What we know: Mandatory labelling requirements have commonly led to product reformulation and nutritional content changes such as decreased calorie count and reduced levels of sodium and saturated fats within menu items (Sofía Rincón-Gallardo Patiño et al., 2020; Musicus et al., 2020), but these changes have not necessarily extended to positive changes in nutritional/calorie content of children’s menu items nor portion sizes, with a local example in Kings County, Washington (USA) actually seeing a decrease in availability of reduced portions following implementation of menu labelling regulation (Sofía Rincón-Gallardo Patiño et al., 2020). Mixed effects were also seen for mandatory labelling requirements on the nutritional content of new menu items introduced post-policy implementation, with new menu items having fewer calories in some US chain restaurants but more energy per serving in the Canadian context (Sofía Rincón-Gallardo Patiño et al., 2020). The effectiveness of labelling on increasing sales of healthier and/or sustainable foods is also mixed, potentially due to diversity of policies and reliance on customers’ individual awareness, knowledge and interpretation of labels and behaviour changes (Burgaz et al., 2023; Hyseni et al., 2017) and for health outcomes such as obesity and NCDs remains inconclusive (Burgaz et al., 2023). Limited but inconclusive evidence of efficacy is known for requiring calorie labelling on prepared foods in supermarkets (Moran et al., 2020).

Examples of implementation: Both New York City and Philadelphia (USA) have laws requiring restaurants with 15+ locations nationwide to display a sodium warning label next to any menu item with more than 2,300 mg of sodium (Musicus et al., 2020).

Types of identified planning actions: Enabling commercial sales of urban-produced food within city as "approved sources" (i.e., food can be sold or donated); allowing value-added processing and sale of urban produced foods in people's home kitchens; amendments to zoning regulations for urban agriculture; tax incentive zones for urban agriculture.

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). Less is known about how local urban planning policies and practices can be used to effectively promote urban agriculture. Legislative and policy-making approaches to urban agriculture have been adopted in some US cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Boston and San Francisco and states like California, involving changes to zoning regulations or allowances related to approved food sources for sale or donation, but the efficacy of these approaches was not reported or inconclusive (Siegner at al., 2018).

Examples of implementation: Within California (USA), the 'Cottage Food Act' enables the value-added processing and sale of urban produced foods in resident's home kitchens. California's 'Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone' act sought to incentivize using available land for urban agriculture in exchange for tax breaks, but the policy approach has received criticism for only requiring owners to dedicate the land for urban agriculture for five years and for potential inequitable effects (i.e., rewards privileged property and land owners rather than low-income or non-property owning urban farmers) (Siegner et al., 2018). In Chicago (USA), the 'Urban Agriculture Zoning Amendment' revised existing city zoning regulation to promote the expansion of community gardening and urban farming within the city.

Types of identified voluntary modifications: voluntary food fortification (e.g., folic acid); voluntary reductions on sugar content for beverages including energy drinks; voluntary food reformulation (e.g. TFAs); voluntary reductions in sodium.

What we know: Voluntary approaches to modify the contents or availability of certain nutrients within food and beverage product generally have mixed effects and are less effective than mandatory approaches (Burgaz et al., 2023; Browne et al., 2020; Hyseni et al., 2017). Voluntary folic acid fortification, for example, did not improve folate status among Indigenous women in Australia and actually widened the gap in prevalence of neural tube defects (NTD) between Indigenous and non-Indigenous infants; however, later implementation of mandatory folic acid fortification has improved folate status among Indigenous women and almost closed this gap of NTD between Indigenous and non-Indigenous infants (Browne et al., 2020). Voluntary approaches to sodium reduction have been associated with inconsistent implementation by the food industry and minimal progress (Musicus et al., 2020) . While voluntary reformulation of products to reduce trans fats did help to reduce dietary trans fat consumption in Denmark, Hyseni et al., (2017) report that the later implementation of a legislative ban worked to essentially eliminate industrial trans fat consumption, evidencing that mandatory reformulation leads to more consistent effects.

Types of identified voluntary modifications: calorie labelling (on menus in chain food outlets); voluntary provision of nutritional recommendation information (on menus in chain food outlets); voluntary partnership to change children’s menus through removing SSBs and increasing fruit and veg offerings.

What we know: Voluntary approaches to menu modification and/or labelling of food and beverage products generally have mixed effects, with limited effects on obesity and NCD-related outcomes (Burgaz et al., 2023). Voluntary calorie labelling on menus appears to have mixed effects on product reformulation, with a cited evaluation of voluntary menu labelling guidelines within the UK's top 100 chain restaurants indicating reductions of calories and sodium in pizza, sandwiches and toppings but increases in calories, fat, sugar and sodium within baked goods offered in restaurants with menu labelling (see Theis and Adams, 2019 in Sofía Rincón-Gallardo Patiño et al., 2020). Voluntary labelling and marketing approaches for energy drinks are present in the UK, US and Australia, but the standards for these voluntary policies can be confusing and difficult to interpret (Rostami et al., 2024).