Dietary change is needed to improve health and reduce the environmental burden of food production and consumption. Using an Intervention Mapping approach, this study aimed to explore the views caterers and customers held towards point-of-choice interventions that promote healthy and environmentally friendly (EF) food and beverage choices at the University of Sheffield. Intervention options proposed during focus groups were devised using the Nuffield Bioethics ladder of intervention. Ten focus groups were held involving caterers (n = 16) and customers (n = 45). Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts of caterer and customer focus groups seperately, and then comparisons were made to identify concerns about the acceptability and feasibility of intervention options. Attitudes towards intervention options varied considerably amongst stakeholders, with the greatest disparity of opinion in the acceptability of interventions that restrict or limit personal choice, particularly with regards to meat consumption. Information provision was favoured as an acceptable intervention by both customers and caterers. However, labelling products in terms of their environmental impact was considered practically unfeasible. Social norms around eating also emerged as influencing the acceptability and feasibility of interventions with concerns raised about: shaming customers who chose meat, the exclusivity of vegan choices and the limited availability and appeal of meatless café options. Financial considerations were the main priority of caterers when discussing point-of-choice interventions. An acceptable and feasible café-based intervention ought to increase awareness and understanding of healthy and EF food choices, protect customer choice and avoid additional costs.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (