ. Soci-
ol. Rural. 2017; 55: 427–444. doi:
33 Morgan K., Sonnino R. Empowering consum-
ers: The creative procurement of school meals
in Italy and the UK. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007;
31: 19–25. doi:
34 Brasil. Lei no 11.947, de 16 de Junho de 2009.
[(accessed on 31 December 2021)]; 2009 Avail-
able online: https: //www.fnde.gov.br/index.
php/legislacoes/institucional-leis/
item/3345-lei-n-11947-de-16-de-junho-
de-2009
35 Izumi B.T., Akamatsu R., Shanks C.B., Fujisaki
K. An ethnographic study exploring factors
that minimize lunch waste in Tokyo elementa-
ry schools. Public Health Nutr. 2020; 23: 1142–
1151. doi:
36 WFP . How School Meals Contribute to the
Sustainable Development Goals. World Food
Programme; Rome, Italy: 2017. p. 8.
37 Ministerodella Salute . Linee di Indirizzo Na-
zionale per la Ristorazione Ospedaliera, As-
sistenziale e Scolastica. Volume 1. Ministero
della Salute; Rome, Italy: 2021. pp. 1–65.
38 Gaddis J.E., Jeon J. Sustainability transitions in
agri-food systems: Insights from South Korea’s
universal free, eco-friendly school lunch pro-
gram. Agric. Human Values. 2020; 37: 1055–
1071. doi:
39 Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M.,
Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D.,
Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan
S.E., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An
updated guideline for reporting systematic re-
views. PLoS Med. 2021; 18: e1003583. doi:
40 Mann N.L. Ph.D. Thesis. Texas Woman’s Uni-
versity; Denton, TX, USA: 1991. A Decision
Model for Solid Waste Management in School
Food Service.
41 Ghiselli R.F. Ph.D. Thesis. Purdue University;
West Lafayette, IN, USA: 1993. Reusing, Re-
ducing, and Recycling Solid Waste in Indiana
School Food Service: A Cost-Effective
Approach.
42 Hackes B.L., Shanklin C.W. Factors Other than
Environmental Issues Influence Resource Al-
location Decisions of School Foodservice Di-
rectors. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1999; 99: 944–949.
doi:
43 Albertse G., Mancusi-Materi E. Children en-
suring their own food security in South Africa.
[(accessed on 31 December 2021)]; Develop-
ment. 2000 43: 105–108. doi: Available online:
44 Wadsworth K.G. Ph.D. Thesis. Columbia Uni-
versity; New York, NY, USA: 2002. A Process
and Outcome Evaluation of EarthFriends: A
Curriculum Designed to Teach Elementary
School-Aged Children to Make Environmen-
tally Sustainable Food Choices.
45 Lima E.E. Master’s Thesis. Universidade Fed-
eral de Santa Catarina; Florianópolis, Brazil:
2006. Alimentos Orgânicos na Alimentação
Escolar Pública Catarinense: Um Estudo de
Caso.
46 Vogt R.A. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Califor-
nia; Davis, CA, USA: 2006. Improving School
Nutrition with Sustainable Food Systems.
47 Sonnino R. Quality food, public procurement,
and sustainable development: The school meal
revolution in Rome. Environ. Plan. A Econ.
Space. 2009; 41: 425–440. doi:
48 Izumi B.T., Alaimo K., Hamm M.W. Farm-to-
School Programs: Perspectives of School Food
Service Professionals. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav.
2010; 42: 83–91. doi:
49 Baca J. Master’s Thesis. Texas Woman’s Univer-
sity; Denton, TX, USA: 2011. Investigating
Waste Management Programs in School Food-
service Operations.
50 Bennell S.J. Ph.D. Thesis. Bangor University;
Bangor, UK: 2012. ESDGC in Primary Schools:
Exploring Practice, Development and
Influences.
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

99
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
51 Bucher K.A. Ph.D. Thesis. Indiana University;
Bloomington, IN, USA: 2012. Sowing City
Schools: Teachers and Garden Education in
Havana and Philadelphia.
52 Lombardini C., Lankoski L. Forced Choice Re-
striction in Promoting Sustainable Food Con-
sumption: Intended and Unintended Effects of
the Mandatory Vegetarian Day in Helsinki
Schools. J. Consum. Policy. 2013; 36: 159–178.
doi:
53 O’Brien B. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Florida;
Gainesville, FL, USA: 2013. Religion, Ethics,
Nature in Secondary School Education: Ex-
ploring Religion’s Role in Sustainability
Tre nds.
54 Orme J., Matthew J., Salmon D., Weitkamp E.,
Kimberlee R. A process evaluation of student
participation in a whole school food pro-
gramme. Health Educ. 2013; 113: 168–182. doi:
55 Rilla C. Master’s Thesis. University of Southern
California; Los Angeles, CA, USA: 2013.
School Garden Design as Catalyst for Environ-
mental Education and Community Engage-
ment: Los Angeles Unified School District
Case Studies.
56 Shuttleworth J.M. Ph.D. Thesis. Columbia
University; New York, NY, USA: 2013. Teach-
ing Sustainability as a Social Issue: Learning
from Three Teachers.
57 Barnett C.M. Ph.D. Thesis. Drew University;
Madison, NJ, USA: 2014. Paradigm Shift in
Public Education: Ridge and Valley Charter
School 2000–2014.
58 He C., Mikkelsen B.E. The association between
organic school food policy and school food en-
vironment: Results from an observational
study in Danish schools. Perspect. Public
Health. 2014; 134: 110–116. doi:
59 Keller R.A. Master’s Thesis. Mills College;
Oakland, CA, USA: 2014. Fostering sustain-
ability: A qualitative interview study exploring
how educators work to cultivate nature aware-
ness in young children.
60 Bamford K. Master’s Thesis. The University of
Vermo n ; Burlington, NJ, USA: 2015. The role
of motivation and curriculum in shaping pro-
sustainable attitudes and behaviors in
students.
61 Coe M.A. Master’s Thesis. The University of
Arizona; Tucson, AZ, USA: 2015. Influential
Environments: School Gardens Impacting Ari-
zona Children’s Environmental Perspectives.
62 Fabri R.K., Proenca R.P.D.C., Martinelli S.S.,
Cavalli S.B. Regional foods in Brazilian school
meals. Br. Food J. 2015; 117: 1706–1719. doi:
63 Fernandes M., Galloway R., Gelli A., Mumuni
D., Hamdani S., Kiamba J., Quarshie K., Bhatia
R., Aurino E., Peel F., et al. Enhancing Linkag-
es Between Healthy Diets, Local Agriculture,
and Sustainable Food Systems: The School
Meals Planner Package in Ghana. Food Nutr.
Bull. 2016; 37: 571–584. doi:
64 Bareng-Antolin N. Master’s Thesis. University
of Nevada; Las Vegas, NV, USA: 2017. High
School Gardens Program across the Nation:
Current Practices, Perceived Benefits, Barriers,
and Resources.
65 Borish D., King N., Dewey C. Enhanced com-
munity capital from primary school feeding
and agroforestry program in Kenya. Int. J.
Educ. Dev. 2017; 52: 10–18. doi:
66 Laurie S.M., Faber M., Maduna M.M. Assess-
ment of food gardens as nutrition tool in pri-
mary schools in South Africa. South Afr. J.
Clin. Nutr. 2017; 30: 20–26. doi:
67 Soares P., Martínez-Mián M.A., Caballero P.,
Vives-Cases C., Davó-Blanes M.C. Local food
production for school feeding programmes in
Spain. Gac. Sanit. 2017; 31: 466–471. doi:
68 Garcia J.R.N. Master’s Thesis. Universidade Es-
tadual do Oeste do Paraná; Marechal Cândido
Rondon, Brazil: 2018. O Programa Nacional
de Alimentação Escolar como Promotor do
Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável e da Segu-
rança Alimentar e Nutricional em Marechal
Cândido Rondon—PR.
69 Huston W.G. Ph.D. Thesis. New England Col-
lege; Henniker, NH, USA: 2018. Implementing
Education for Sustainability in Rural Elemen-
tary Schools: A Collective Case Study of How
Leadership Impacts the Implementation of
Education for Sustainability in Rural Elemen-
tary Schools in Northern New England.
70 Lehnerd M.E. Ph.D. Thesis. Tufts University;
Medford, MA, USA: 2018. Investigating the
Adoption and Impact of Nutrition Incentive
and Farm to School Programs.
71 Powell L.J., Wittman H. Farm to school in Brit-
ish Columbia: Mobilizing food literacy for
food sovereignty. Agric. Human Values. 2018;
35: 193–206. doi:
72 Roy V., Charan P., Schoenherr T., Sahay B.S.
Ensuring supplier participation toward ad-
dressing sustainability-oriented objectives of
the mid-day meal supply chain: Insights from
The Akshaya Patra Foundation. Int. J. Logist.
Manag. 2018; 29: 456–475. doi:
73 Elkin S. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Ver-
mont; Burlington, NJ, USA: 2019. Compre-
hensive Farm-to-School: A Mixed-Methods
Case Study of the Classroom, Cafeteria, and
Community.
74 Lopes I.D., Basso D., Brum A.L. Cadeias
agroalimentares curtas e o mercado de alimen-
tação escolar na rede municipal de Ijuí, RS. In-
terações. 2019; 20: 543–557. doi:
75 Dos Santos A.M., Baracuhy M.P., Furtado
D.A., Leal de Morais F.T., da Silva Felix A. Im-
plementation of a project for the organic agri-
culture experience in rural schools: Climate
studies, vegetable gardens, and free-range
poultry production. J. Anim. Behav. Biometeo-
rol. 2019; 7: 66–72.
76 Prescott M.P., Grove A., Bunning M., Cun-
ningham-Sabo L. A systems examination of
school food recovery in Northern Colorado.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020; 154: 104529.
doi:
77 Virta A., Love D.C. Assessing fish to school
programs at 2 school districts in Oregon.
Health Behav. Policy Rev. 2020; 7: 557–569. doi:
78 Rector C., Afifa N.N., Gupta V., Ismail A.,
Mosha D., Katalambula L.K., Vuai S., Young T.,
Hemler E.C., Wang D., et al. School-Based Nu-
trition Programs for Adolescents in Dodoma,
Tanzania: A Situation Analysis. Food Nutr.
Bull. 2021; 42: 378–388. doi:
79 Toledo A.D. Ph.D. Thesis. Universidade de São
Paulo ; SaoPaulo, Brazil : 2021. Promoção da
Alimentação Saudável no Ambiente Escolar:
Avaliação do Programa Horta Educativa em
Escolas Estaduais de São Paulo.
80 Department for Education School Food Stan-
dards Practical Guide. [(accessed on 31 De-
cember 2021)]; Available online: https: //www.
gov.uk/government/publications/
school-food-standards-resources-for-schools
81 National Nutrition Concil. Eaten and Learning
Together—School Meal Recommendation. Na-
tional Nutrition Concil; Helsinki, Finland:
2017.
82 Ajuntament de Barcelona . Declaració d’
Emergència Climàtica. Ajuntament de Barce-
lona; Barcelona, Spain: 2020.
83 Consejo Interterritorial de Sistema Nacional
de Salud . Documento de Consenso Sobre la
Alimentacion en los Centros Educativos. Con-
sejo Interterritorial de Sistema Nacional de
Salud; Madrid, Spain: 2010.
84 The National Food Agency . National Guide-
lines for Meals at School. Preschool Class, Ele-
mentary School, High School and Leisure
Center. The National Food Agency; Uppsala,
Sweeden: 2021.
85 Senate Department for Education, Youth and
Family . Reorganization of the School Lunch at
Open and Affiliated All-Day Elementary
Schools as Well as for Support Centers in the
State of Berlin. Senate Department for Educa-
tion, Youth and Family; Berlin, Germany:
2017. p. 28.
86 Brasil. Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da
Educação. Resolução no 06, de 08 de Maio de
2020. Dispõe sobre o Atendimento da Alimen-
tação Escolar aos Alunos da Educação Básica
no Âmbito do Programa Nacional de Alimen-
tação Escolar—PNAE. [(accessed on 31 De-
cember 2021)]; 2020 Available online: https: //
www.fnde.gov.br/index.php/acesso-a-informa-
cao/institucional/legislacao/
item/13511-resolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o-
n%C2%BA-6,-de-08-de-maio-de-2020
87 Santa Catarina. Lei no 17504, de 10 de abril de
2018. Altera a ementa e o art. 1o, da Lei no
12.282, de 2002, que Dispõe Sobre o Forneci-
mento de Alimentos Orgânicos na Merenda Es-
colar nas Unidades Educacionais do Estado de
Santa Catarina. 2018. [(accessed on 31 Decem-
ber 2021)]. Available online: https: //leisestaduais.
com.br/sc/lei-ordinaria-n-17504-2018-
santa-catarina-altera-a-ementa-e-o-art-1o-da-
lei-no-12-282-de-2002-que-dispoe-sobre-o-for-
necimento-de-alimentos-organicos-na-meren-
da-escolar-nas-unidades-educacionais-do-esta-
do-de-santa-catarina
88 E-Gov Law Search. School Lunch Law. [(ac-
cessed on 31 December 2021)]; Available on-
line: https: //elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?
lawid=329AC0000000160
89 United States Department of Agriculture Offer
versus Serve Guidance for the National School
Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Pro-
gram. [(accessed on 31 December 2021)]; 2015
Available online: https: //www.fns.usda.gov/cn/
updated-offer-vs-serve-guidance-nslp-and-
sbp-beginning-sy2015-16
90 California School Nutrition Association 6
Principles of Behavioral Economics Used in
Smarter Lunchrooms|Smarter Lunchrooms
Movement. [(accessed on 24 November
2021)]. Available online: http: //www.calsna.
org/documents/events/2017Conference/
Handouts/B6WasteNot.pdf
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

100
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
91 National Farm to School Network About Farm
to School. [(accessed on 24 November 2021)].
Available online: https: //www.farmtoschool.
org/about/what-is-farm-to-school
92 WFP Home Grown School Feeding. [(accessed
on 24 November 2021)]. Available online:
https: //www.wfp.org/home-grown-
school-feeding
93 Foundation for Environmental Education Eco
Schools. [(accessed on 2 December 2021)].
Available online: https: //www.ecoschools.
global/
94 Food for Life Partnership Welcome to Food for
Life. [(accessed on 24 November 2021)].
Available online: https: //www.foodforlife.org.
uk/
95 Willett W., Rockström J., Brent L., Springmann
M., Lang T., Vermeulen S., Garnett T., Tilman
D., DeClerck F., Wood A., et al. Food in the
Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commis-
sion on healthy diets from sustainable food
systems. Lancet. 2019; 393: 447–492. doi:
96 Hoover A., Vandyousefi S., Martin B., Nikah
K., Cooper M.H., Muller A., Marty E., Dus-
walt-Epstein M., Burgermaster M., Waugh L.,
et al. Barriers, Strategies, and Resources to
Thriving School Gardens. J. Nutr. Educ.
