Delft University of Technology
Changing food behaviors in a desirable direction
Schifferstein, Hendrik N.J. DOI 10.1016/j.cofs.2019.11.002 Publication date 2020 Document Version Final published version Published in
Current Opinion in Food Science
Citation (APA)
Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2020). Changing food behaviors in a desirable direction. Current Opinion in Food Science, 33, 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2019.11.002
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.
Changing
food
behaviors
in
a
desirable
direction
Hendrik
NJ
Schifferstein
Affluentsocietiesfaceseveralchallengesinvolvingthe
relationshipsbetweenpeopleandtheirfood,includingthe
riseofwelfarediseasesandthe hugeamountoffood
wasted.Theseproblemsarepartlyduetotheoperationof
themarketeconomy,inwhichcompaniesdevelopproducts
thatcatertomomentarydesiresofindividualconsumers.To
tacklesocietalproblems,weneedtodevelopdifferent
approachesinlinewithpeople’s long-termgoalsand
providingbenefitstothecommunity,theenvironment,and
society.Toachieveenduringchangesinbehavior,designers
cancreateseriesofinterventionsthataddressallstages
peopletypicallygothrough.Inaddition,designers,
companiesandusersshouldbepreparedtosharethe
responsibilityassociatedwiththepotentialimpactofnew
productintroductions.
Address
DepartmentofIndustrialDesign,DelftUniversityofTechnology, Landbergstraat15,2628CEDelft,TheNetherlands
Correspondingauthor:
Schifferstein,HendrikNJ(h.n.j.schifferstein@tudelft.nl)
CurrentOpinioninFoodScience2020,33:30–37
ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonSensoryscienceand consumerperception
EditedbyHeberRodriguesandCarlosGomes-Corona
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2019.11.002
2214-7993/ã2019TheAuthor.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense( http://creative-commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
Given the large and increasing incidence of welfare diseasessuchas obesityanddiabetes inmanycountries in theworld, itis clearthat societiesface amajor chal-lengeto improvethehealthand wellbeingof their citi-zens[1,2].In addition,foodproductiontakesup alarge amount of natural resources, while at the same time a largequantity(>30%)offoodiswasted[3].Ifwecould changepeople’sbehaviorinbeneficialdirections(e.g.eat healthier,wastelessfood),thesesocietalproblemsmight bediminishedsubstantially.
Pleasing
consumers
The driving force in providing food supplies in most current societiesis amarket economy system: Compa-nies produce products and services that people are
willingtopayfor.Insaturatedmarketscompanies com-pete formarket share, and customers are likely tobuy the products that offer the best value for the lowest price. To persuade people tobuy their food products, companies try to optimize the sensory pleasure that people can derive from them. These seductive foods tendtobefullofflavor,aretypicallyeitherhighinsaltor sugar, andare oftenhigh infat [4]. Andbecause foods seem to be available anytime, anyplace, anywhere in many affluent societies [5,6],this makes them hard to resist.Intimesofemotionaldistress,consumersmayuse foodsasasourceoftemporaryreliefandcomfortdueto their pleasurable sensory qualities or because specific foodsremindthemofformertimesortheirhome coun-tries [7,8]. We should be aware that some companies have also studied how food preferences change with repeated consumption [9]. This enables companies to promoteproductsofwhichconsumerswilleatandthus buy more. Furthermore, companies can make foods moreaccessiblebydeliveringthem athomeand facili-tating payment services (e.g. by using credit cards or smartphones) and the widespread availability of these foodsislikelytoenhanceanyadverseeffectsonpeople’s health.
The information and education that government cam-paignsprovide onhealthy nutrition mayserve to make people aware of what entails a healthy eating pattern. However,thesecognitiveinterventionsareunlikelytobe effectiveincounterbalancingtheeverlasting,continuing stream of persuasive advertising and product offerings that people are presented with in their everyday lives [10,11],nomatterhowmotivatedtheyaretoeathealthy. Companiescouldtakeuptheirsocietalresponsibilitiesby developing healthier alternatives that are in line with nutritional guidelines and support their acceptance through packaging design and marketing campaigns [12,13]. However malevolent companies can also take advantage of any opportunities to deceive consumers [14].Forinstance,aguidelinethatfruitjuicesarebetter thansoftdrinksmaybemisusedbyofferingfruitjuices with added sugar for children, whereas adding sugar eliminatesthehealthbenefit.Analogously,anystrictrules on ingredient labeling and health claims may be sur-passed by creative renaming of ingredients, rephrasing the intended health effects, or suggestive packaging images [15,16]. Hence, even packaged products that maylookhealthymaynotbeashealthyastheysuggest. And,ofcourse,eventherelativelyhealthyfooditemsin theendmayhaveanadverseeffectonhealthifpeopleeat toomuchof them.
Aiming
for
societal
impact
Intheirbook‘DesigningforSociety’TrompandHekkert [17] suggest that many of the problems that current societiesarefacingfindtheirrootsincompanies’focuson thedesiresandwishesoftheconsumerduringthe devel-opmentofnewproducts.Itisimportanttorealizethatwe, as foodscientists,marketingresearchers,product devel-opers anddesigners, are partlyto blamefor thecurrent healthand environmentalproblemsrelatedto food.We are the professionals who helped companies optimize their food products and seduce potential customers to buy theirproducts. Therefore,itis alsoimperative that we help companies and governments to develop new waystosupportpeople’shealthylifestyles,inawaythat offerasustainablefutureto allpeopleinvolvedandthe communities theyarepartof.
Given the many stakeholders and processes that are involved in food production, distribution, preparation and consumption, we need to take thiscomplexity into accountandapproachthefoodcontextasasystem[18,19]. Itisimportanttoinvolvedesignersintransformingthefood system,becausetheyareexplicitlytrainedtohandle com-plexproblems,inwhichonlyadesiredvalue(why)canbe specified, but both the means needed (what) and the processorworkingprinciplethatwilllead tothedesired endvalue(how)areunknown.Byexaminingtheparadoxes inaspecificfieldandtakingabroaderviewontheissuesat stake, designerscan take adifferent perspective onthe mattersandcreateanewframetotacklecurrentchallenges [20,21].Seeingexistingproblemsinanewlightcanhelp generatingnewtypesofsolutionsthatwereoutofscopein theoriginalproblemframing.Designershavebeentrained todealwithsituationswithseeminglyconflictingdemands [e.g. eatingwhatevergives pleasureversus cooking in a sociallyresponsibleway][22].Incontrasttootherexperts whomaybecomediscouragedbyasituationwithmultiple conflictingdemands,designerstendtoregardthetension createdbyconflictingconcernsasinspiring.Besidestrying toresolvetheconflict,designersmayattempttodevelopa strategytomoderateordeliberatelytriggerdilemmasinthe designprocess[23].
TrompandHekkert[17]distinguishbetweentwomain dimensionswhencomparinguser-centereddesignversus society-centered design: (1) a shift from momentary, short-term concerns to long-termbenefits(time dimen-sion)and(2)replacing individualconcernsbycollective concernsof alargergroupor societyasawhole (people dimension)(seeFigure1).Thetimedimensionwillnow first be discussed by examining approaches to support behaviorchangesthatprovideindividualhealthbenefits. Subsequently, moving from the individual level to the collective level is discussed by considering consumer behavior in relation to food waste. The final sectionof this paper is dedicated to ethical considerations that concernsociety-centereddesign.
Changing
behavior
to
obtain
long-term
health
benefits
Changingone’sbehaviorisachallengingtask,asanyone who ever attempted to stop smoking, reduce alcohol consumption, or lose weight can testify. Even though manysmartphoneappshavebeendevelopedtoimprove foodchoices,theireffectivenessindevelopingahealthy lifestyleishighlydoubtful[24].Althoughtheendgoalof thedesiredbehaviorchangemaybeclear,itisunclearfor peoplehow theycangetthere.
Because theprocessischallengingand complex,simple single step interventions are unlikely to result in long-termchangesinbehavior.Therefore,healthprofessionals havedevelopedbehaviorchangemodelsthatdescribea processofmultiplestages.Eachstageischaracterizedby aparticularstateofmind,andasubsequentstepthatcan beprepared.Hence,ineachstagewecanoffer interven-tionsthatwillfacilitatethetransfertothenextstage.To obtainanenduringchangeinbehavior,weneeda coher-ent program of interventions addressing all stages, to optimallysupporttransformation.The intervention pro-grams health professionals have developed in this way typically include lifestyle guidelines and coaching ses-sions,andin somecasesalsoeHealthapplicationsusing websites, smartphoneapps,or chatand email functions [25].Designerscould supplementthese withadditional means, like graphical images, objects, and additional digital products(e.g. games)that guidepeople through stagesof change[26].
Following this line of thought, Ludden and Hekkert [27,28]definedfourconsecutivedesignaimsonthebasis of the stages in the transtheoretical model of behavior change[29]:
1 Raiseawarenessabouttheproblematicbehavior 2 Enabletomaketherightchoices
3 Motivatetomaintainthechangesorfindnew possibil-itiesforchange
4 Support fadingoutof theintervention
LuddenanddeRuijter[30]usedthisapproachtodevelop interventions thatsupport children and theirparents to adopthealthiersnackingbehavior.‘Mybodyisafactory’ introduceschildrentotheideathatthebodyonlyworks wellifitreceiveshealthyfoods.Toraiseawareness(aim #1)childrenreceiveamobileapplication,inwhichthey canfeedavirtualchildthesnackstheyhaveeaten.The virtual child appears happy and energetic after eating healthy snacks,and sadandtired aftereating toomany unhealthysnacks(Figure2).Toenablehealthybehaviors (aim #2) children receive a book that describes little workersthatcleanupthefactory(i.e.thebody)andthey canplaywithhealthysnacksonaplatethatdisplaysthe
Figure1 LONG-TERM SHOR T -TERM INDIVIDUAL COLLECTIVE PEOPLE (n) Delayed and probable
implications for all of us
Immediate and certain implications for me
TIME (t)
Current Opinion in Food Science
Dimensionsrelevantformovingtowardsdesigningforsocietalimpact(fromTrompandHekkert,p.39[17];reprintedwithpermissionfrom BloomsburyVisualArts).
Figure2
Current Opinion in Food Science
Mobileapplicationshowingthathealthyfoodprovidesbuildingblocksforthehumanbody(fromLuddenanddeRuijter,p.6[30];reprintedwith permissionfromtheDesignResearchSociety).
factory(Figure3).Themotivationalintervention(aim#3) consists ofatowerwhereparentscanstoresnacks.The childisfreeto takefood fromthelowersectionsof the tower, but has to ask permission to access the upper sections (Figure 4). In this project, no intervention accompanied the fading out process (aim #4). In line with the different aims of the interventions, parents indicated in a small-scale evaluation study that their childrenwouldprobablyenjoyplayingwiththedifferent concepts, but only thetowerwoulddirectly affecttheir children’s snackingbehavior.LuddenandOffringa [31] usedthesamedesignapproachinacasestudypersuading peopletoreplacebeveragesthatcontainsugarby drink-ingwater.
Shift
from
personal
health
to
societal
context
Even though many behavioral interventions target the individual,theirsuccessdependsonthecontext,inwhich they operate (e.g. family members and peers, house layout,placespassedonthewaytoworkorschool,modes of transportation). For example,theDutchgovernment wouldliketobanunhealthyitemsfromschoolcanteens, so that young people are presented with healthy food optionswhiletheyareatschool(seewww.gezondeschool. nl).However,ifonlyschoolsareinvolvedintheprogram, beneficial effects can be easily surpassed by stores or restaurantsinthevicinityoftheschoolthatoffertastybut unhealthyoptions.Hence,indesigninginterventionsfor behaviorchange,itisimportantthattheconsumptionof
foodisstudiedinitscontext,addressingalsothesociety andthecultural environment,inwhichit takesplace. Inthisrespect,itmaybefruitfultostudyfood consump-tionaspartofparticularsocialpractices[32].This theo-retical approach allowsconnectingconsumption tofood preparation,foodproductionandtrading,bystudyingthe distribution of resources and power relations between peopleinvolved[33].Inthisway,alsotheenvironmental aspectsoffoodproductionandconsumptioncanbetaken intoconsideration.
An increasing number of nutrition and public health professionals suggest that future dietary guidelines shouldalsoincludeinsightsfromenvironmentalsciences to reduce the impactof food production on the envi-ronment [34–37]. Implementing such a diet could involvethefollowingfourbehaviors:reducing overcon-sumption, reducing the consumption of energy-dense foodswithlownutrientlevels,replacinganimal-derived foods with plant-derived foods, and reducing food waste [34,38,39]. The first two of these behaviors address nutritional aspects, whereas the latter two address sustainability aspects. However, consumers find it much more logical to link food to sensory pleasure and health than to environmental issues [38]. For consumers healthiness and caring for the environmentonlyseemtocometogetherintheconcept ofnaturalness,becausethisisassociatedwithusingless chemicals andpreservatives [38].
ChangingfoodbehaviorsinadesirabledirectionSchifferstein 33
Figure3
Current Opinion in Food Science
Interventionenablingchildrentotryandexplorefoodsinthecontextofbuildingahealthybody(fromLuddenanddeRuijter,p.6[30];reprinted withpermissionfromtheDesignResearchSociety).
Possibly, consumer behavior in the home environment mayhavealargerimpactontheenvironmentthroughthe food people waste than through the type of food they consume.However,reducingtheamountoffoodwastein households would also require a substantial change in consumerbehavior practicesandcouldthus alsobenefit fromadesignapproachaddressingmultiplestagesofthe behavior changemodel[40].For instance, to promote awarenessoftheamountoffoodwasted,smarttechnology in fridges mayserve to keeptrack of itscontent, camerascan captureimagesoffoodthrown inthebin,or peoplecan keepadiarythatrecordsthefoodwasted[41–43].Sharing suchdatawithotherusersmayevokefeelingsofguiltand mightpersuadeconsumerstoreducetheamountofwaste. Limetal.[44]usesmarttechnologythatallowsagroupof consumerstologandtrackavailableingredientsaswellas theirwastefulbehaviorsthroughtheirkitchenappliances. Moreover,bysuggestingrecipesthesystemencouragesthe cooperativeuseofhighlyperishableingredientsownedby differentindividuals.
However, food waste is not only due to irresponsible disposal behavior in consumer households. A large amount of food is also discardedin retailstores. Audet andBrisebois[45]identifiedfoursymbolicprocessesthat are responsible for the generation of food waste atthe retail–consumptioninterfacethroughtheinteractionsand practices of the various actors within food systems: theeconomizationofwaste,theconstructionofedibility, the construction of freshness, and the moralization of waste. These concepts are key in developing new and
differentways,inwhichfoodproductscanbeofferedto consumers,inorderto reducetheamount ofwaste. For instance,retailersare experimentingwithdynamic pric-ing concepts, where the price of food decreases as the ultimateconsumptiondate approaches[46].
Who
will
decide
what
changes
are
needed?
Ifproduct developersand researchers should nolonger listen to what individual consumers want but to what society needs, who will then decide what their design goalsshouldbe?Societyisbuiltupfrommanyindividuals andit maycomprise manydifferentopinions.Howcan product developers determinewhat is best for society? Doesthegovernmentknowwhatisbest?Howcanthey decideuponthepathtofollow?Andshouldtheybeheld accountablefor thedecisionstheymake?
According to Tromp and Hekkert [17] a product’s impact on the world is notdetermined by the product assuch,butbytheway,inwhichtheproductisusedinits environment.Hence,productdevelopers/companiesand users/consumers together share the responsibilities for how food products influence the world people live in [47,48]. However, it may be extremely hard to predict whateffectsproductsmayhaveontheworld, especially forproductsthatdonotyetexist.Theeffectsmayreach muchfurtherthananyproductdevelopercouldimagine, becausepeoplemaybeverycreativeinfindingnewways to use products, and new products may appear on the marketthathaveasubstantialeffectontheirapplication.
Figure4
Current Opinion in Food Science
Towercontaininghealthysnacks,wheresomepartsarefreelyaccessible,butothersrequireparents’permission(fromLuddenanddeRuijter,p.6 [30];reprintedwithpermissionfromtheDesignResearchSociety).
Forinstance,althoughthemicrowavewasintroducedasa tooltoheatupfoods,ithasalsohadamajoreffectonhow people eat their meals, thedivisionof labor in families and the social cohesion among family members [17]. Becausemealpreparationdidnotrequireelaborate cook-ingskillsanymore,womendidnotneedtospendalotof time in the kitchen anymore and family members no longer needed to consume meals together. Eventually, thecoherenceinfamiliesdecreased,andthedecreasing numberofjointfamilymealshasresultedinanincreasing number of children getting into trouble at school or developinganaddiction[49,50].
It is important thatdesigners and companies take their share of the responsibility forthe effectstheir products have inthe world.Inordertocarrythisresponsibility,Trompand Hekkert [17] suggest that product developers should preferably base their decisions on scientific evidence, because itcanprovidefactsandinsights inmechanisms thatprovidethebestavailable basisfordecisionmaking abouttheexpectedeffects.Theseauthors[51]developed andtestedanempiricalmethodthattriestodeterminethe influenceofdesignmanifestationsonhumanbehaviorin ordertocounteractsocialissues.
Insituationswherescienceprovidesnoclear-cutanswers, moralreasoningwillbeneededtomakedecisions.Inthis case, Verbeek [47,52] suggests to perform a mediation analysisformakinganinformedpredictionofthe poten-tial mediating role of a new design. This assessment addresses theintentions of thedesign,the wayit med-iates the interaction with the user, and any possible effects of usingthe design. By imagining multiple sce-narios includingavarietyof possiblestakeholders, com-paringtheirconsequencesandconnectingthemtotheir possible contributions, it is possible to make the best informed choices.
An illustration ofhow goodintentions canraisealotof consumerconcernsisthecaseoftheuseofe-numbersfor foodadditivesintheEuropeanUnion.Although e-num-bersindicatethatadditiveshavebeenthoroughlytested and have been found safe to use in foods,the explicit mentioningofe-numbersiningredientslistsraises suspi-cion and distrust among some consumers. Haen [53] suggests that controversy in this debatepersists mainly becausefoodscientistsandpolicyadvisorsfailtoconsider thewiderrangeofethical,aestheticandculturalconcerns thatconsumersmayhaveregardingtheirfood.By focus-ingonthevaluesthatareatstakeinthedesignprocess and by making these values transparent to clients and users,designerscanbemoreassuredthattheirendeavors will havetheintended effectin society[54].
Conclusion
Currentsocietalchallengesrequirenew waysoflooking at the existing paradoxes that lie at the basis of these
challenges.Designershaveacquiredskillsthatare instru-mentalincreatingthesenewframes[21,55]andcanwork withotherprofessionals(foodscientists,foodmarketers, publichealthauthorities)totacklechallengesinthefood realm.Inaddition,designershavebeentrainedtoprovide solutions in cases where consumer concerns or values seemtobeinconflict[17,23].Designmethodsandtools havebeendeveloped tosupportdesignersandtocreate newsolutionsfortheworld’sfoodchallenges[56].Given thecomplexityofmatters,avarietyofinterventionsmay be necessary that together constitute a consistent pro-gram,ratherthanseparateinterventions.These interven-tion programs can make use of design approaches that build on the elements of existing theories of behavior change [27,57]. In addition, the professionals who develop these interventions must be prepared to take responsibility for the decisions they make in order to serve thecommoninterest[47,54].
Conflict
of
interest
statement
Nothingdeclared.
Acknowledgements
IwouldliketothankmycolleaguesNynkeTrompandGekeLuddenfor theirinspiringworkthatformedthebasisforthecurrentpaper.
References
and
recommended
reading
Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:
ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest
1. WorldHealthOrganization:NoncommunicableDiseasesCountry Profiles2018. Geneva:WorldHealthOrganization;2018. 2. GreggEW,ShawJE:Globalhealtheffectsofoverweightand
obesity.NEnglJMed2017,377:80-81.
3. GustavssonJ,CederbergC,SonessonU,vanOtterdijkR, MeybeckA:GlobalFoodLossesandFoodWaste:Extent,Causes andPrevention. Rome:FAO;2011.
4. MendisS:GlobalStatusReportonNoncommunicableDiseases 2014. Geneva:WorldHealthOrganization;2014.
5. SwinburnB,EggerG,RazaF:Dissectingobesogenic environments:thedevelopmentandapplicationofa frameworkforidentifyingandprioritizingenvironmental interventionsforobesity.PrevMed1999,29:563-570. 6. LakerveldJ,MackenbachJD,RutterH,BrugJ:Obesogenic
environmentandobesogenicbehaviours.In Advanced NutritionandDieteticsinObesity.EditedbyHankeyC,NewarkNJ. Wiley;2017:132-137.
7. KandiahJ,YakeM,JonesJ,MeyerM:Stressinfluencesappetite andcomfortfoodpreferencesincollegewomen.NutrRes 2006,26:118-123.
8. LocherJL,YoelsWC,MaurerD,vanEllsJ:Comfortfoods:an exploratoryjourneyintothesocialandemotionalsignificance offood.FoodFoodways2005,13:273-297.
9. ZandstraEH,WeegelsMF,VanSpronsenAA,KlerkM:Scoringor boring?Predictingboredomthroughrepeatedin-home consumption.FoodQualPreference2004,15:549-557. 10. SnyderLB:Healthcommunicationcampaignsandtheirimpact
onbehavior.JNutrEducBehav2007,39:S32-S40.
11. StarkCasagrandeS,WangY,AndersonC,GaryTL:Have Americansincreasedtheirfruitandvegetableintake?The ChangingfoodbehaviorsinadesirabledirectionSchifferstein 35
trendsbetween1988and2002.AmJPrevMed2007, 32:257-263.
12. SandvikP:Designinghealthyfoods–adieteticmarketing perspective.IntJFoodDes2018,3:125-134.
13. CoulthardS,HoogeI,SmeetsM,ZandstraE:Nudgingfoodintoa healthydirection:theeffectsoffront-of-packimplicitvisual cuesonfoodchoice.IntJFoodDes2017,2:225-240. 14. NorthupT:Truth,lies,andpackaging:howfoodmarketing
createsafalsesenseofhealth.FoodStud2014,9. 15.
BarnesbrandingA:inTellingthecreationstories:ofthe‘authenticity’roleofgraphicwithindesignfoodand packaging.IntJFoodDes2017,2:183-202.
Anexampleofastudyshowingseveralways,inwhichcompaniescan deceiveconsumerswhentheydesigntheirpackaging.Atopicthatneeds moreattentionfromthescientificcommunityandpublicauthorities. 16. JanichN:‘Nothingadded,nothingtakenaway’–or
laboratory-madenaturalness?Thesemioticsoffoodproductpackaging inGermanyinthe1990sandtoday.IntJFoodDes2017, 2:203-224.
17.
TrompforaBetterN,HekkertWorld.P:London:DesigningBloomsbury;forSociety:2019.ProductsandServices Acomprehensivebook,describingtheoreticalunderpinningsand prac-ticalapproachesfordesigningwithsocietalvaluesinmind;aparadigm shiftthatisbadlyneedincurrentsociety.
18. MargolinV:Designstudiesandfoodstudies:parallelsand intersections.DesCult2013,5:375-392.
19. BidermanJL:Embracingcomplexityinfood,designandfood design.IntJFoodDes2017,2:27-44.
20. DorstK:Thecoreof‘designthinking’anditsapplication.Des Stud2011,32:521-532.
21. HekkertP,vanDijkMB:VisioninDesign:AGuidebookfor Innovators. Amsterdam:BIS;2011.
22. OzkaramanliD,DesmetPMA:IknewIshouldn’t,yetIdidit again!Emotion-drivendesignasameanstomotivate subjectivewell-being.IntJDes2012,6:27-39.
