Further details of actions: Procurement policies that involve sourcing organic and/or locally produced foods from local family farms and food producers for school feeding programmes.

What we know: The beneficial effects of investing in local procurement and distribution such as via family farms can be seen in improvements to school feeding programmes and food service in public facilities (Barbour et al., 2022; Godrich et al., 2023; Danielli et al., 2021; Chaves et al., 2023). The integration of family farming and locally produced and procured foods into school feeding programmes has been linked to increased purchasing and consumption of fruits and vegetables, decreased consumption of ultra-processed foods, higher perceptions of food quality than that of non-local products (i.e., taste and freshness), greater acceptance by school communities and association with care for the environment and sustainability (Chaves et al., 2023). Encouraging and enabling the procurement of local foods for school feeding programmes can have additional wins for the environment by shortening the local food supply chain, which reduces the need for transportation and subsequently reduces carbon emissions (Chaves et al., 2023). These programmes can also have positive cost-benefit ratios, given their potential for multisectoral return (Chaves et al., 2023).

Examples of implementation: Within Latin American countries, there have been pilot programmes for 'Sustainable Schools' which implement school meal programmes with a increased variety of foods from local small farmers (Chaves et al., 2023). The Family Farming programme in Brazil requires 30% of Brazilian government funding to procure food directly from local family farms and this programme has been associated with increased nutritional quality of school meals (Barbour et al., 2022). The 'Good Food Purchasing Policy' in Los Angeles County (California, USA) established procurement guidelines based on five key values (i.e., Local Economies, Environmental Sustainability, Valued Workforce, Animal Welfare and Nutrition) and resulted in redirecting at least $10 million for produce purchasing from local growers, establishing at least 200 new, well-paid food chain jobs and improved wages and working conditions for 160+ truck drivers within the local supply chain (see Lo and Delwiche 2016 in Godrich et al., 2023).

Types of identified policies: require a proportion of funds to be spent on seasonal, organic agricultural products from local family farms, with employment conditions which adhere to international labour standards; establish a tender process with criteria for applicants to demonstrate their ability to minimise health and environmental impact; waste minimisation, local and organic procurement, meat labelling (e.g. origin, delivered within 4 d of packaging), free-range eggs with adequate traceability, menu design to prioritise meat-free options and tailor to seasonal offerings, preference for fresh over frozen fish, prioritise suppliers who deliver goods with reusable packaging;  promote equitable forms of dialogue with farmers/producers; Food Policy Groups help facilitate partnership programmes between farmers and local businesses and public facilities.

What we know: The beneficial effects of investing in local procurement and distribution can be seen in improvements food service in public facilities (Barbour et al., 2022; Godrich et al., 2023; Danielli et al., 2021; Chaves et al., 2023). Procurement policies that connect local producers with public facilities and integrate the sourcing of locally produced, healthy foods can have win-win effects for health and the environment by increasing access to local, high-quality fruits and vegetables, strengthening positions of local producers within the local food system and shortening supply chains (and thus produced carbon emissions (Chaves et al., 2023; Godrich et al., 2023).

Examples of implementation: A city-wide healthy vending policy was identified in Carson, Nevada (USA) by Danielli et al., (2021) but evidence of efficacy was not reported on. The 'Good Food Purchasing Policy' in Los Angeles County (California, USA) established procurement guidelines based on five key values (i.e., Local Economies, Environmental Sustainability, Valued Workforce, Animal Welfare and Nutrition) and resulted in redirecting at least $10 million for produce purchasing from local growers, establishing at least 200 new, well-paid food chain jobs and improved wages and working conditions for 160+ truck drivers within the local supply chain (see Lo and Delwiche 2016 in Godrich et al., 2023).

Types of identified approaches: Increasing food and beverage outlets in food deserts; access to fresh food via farmers markets and food co-ops in communities; acceptance of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT/food stamps) at farmers markets; offering fresh produce in corner stores; improving food/water supply in underserved community settings; nudge strategies in food retail and service outlets to encourage purchase of healthier products; nudge strategies to encourage swaps to healthier products; mobile ’Green Cart’ vendors selling only fruits and vegetables in more deprived neighbourhoods.