Behav. 2021; 53: 591–601. doi:
97 Burt K.G., Luesse H.B., Rakoff J., Ventura A.,
Burgermaster M. School Gardens in the Unit-
ed States: Current Barriers to Integration and
Sustainability. Am. J. Public Health. 2018; 108:
1543–1549. doi:
98 UN General Assembly Transforming Our
Wor l d : The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable De-
velopment. [(accessed on 25 November
2021)]. Available online: https: //www.ref-
world.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html
99 UNESCO . Learn for Our Planet: A Global Re-
view of How Environmental Issues Are Inte-
grated in Education. United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization;
Paris, France: 2021. p. 50.
100 Soil Association . Food for Life: Healthy, Local,
Organic School Meals. Soil Association; Bris-
tol, UK: 2003. p. 117.
101 Pancino B., Cicatiello C., Falasconi L., Boschi-
ni M. School canteens and the food waste
challenge: Which public initiatives can help?
Waste Manag. Res. 2021; 39: 1090–1100. doi:
102 Derqui B., Fernandez V., Fayos T. Towards
more sustainable food systems. Addressing
food waste at school canteens. Appetite. 2018;
129: 1–11. doi:
103 García-Herrero L., De Menna F., Vittuari M.
Food waste at school. The environmental and
cost impact of a canteen meal. Waste Manag.
2019; 100: 249–258. doi:
104 Liu Y., Cheng S., Liu X., Cao X., Xue L., Liu G.
Plate Waste in School Lunch Programs in
Beijing, China. Sustainability. 2016; 8: 1288.
doi:
105 Palmer S., Herritt C., Cunningham-Sabo L.,
Stylianou K.S., Prescott M.P. A Systems Ex-
amination of Food Packaging and Other Sin-
gle-Use Item Waste in School Nutrition Pro-
grams. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2021; 53: 380–
388. doi:
106 González-García S., Esteve-Llorens X.,
González-García R., González L., Feijoo G.,
Moreira M.T., Leis R. Environmental assess-
ment of menus for toddlers serviced at nurs-
ery canteen following the Atlantic diet rec-
ommendations. Sci. Total Environ. 2021; 770:
145342. doi:
107 Rodrigues C.M., Bastos L.G., Cantarelli G.S.,
Stedefeldt E., Cunha D.T., de Freitas Saccol
A.L. Sanitary, nutritional, and sustainable
quality in food services of Brazilian early
childhood education schools. Child. Youth
Serv. Rev. 2020; 113: 104920. doi:
108 Maynard D.D.C., Zandonadi R.P., Nakano E.Y.,
Raposo A., Botelho R.B.A. Green Restaurants
ASSessment (GRASS): A Tool for Evaluation
and Classification of Restaurants Consider-
ing Sustainability Indicators. Sustainability.
2021; 13: 10928. doi:
109 Swinburn B.A., Kraak V.I., Allender S., Atkins
V.J., Baker P.I., Bogard J.R., Brinsden H.,
Calvillo A., De Schutter O., Devarajan R., et
al. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Under-
nutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet
Commission report. Lancet. 2019; 393: 791–
846. doi:
110 Mekonnen M.M., Hoekstra A.Y. A Global As-
sessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Ani-
mal Products. Ecosystems. 2012; 15: 401–415.
doi:
111 Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations . Food Wastage Footprint:
Impacts on Natural Resources. Food and Ag-
riculture Organization of the United Nations;
Rome, Italy: 2013.
112 Lindgren N. The political dimension of con-
suming animal products in education: An
analysis of uppersecondary student responses
when school lunch turns green and vegan.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2020; 26: 684–700. doi:
113 Elinder L.S., Colombo P.E., Patterson E., Parle-
sak A., Lindroos A.K. Successful Implemen-
tation of Climate-Friendly, Nutritious, and
Acceptable School Meals in Practice: The
OPTIMATTM Intervention Study. Sustain-
ability. 2020; 12: 8475. doi:
114 Benvenuti L., De Santis A., Santesarti F., Tocca
L. An optimal plan for food consumption
with minimal environmental impact: The
case of school lunch menus. J. Clean. Prod.
2016; 129: 704–713. doi:
115 Ribal J., Fenollosa M.L., García-Segovia P., Cle-
mente G., Escobar N., Sanjuán N. Designing
healthy, climate friendly and affordable
school lunches. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016;
21: 631–645. doi:
116 Rossi L., Ferrari M., Martone D., Benvenuti L.,
De Santis A. The Promotions of Sustainable
Lunch Meals in School Feeding Programs:
The Case of Italy. Nutrients. 2021; 13: 1571.
doi:
117 Bianchini V.U.Master’s Thesis. Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina; Florianópolis,
Brazil: 2017. Critérios de Sustentabilidade
para o Planejamento de Cardápios Escolares
no Âmbito do Programa Nacional de Ali-
mentação Escolar.
118 Morgan K. Greening the Realm: Sustainable
Food Chains and the Public Plate. Reg. Stud.
2008; 42: 1237–1250. doi:
119 Alexandre V.P., Gomes L.O.F., Silva S.U., Al-
meida G.M., Martins K.A., Monego E.T.,
Sousa L.M., Campos M.R.H. Do campo à es-
cola: Compra de alimentos da agricultura fa-
miliar pelo Programa Nacional de Alimenta-
ção Escolar em Territórios da Cidadania de
Goiás. Segurança Aliment. Nutr. 2016; 23:
1049–1064. doi:
120 Amarante E.A.L. Undergraduate Thesis. Uni-
versisdade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná;
Marechal Cândido Rondon, Brazil: 2016.
Caracterização da Comercialização de Ali-
mentos Através do Programa Nacional de
Alimentação Escolar-PNAE-no Município de
Marechal Cândido Rondon-PR Como Estra-
tégia para Promover a Sustentabilidade nos
Empreendimentos da Agricultura Familiar.
Final paper.
121 Andreatta T., Martins R., Camara S.B., Gelatti
E. Efetividade do Programa Nacional de Ali-
mentação Escolar sob a perspectiva dos agri-
cultores familiares do município de Panambi-
RS. Agric. Fam. Pesqui. Formação Desenvolv.
2021; 15: 135–155. doi:
122 Batlle-Bayer L., Bala A., Aldaco R., Vidal-
Monés B., Colomé R., Fullana-I-Palmer P. An
explorative assessment of environmental and
nutritional benefits of introducing low-car-
bon meals to Barcelona schools. Sci. Total
Environ. 2021; 20: 143879. doi:
123 Braun C.L., Rombach M., Häring A.M., Bitsch
V. A Local Gap in Sustainable Food Procure-
ment: Organic Vegetables in Berlin’s School
Meals. Sustainability. 2018; 10: 4245. doi:
124 Breña G.M. Master’s Thesis. Northern Arizona
University; Flagstaff, AZ, USA: 2017. The
Garden Talks: Cultivating Desire for Garden
Education at Killip Elementary School.
125 Carvalho D.G. Master’s Thesis. Universidade
de Brasília; Brasília, Brazil: 2009. O Programa
Nacional de Alimentação Escolar e a sustent-
abilidade: O caso do Distrito Federal.
126 Coleman K.J., Shordon M., Caparosa S.L., Po-
michowski M.E., Pasadena C., Dzewaltowski
D.A., Manhattan K. Obesity. Volume 19.
Wiley Online Library; Hoboken, NJ, USA:
2012. Changing nutrition policies and envi-
ronments in low-income schools using im-
plementation models: The healthy options
for nutrition environments in schools
(ONES) intervention; p. 124.
127 Colombo P.E., Patterson E., Lindroos A.K.,
Parlesak A., Elinder L.S. Sustainable and ac-
ceptable school meals through optimization
analysis: An intervention study. Nutr. J. 2020;
19: 61. doi:
128 Constanty H.F.P.-H. Master’s Thesis. Universi-
dade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná; Marechal
Cândido Rondon, Brazil: 2014. Contri-
buições do PNAE na Sustentabilidade dos
Agricultores Familiares: O Caso do Mu-
nicípio de Marechal Cândido Rondon.
129 Constanty H.F.P.-H., Zonin W.J. Programa Na-
cional de Alimentação Escolar (PNAE) e sus-
tentabilidade: O caso do município de
Marechal Cândido Rondon. Desenvolv. Meio
Ambient. 2016; 36: 371–392. doi:
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

101
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
130 Conner D.S., Abate G., Liquori T., Hamm
M.W., Peterson H.C. Prospects for more
healthful, local, and sustainably produced
food in school meals. J. Hunger Environ.
Nutr. 2010; 5: 416–433. doi:
131 Damapong S.N., Kongnoo W., Monarumit P.
Lesson learned: Improvement of food quality
in school and child development center for
sustainable child nutrition; Proceedings of
the 20th International Congress of Nutrition;
Granada, Spain. 15–20 September 2013;
Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG; 2013. p.
1073.
132 Dirks K.J.Master’s Thesis. Iowa State Universi-
ty; Ames, IA, USA: 2011. Sowing Seeds for
Learning: A Case Study of a School Garden
in Pocahontas, Iowa.
133 Eich A.B. Percepções: Agricultura familiar e
políticas públicas para alimentação escolar no
município de São Paulo das Missões-RS. Di-
reitos Sociais Políticas Públicas. 2015; 3:
22–44.
134 Elnakib S.A., Quick V., Mendez M., Downs S.,
Wackowski O.A., Robson M.G. Food Waste
in Schools: A Pre-/Post-Test Study Design
Examining the Impact of a Food Service
Training Intervention to Reduce Food Waste.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18:
6389. doi:
135 Colombo P.E. Ph.D. Thesis. Karolinska Institu-
tet; Stockholm, Sweden: 2021. Optimizing
school meals today: A pathway to sustainable
dietary habits tomorrow.