23. OzkaramanliD,DesmetPMA,O¨ zcanE:Beyondresolving dilemmas:threedesigndirectionsforaddressing intrapersonalconcernconflicts.DesIssues2016,32:78-91. 24. HingleM,PatrickH:Therearethousandsofappsforthat:
navigatingmobiletechnologyfornutritioneducationand behavior.JNutrEducBehav2016,48:213-218.
25. RaynorHA,ChampagneCM:Positionoftheacademyof nutritionanddietetics:interventionsforthetreatmentof overweightandobesityinadults.JAcadNutrDiet2016, 116:129-147.
26. SchiffersteinHNJ:Whatdesigncanbringtothefoodindustry. IntJFoodDes2016,1:103-134.
27. LuddenGDS,HekkertP:Designforhealthybehavior:design interventionsandstagesofchange.In Proceedingsofthe9th InternationalConferenceonDesign&Emotion:ColorsofCare; Bogota,Colombia:2014:482-488.
28. LuddenG:Designforhealthybehaviour.In DesignforBehaviour Change:TheoriesandPracticesofDesigningforChange.Edited byNieddererK,CluneS,LuddenG.Oxon,UK:Routledge;2018: 93-103.
29. ProchaskaJO,VelicerWF:Thetranstheoreticalmodelofhealth behaviorchange.AmJHealthPromot1997,12:38-48. 30. LuddenGDS,deRuijterLHJ:Supportinghealthybehaviour;a
stagesofchangeperspectiveonchangingsnackinghabitsof children.In In ProceedingsoftheDesignResearchSociety Conference.EditedbyLloydP,BohemiaE.Proceedingsofthe DesignResearchSocietyConferenceBrighton,UK:2016. 31. LuddenGDS,OffringaM:Triggersintheenvironment:
increasingreachofbehaviorchangesupportsystemsby connectingtotheofflineworld.ThirdInternationalWorkshopon BehaviorChangeSupportSystems;ChicagoIL:2015:7-16. 32. CetinaKK,SchatzkiTR,VonSavignyE:ThePracticeTurnin
ContemporaryTheory.Routledge;2005.
33. DomaneschiL:Foodsocialpractices:theoryofpracticeand thenewbattlefieldoffoodquality.JConsumCult2012, 12:306-322.
34. FrielS,BaroshLJ,LawrenceM:Towardshealthyand sustainablefoodconsumption:anAustraliancasestudy. PublicHealthNutr2014,17:1156-1166.
35. JamesSW,FrielS,LawrenceMA,LawrenceMA,HoekAC, PearsonD:Inter-sectoralactiontosupporthealthyand environmentallysustainablefoodbehaviours:astudyof sectoralknowledge,governanceandimplementation opportunities.SustainabilitySci2018,13:465-477.
36. LorenzBA,LangenN:Determinantsofhowindividualschoose, eatandwaste:providingcommongroundtoenhance sustainablefoodconsumptionout-of-home.IntJConsumStud 2018,42:35-75.
37. MertensE,Van’TVeerP,HiddinkGJ,SteijnsJM,KuijstenA: Operationalisingthehealthaspectsofsustainablediets:a review.PublicHealthNutr2017,20:739-757.
38.
theHoekfood-print:AC,PearsonaqualitativeD,JamesSW,studyLawrenceintoconsumerMA,Frielperceptions,S:Shrinking experiencesandattitudestowardshealthyand
environmentallyfriendlyfoodbehaviours.Appetite2017, 108:117-131.
Interestingtoseehowconsumerreasoninginthefieldoffooddeviates fromhowprofessionalstalkabouthealthandenvironmenteffects.An importantinsightforpolicymakersandanyonetryingtopromote sus-tainablebehaviors.
39. PearsonD,FrielS,LawrenceM:Buildingenvironmentally sustainablefoodsystemsoninformedcitizenchoices: evidencefromAustralia.BiolAgricHorticult2014,30:183-197. 40.