What we know: Overall, geographic access interventions have mixed effects. While actions such as increasing the number of grocery stores, expanding the availability of fresh produce at convenience stores and/or acceptance of welfare-based payments at farmers markets may widen access to healthier foods, there is limited evidence showing impacts on purchasing and consumption behaviours and health outcomes (Danielli et al., 2021; Mah et al., 2019; Burgaz et al., 2023; Siegner et al., 2018). Danielli et al., (2021) suggests that the impacts of poverty and affordability are more significant factors to overcome, citing a study that stated that making the same healthy food available to poorer communities as in wealthier communities would only address 10% of the real issue at hand (see Allcott et al., 2019 in Danielli et al., 2021). Similarly, Siegner et al., (2018) notes that focusing on availability alone "does not address historical underinvestment patterns and underlying structural causes of food insecurity" and that this approach "oversimplifies the solutions landscape" (p. 6).

Examples of implementation: The implementation of small neighbourhood groceries and mobile markets within US communities in Oakland (California), San Francisco (California), Erie County (New York) and New Orleans (Louisiana) had promising effects for expanding access to fresh produce, but potential inequitable effects due to uneven distribution of the outlets and a lack of cultural appropriate foods to all minority groups (see Short, Guthman and Raskin 2007 in Siegner et al., 2018). The GrowNYC's Greenmarket program helped to mainstream the acceptance of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT or food stamps payments at farmers markets as a prerequisite for making these places accessible to low-income customers, with several farmers markets across all 50 US states now accepting food stamps and some states (Oregon, Massachusetts, Michigan, California, Washington, Illinois and New York) aiming to match EBT funds to help improve accessibility to farmers markets (Siegner et al., 2018). Adams County Food Policy Council was instrumental in getting its local famers market's organisational policy to change to accept EBT payments and established a 'healthy options' programme which provided vouchers to low-income groups for use at the local farmers markets (Godrich et al., 2023).

Definition: Signposting involves highlighting healthier (or less healthy) menu options available to customers. Signposting is different from calorie labelling as there is usually an indicator of 'healthfulness' provided rather than simply nutritional information (Hillier-Brown et al., 2017a).

Types of identified approaches: signposting; signposting plus menu changes; signposting plus health promotion and social marketing campaigns.

What we know: Mixed effects were reported for signposting strategies within food outlets , with challenges around pinpointing the independent effects of signposting-alone when combination approaches were used (Hillier-Brown et al., 2017a). While sign-posting only approaches generally had mixed or null effects, strategies involving signposting and other interventions (e.g., menu changes; health promotion; social marketing campaigns) showed positive effects (e.g., decreased sales of unhealthy items; or increased sales of healthier items) when from cited moderate/strong quality studies and no or mixed effects from cited weaker-quality studies (Hillier-Brown et al., 2017a). In terms of outcomes related to food-outlets, one cited study of a social campaign with food outlets to encourage the addition and/or signposting of healthier options was associated with participating food outlets distributing health education materials (94% of 16 outlets), introducing and/or promoting healthier side options (81%) or healthier main meal options (50%).

Examples of implementation: In Baltimore (USA), the promotion of healthier options through phased implementation of menu revision/labelling, promotion and increased availability of healthy sides and beverages and promotion of healthy, affordable combination meals, was associated with significant increases in healthy food sales (Danielli et al., 2021).

Types of identified media campaigns: Targeting the reduction of certain unhealthy foods/beverages (sugary drinks) or ingredients (e.g., saturated fat, sodium); encouraging consumption of healthful foods (fruits and vegetables); promoting healthful practices (e.g., breastfeeding, physical activity); and promoting local health promotion opportunities (leisure-centre campaigns).

What we know: Community-wide health promoting media campaigns had mixed effects. Health promoting media campaigns are popular and can be cost-effective (Singh et al., 2018; McKinnon et al., 2016) and have small short-term positive effects, but these benefits may lessen over time with less known about long-term effects (Hyseni et al., 2017). Culturally-adapted and targeted media campaigns were suggested to be more effective than a universal campaign for reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among Indigenous populations (Browne et al., 2020). Health promotion campaigns were more likely to be effective when implemented alongside structural changes to the food environment and higher levels of community involvement (Browne et al., 2020).