136 Ferderbar C.A. Ph.D. Thesis. Cardinal Stritch
University; Glindale, CA, USA: 2013. The Ef-
fects of In-Nature and Virtual-Nature Field
Trip Experiences on Proenvironmental Atti-
tudes and Behaviors, and Environmental
Knowledge of Middle School Students.
137 Filippini R., De Nonib I., Corsia S., Spigarolo
R., Bocchi S. Sustainable school food pro-
curement: What factors do affect the intro-
duction and the increase of organic food?
Food Policy. 2018; 76: 109–119. doi:
138 Fitzsimmons J., O’Hara J.K. Market Channel
Procurement Strategy and School Meal Costs
in Farm-to-School Programs. Agric. Resour.
Econ. Rev. 2019: 1–26. doi:
139 Franzoni G.B. Master’s Thesis. Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; Porto Alegre,
Brazil: 2015. Inovação social e tecnologia so-
cial: O caso da cadeia curta de agricultores
familiares e a alimentação escolar em Porto
Alegre/RS.
140 Ghattas H., Choufani J., Jamaluddine Z., Mas-
terson A.R., Sahyoun N.R. Linking women-
led community kitchens to school food pro-
grammes: Lessons learned from the Healthy
Kitchens, Healthy Children intervention in
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Public
Health Nutr. 2020; 23: 914–923. doi:
141 Granillo-Macías R. Logistics optimization
through a social approach for food distribu-
tion. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 2021; 76: 100972.
doi:
142 Green S. Master’s Thesis. Iowa State Universi-
ty; Ames, IA, USA: 2016. Using a Pen Pal
Program to Assess Student Learning through
Culture and School Gardens.
143 Gregolin G.C., Gregolin M.R.P., Triches R.M.,
Zonin W.J. Política pública e sustentabilidade:
Possibilidade de interface no Programa Na-
cional de Alimentação Escolar-PNAE. Eman-
cipação. 2017; 17: 199–216.
144 He C. Assessment of the impact of organic
school meals to improve the school food en-
vironment and children’s awareness of
healthy eating habits; Proceedings of the 20th
International Congress of Nutrition; Grana-
da, Spain. 15–20 September 2013; Basel,
Switzerland: S. Karger AG; 2013. p. 840.
145 Hendler V.M., Ruiz E.N.F., Oliveira L.D. de So-
ciobiodiversidade na escola, promoção da
saúde, da sustentabilidade e da cultura: Um
movimento em construção no município de
Mostardas/RS. Agric. Fam. Pesqui. Formação
Desenvolv. 2021; 15: 115–134.
146 Henry-Stone L.R. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Alaska Fairbanks; Fairbanks, AK, USA: 2008.
Cultivating Sustainability through Participa-
tory Action Research: Place-Based Education
and Community Food Systems in Interior
Alaska.
147 Hodgkinson T.M. Ph.D. Thesis. The University
of Iowa; Iowa City, IA, USA: 2011. Translat-
ing Sustainability: The Design of a Secondary
Charter School.
148 Johnston Y., Denniston R., Morgan M., Bor-
deau M. Rock on Cafe: Achieving Sustainable
Systems Changes in School Lunch Programs.
Health Promot. Pract. 2009; 10: 100S–108S.
doi:
149 Jones P.K. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Califor-
nia; Santa Cruz, CA, USA: 2012. The City
Feeds the Poor: The Struggle for Sustainable
Food Systems in San Francisco.
150 Kipfer H.J. Ph.D. Thesis. West Virginia Univer-
sity; Morgantown, WV, USA: 2018. Gaining
Consensus on Implementation, Sustainabili-
ty, and Benefits of School Garden Program-
ming in Washington, D.C.
151 Koch P.A. Ph.D. Thesis. Columbia University;
New York, NY, USA: 2000. A comparison of
two nutrition education curricula: Cook-
shops and food & environment lessons.
152 Lalli G.S. School meal time and social learning
in England. Camb. J. Educ. 2020; 50: 57–75.
doi:
153 Lauffer B. Ph.D. Thesis. University of South
Carolina; Columbia, SC, USA: 2019. Educa-
tion for Sustainability: The Effectiveness of a
Place Based Environmental Education Unit
in Food Waste Reduction on the Environ-
mental Awareness of Fourth Grade Students.
154 Lawless T.H. Ph.D. Thesis. Arizona State Uni-
versity; Tempe, AZ, USA: 2013. Harnessing
the Impact of Schools: New Insights for Sus-
tainable Community Development.
155 Løes A.-K., Nölting B. Organic school meal
systems–towards a more sustainable nutri-
tion. Agron. Res. 2009; 7: 647–653.
156 McCarty C.A. Master’s Thesis. University of
Alaska Anchorage; Anchorage, AK, USA:
2013. Alaskan Adolescent Nutrition Project.
157 Medina J.L. Master’s Thesis. University of
Texas; Austin, TX, USA: 2009. A Dose-Re-
sponse Analysis of a School-Based Nutrition
Intervention in Middle School Children.