NieddererTheoriesandK,ClunePracticesS,LuddenofDesigningG:DesignforChange.forBehaviourOxon,Change:UK: Routledge;2018.
An overview of how designers are currently adopting models and insightsonmechanismsofbehaviorchangetodevelopinterventions thatcansupportpeopleinmakingthechangesneededforleadinga morefulfillinglife.
41. GanglbauerE,FitzpatrickG,MolzerG:Creatingvisibility: understandingthedesignspaceforfoodwaste.In
Proceedingsofthe11thInternationalConferenceonMobileand UbiquitousMultimedia. Ulm,Germany:ACM;2012,1-10. 42. RouillardJ:Thepervasivefridge.Asmartcomputersystem
againstuneatenfoodloss.SeventhInternationalConferenceon Systems;Saint-Gilles,Reunion:2012:135-140.
43. ThiemeA,ComberR,MiebachJ,WeedenJ,KraemerN, LawsonS,OlivierP:“We’vebinwatchingyou”:designingfor reflectionandsocialpersuasiontopromotesustainable lifestyles.In ProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceonHuman FactorsinComputingSystems. Austin,Texas,USA:ACM;2012, 2337-2346.
44. LimV,FunkM,MarcenaroL,RegazzoniC,RauterbergM: Designingforaction:anevaluationofsocialrecipesin reducingfoodwaste.IntJHumComputStud2017,100:18-32. 45.
retail-consumptionAudetR,BriseboisE:interface.ThesocialSustainabilityproductionof2019,food11:3834.wasteatthe Thispaper identifiesthe main conceptsthat lie at the heart ofthe generationoffoodwasteintheretail-consumerinterface.Considering theseconceptsisvitalforunderstandinghowwemightdevelopnew mechanismsthatwillproducelesswaste.
46. ChenJ,DongM,RongY,YangL:Dynamicpricingfor deterioratingproductswithmenucost.Omega2018,75:13-26. 47. VerbeekP-P:MoralizingTechnology:Understandingand
DesigningtheMoralityofThings. Chicago,IL:Universityof ChicagoPress;2011.
48. LatourB:Pandora’sHope:EssaysontheRealityofScience Studies. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress;1999. 49. EisenbergME,OlsonRE,Neumark-SztainerD,StoryM,
BearingerLH:Correlationsbetweenfamilymealsand psychosocialwell-beingamongadolescents.JAMAPediatr 2004,158:792-796.
50. FulkersonJA,StoryM,MellinA,LeffertN,Neumark-SztainerD, FrenchA:Familydinnermealfrequencyandadolescent development:relationshipswithdevelopmentalassetsand high-riskbehaviors.JAdolescHealth2006,39:337-345. 51. TrompN,HekkertP:Assessingmethodsforeffect-driven
design:evaluationofasocialdesignmethod.DesStud2016, 43:24-47.
52. VerbeekP-P:Persuasivetechnologyandmoralresponsibility: towardanethicalframeworkforpersuasivetechnologies. Persuasive2006,6:1-15.
53. HaenD:Theparadoxofe-numbers:ethical,aesthetic,and culturalconcernsintheDutchdiscourseonfoodadditives.J AgricEnvironEthics2014,27:27-42.
54. VermaasPE,HekkertP,Manders-HuitsN,TrompN:Design methodsindesignforvalues.In HandbookofEthics,Values, andTechnologicalDesign:Sources,Theory,Valuesand ApplicationDomains.EditedbyvandenHovenJ,VermaasPE,van dePoelI.Dordrecht:Springer;2015:179-201.
55. DorstK:FrameInnovation:CreateNewThinkingbyDesign. Cambridge,MA:MITPress;2015.
56. SchiffersteinHNJ:Designingeatinganddrinkingexperiences. In HandbookofEatingandDrinking:Interdisciplinary
Perspectives.EditedbyMeiselmanH. Springer;2019:1-27. 57. AungerR,CurtisV:Behaviourcentreddesign:towardsan
appliedscienceofbehaviourchange.HealthPsycholRev2016, 10:425-446.
