Types of identified restrictions: Age of sale; location-based restrictions for sale or use.

What we know: Limited research has evaluated the efficacy of energy drink policies including sales-related bans and restrictions (Rostami et al., 2024).

Examples of implementation: There are complete bans on sales of energy drinks in Turkey and Denmark. Age of sale restrictions are present in Sweden, UK and Hungary with prohibited sales to under 15s, under 16s and under 18s, respectively. Location-based restrictions on energy drinks are enacted in Norway, where you can only purchase them through pharmacies.

Types of identified activities: Collaboration with local food policy groups to deliver awareness building of local food poverty and resource dissemination through emergency relief or relevant local services. Activities included education programmes, media campaigns and training for housing workers and care workers.

What we know: Evaluation of the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership's initiatives reported increased consumer knowledge about where to purchase local foods, the benefits of local food and knowledge and access to relevant local services (Godrich et al., 2023) The Montgomery County Food Policy Council (Georgia, USA) reported increased utilisation of their food relief services following an educational campaign (275% increase over initial projections) (see Montgomery County Food Policy Council et al., (2021) in Godrich et al., 2023).

Examples of implementation: The 'Sugar Smart' campaign from Sustain and Sustainable Food Cities (now Sustainable Food Places) in partnership with Brighton and Hove Food Partnership sought to reduce overconsumption of sugar. One of the included components was called 'Taste Adventures', which involved children receiving stamps for trying new foods presented by local producers (Godrich et al., 2023).

Types of initiatives identified: Urban beekeeping pilot projects; devoting public lands to urban farms and gardens in perpetuity; retrofitting affordable housing developments with community gardens; providing public storage, transport, and aggregation options for urban farmers; co-design rooftop gardens with residents in social housing complexes; edible garden beds at train stations and other public facilities to be maintained by communities and neighbourhood groups; backyard gardens; plots in community gardens or green spaces.

What we know: Residential and community gardening initiatives have been shown to improve food security and access to fresh produce and offset significant percentages of household fresh produce expenditure (Siegner et al., 2018). Household and community gardens, in some urban contexts, have been shown to be unevenly distributed and correlate with patterns of gentrification, with these gardening initiatives not occurring within low-income communities and urban-core areas (see Taylor and Lovell, 2012, in Siegner et al., 2018).

Examples of implementation: Barbour et al., (2022) (see supplementary material 6) has a comprehensive list of local government policies and programmes for facilitating healthy and sustainable food practices including local resident and community garden programmes and initiatives. For example, Paris (France) has a 'Green Hand' Charter to establish more community gardens on publicly-owned lands, with the purpose of food provision as well as therapeutic purposes, social bonding and integration and education. Dakar (Senegal) developed a 'micro-gardens' programme, which involves developing gardens on standing tables using recycled materials. The project is supported by training and demonstration centres and train-the-train education models and targets vulnerable populations like women, young people, elderly, disabled and those in care homes and prisons. This project has reported association with increased fruit and vegetable consumption among target populations, improved access to food and opportunities for social cohesion and income development (Barbour et al., 2022).

Types of identified initiatives: Commercial vertical or rooftop farms; repurpose publicly-owned land for urban agriculture activities; allocate urban garden plots for people experiencing disadvantage; integration of circular economy principles with composting and soil management to urban agriculture initiatives; use urban agriculture to supply local residents, public facilities and residents; develop code of management to ensure public access and conditions of food production within urban agriculture initiatives; use public funds for urban agriculture infrastructure, materials and tools.

What we know: Urban agriculture initiatives are a positive source of increased food production and appear to reduce food insecurity and undernutrition (Burgaz et al., 2023). These initiatives also are associated with positive climate effects including nitrogen fixation, energy savings, pollination, climate regulation, soil formation and biological control of pests. Theoretical mapping analyses suggest that urban and peri-urban farms can meet significant amounts of food demand within urban centres, with estimates from the US context suggesting urban agriculture expansion on public lands could meet 5-10% of city vegetable depend in Oakland, 30% of seasonal vegetable demand in Detroit and 100% of nutritional needs in South-eastern Minnesota (Siegner et al., 2018). Commercial urban agriculture approaches risk negative equity impacts, as their fresh produce is often unaffordable to low income households and are sold at a premium to restaurants and grocery stores (Siegner et al., 2018).

Examples of implementation: Commercial vertical and/or rooftop farms have been developed in several cities across the US including Gotham Greens (New York City, NY); Plenty (San Francisco, CA) Higher Ground Farm (Boston, MA); and Freight Farms or Aero Farms (various locations). US cities with policies for regulating and/or promoting urban agriculture include the following: Baltimore, Somerville, Detroit, Portland, Madison, Seattle, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, Austin, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Boston, and Chicago (Siegner et al., 2018).

What we know: Universal free school meals and/or breakfast programmes have shown positive effects for improving nutrition and/or reducing undernutrition and reducing nutrition inequalities (Burgaz et al., 2023).

Examples of implementation: A Food Policy Group in Nevada (USA) was able to successfully advocate for a funded mandate requiring schools to provide eligible students with free or reduced-price breakfast within school hours ('Breakfast after the Bell' model) (Godrich et al., 2023). The Brighton and Hove Food Partnership (UK) has helped increase availability and use of school meal provisions and promote and expand 'Chomp' holiday lunch clubs in local primary schools (Godrich et al., 2023).