158 Melão I.B. Produtos sustentáveis na alimenta-
ção escolar: O PNAE no Paraná Cad.
IPARDES Estud. Pesqui. 2012; 2: 87–105.
159 Mikkola M. Role of Public Catering and Use of
Organic Food in Educational Contexts: Cre-
ating Centres for Sustainable Food Systems.
Bioforsk Organic Food and Farming;
Tingvoll, Norway: 2010.
160 Moss Gamblin M.K. Ph.D. Thesis. University
of Toronto; Toronto, ON, Canada: 2013.
(Kate) Becoming a Sustainability Chef: An
Empirical Model of Sustainability Perspec-
tives in Educational Leaders.
161 Mosimann E.N. Master’s Thesis. Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina; Florianópolis,
Brazil: 2014. Agricultura familiar e alimenta-
ção escolar nas encostas da serra geral de
Santa Catarina: Desafios e potencialidades.
162 Morgan K.J., Morley A. School Meals: Healthy
Eating and Sustainable Food Chains. Regen-
eration Institute, Cardiff University; Cardiff,
UK: 2003.
163 Mota J.S., Silva D.W., Pauletto D. A inserção de
produtos da Sociobiodiversidade na alimen-
tação escolar no município de Santarém, PA.
Agric. Fam. Pesqui. Formação Desenvolv.
2021; 15: 92–114. doi:
164 Muansrichai S., Panyasing S., Yonvanij S.
Learning and practicing in accordance with
the sufficiency economy philosophy of third
grade primary students in the local northeast
socio-culural context of Thailand. Int. J.
Appl. Bus. Econ. Res. 2015; 13: 4605–4619.
165 Nunes E.M., Morais A.C., Aquino J.R., Gurgel
I.A. O Programa Nacional de Alimentação
Escolar (PNAE) como política de inclusão na
agricultura familiar do Nordeste do Brasil.
Rev. Grifos. 2018; 45: 114–139. doi:
166 Nuutila J., Risku-Norja H., Arolaakso A. Public
kitchen menu substitutions increase organic
share and school meal sustainability at equal
cost. Org. Agric. 2019; 9: 117–126. doi:
167 Orr E. Master’s Thesis. University of Rhode Is-
land; Kingston, RI, USA: 2020. Sustainable
Waste Management in Schools.
168 Otsuki K. Sustainable partnerships for a green
economy: A case study of public procure-
ment for home-grown school feeding. Nat.
Resour. Forum. 2011; 35: 213–222. doi:
169 Padilha N., Corbari F., Zanco A.M., Canqueri-
no Y.K., Alves A.F. The contribution of PNAE
to sustainable rural development in the mu-
nicipality of Pitanga—PR. Braz. J. Dev. 2018;
4: 4351–4365.
170 Osowski C.P., Fjellström C. Understanding the
ideology of the Swedish tax-paid school meal.
Health Educ. J. 2019; 78: 388–398. doi:
171 Polo Galante A., Mireles M., Kiamba J., Mama-
doultaibou A., Sablah M., Boitshepo G.,
Sanou D. Innovative home grown school
feeding linked to family farming: FAO school
food and nutrition approach in sub-Saharan
Africa; Proceedings of the 21st International
Congress of Nutrition; Buenos Aires, Argen-
tina. 15–20 October 2017; Basel, Switzerland:
Karger; 2017. p. 747.
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023

102
DOI: 10.1159/000526379
Komp Nutr Diet 2022;2:83–102
172 Prescott M.P., Burg X., Metcalfe J.J., Lipka A.E.,
Herritt C., Cunningham-Sabo L. Healthy
Planet, Healthy Youth: A Food Systems Edu-
cation and Promotion Intervention to Im-
prove Adolescent Diet Quality and Reduce
Food Waste. Nutrients. 2019; 11: 1869. doi:
173 Rambing D.R., Wahyuni C.U., Isfandiardi
M.A., Ssekalembe G. Teachers’ interpretation
and behavior in conducting a Clean and
Healthy Lifestyle Program at elementary
schools in Kediri District. Eur. J. Mol. Clin.
Med. 2020; 7: 3966–3976.
174 Redman E. Ph.D. Thesis. Arizona State Uni-
versity; Tempe, AZ, USA: 2013. Develop-
ment, Implementation, and Evaluation of
Sustainability Education through the Integra-
tion of Behavioral Science into Pedagogy and
Practice.
175 Resque A.G.L., Coudel E., Piketty M.-G.,
Cialdella N., Sá T., Piraux M., Assis W., Page
C. Le Agrobiodiversity and Public Food Pro-
curement Programs in Brazil: Influence of
Local Stakeholders in Configuring Green
Mediated Markets. Sustainability. 2019; 11:
1425. doi:
176 Ribeiro A.L.d.P., Ceratti S., Broch D.T. Pro-
grama Nacional de Alimentação Escolar
(PNAE) e a participação da agricultura famil-
iar em municípios do Rio Grande do Sul.
[(accessed on 7 December 2021)]; Rev. Gede-
con. Rev. Gestão Desenvolv. Context. 2013 1
Available online: http: //revistaeletronica.uni-
cruz.edu.br/index.php/GEDECON/article/
view/282
177 Santos F., Fernandes P.F., Rockett F.C., de
Oliveira A.B.A. Evaluation of the inclusion of
organic food from family-based agriculture
in school food in municipalities of rural ter-
ritories of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Bra-
zil. Cien. Saude Colet. 2014; 19: 1429–1436.
doi:
178 Schachtner-Appel A.E. Ph.D. Thesis. Universi-
ty of Maryland; College Park, MD, USA:
2019. Design, Implementation, and Evalua-
tion of a Mindfulness Focused Nutrition Pro-
motion Program to Balance USDA School
Nutrition Goals with Food Waste Reduction
in Elementary Schools.
179 Scott R.A. Master’s Thesis. Prescott College;
Prescott, AZ, USA: 2011. The Nested Systems
of Sustainability Education: Charting a Path-
way to Ecological Learning.
180 Silva A.P.F., de Sousa A.A. Organic foods from
family farms in the National School Food
Program in the State of Santa Catarina, Bra-
zil. Rev. Nutr. 2013; 26: 701–714. doi:
181 Silva A.B., Pedon N.R. Reprodução do campes-
inato através de políticas públicas voltadas
para a agricultura familiar: A dinâmica do
Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar
(PNAE) em Ourinhos-SP. Rev. Nera. 2015; 18:
92–109. doi:
182 Silva D.W., Gehlen I., Schultz G. Family farm,
public policies and citizenship: Connections
built from the operation of the program na-
tional school feeding. Redes. 2016; 21: 121–
145. doi:
183 Silva M.G., Dias M.M., Amorim Junior P.C.G.
Mudanças Organizacionais em Empreendi-
mentos de Agricultura Familiar a partir do
Acesso ao Programa Nacional de Alimenta-
ção Escolar. Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural. 2015; 53:
289–304. doi:
184 Soares P. Master’s Thesis. Universidade Federal
de Santa Catarina; Florianópolis, Brazil:
2011. Análise do programa de aquisição de
alimentos na alimentação escolar em um mu-
nicípio de Santa Catarina.
185 Soares P., Martinelli S.S., Melgarejo L., Cavalli
S.B., Davó-Blanes M.C. Using local family
farm products for school feeding pro-
grammes: Effect on school menus. Br. Food J.
2017; 119: 1289–1300. doi:
186 Solof L.E. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of San
Francisco; San Francisco, CA, USA: 2014.
Bay Area Student Involvement in the Envi-
ronmental and Food Justice Movements: A
Narrative of Motivations, Experiences, and
Community Impact.
187 Sziwelski N.K., Teo C.R.P.A., Gallina L.d.S.,
Grahl F., Filippi C. Programa Nacional de Al-
imentação Escolar (PNAE) [National School
Feeding Program] implications in the income
and organization of family farmers. Rev. Bras.
Políticas Públicas. 2015; 5: 220–239.
188 Trott C.D. Ph.D. Thesis. Colorado State Uni-
versity; Fort Collins, CO, USA: 2017. Engag-
ing Key Stakeholders in Climate Change: A
Community-Based Project for Youth-Led
Participatory Climate Action.
189 Turpin M.E. A Alimentação Escolar como
Fator de Desenvolvimento Local por meio do
Apoio aos Agricultores Familiares. Segurança
Aliment. Nutr. 2009; 16: 20–42. doi:
190 Vasconcelos M.G., Vieira S.S., Rodrigues
V.W.B. Utilização de boas práticas de cultivo
e manejo de hortaliças para uma alimentação
escolar saudável. Rev. Extensão. 2014; 13: 61–
69. doi:
191 Valadão W.B., de Sousa J.M.M. O PNAE em
Viçosa-MG: Reflexões sobre a interface entre
a produção e comercialização de alimentos
advindos da agricultura familiar e a agroeco-
logia; Proceedings of the VI Congresso Lati-
no-Americano de Agroecologia; X Congresso
Brasileiro de Agroecologia; V Seminário de
Agroecologia do Distrito Federal e Entorno;
Brasília, Brazil. 12–15 September 2017; Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil: Cadernos de Agroecologia;
2018.
192 Wade S.A. Ph.D. Thesis. Grand Canyon Uni-
versity; Phoenix, AZ, USA: 2019. Exploring
the Influence of Agriculture Lessons on the
Agricultural Knowledge and Beliefs of 4th
Grade Students.
193 Wickramasinghe K.W., Scarborough P.,
Townsend N., Goldacre M., Rayner M. Esti-
mating the changes in nutritional quality and
environmental impact of primary school
meals if all meals met the new school food
plan standards in England; Proceedings of
the World Congress of Cardiology & Cardio-
vascular Health; Mexico City, Mexico. 4–7
June 2016; Geneva, Switzerland: Global
Heart; 2016. p. e128.
Downloaded from http://karger.com/knd/article-pdf/2/2/83/3752069/000526379.pdf by guest on 07 August 2023