Food Systems and Nutrition Evidence and Gap Map

To address the challenge of malnutrition and food insecurity, decision-makers need to understand what evidence exists on various interventions. 3ie’s first living evidence and gap map (E&GM) includes the largest collection of high-quality research on food systems interventions in low- and middle-income countries. With support from BMZ through GIZ’s “Knowledge for Nutrition” program, we continuously monitor the available evidence and regularly add studies to ensure the E&GM remains a useful and current tool for our users.


Food systems are crucial to achieving most of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as multiple other goals and commitments, such as those on climate change. What we need is science-driven food transformation and research will continue to play a vital role in this. 3ie has been engaging in its ambitious living evidence-mapping process for three years. The project will continue through September 2024. Our first living evidence and gap map (E&GM) includes the largest collection of impact evaluations and systematic reviews on food systems interventions in low- and middle-income countries. Our Food Systems and Nutrition Evidence E&GM shows where evidence is available and where new research is needed to fill evidence gaps regarding the impacts of food systems interventions.

Making sense of a vast and growing literature

Our E&GM includes over 3000 studies and presents a rich body of evidence, including the latest research, in the fast-growing field of food systems impact evaluations. It reports on evidence from all key areas and intervention types and identifies potential primary and synthesis evidence gaps. We regularly publish summaries of how the literature has changed and provide insight into the development of evidence gaps and clusters. We are also leveraging it to produce a series of evidence synthesis products.

Since the continuous update process started, we have added 1,217 impact evaluations and systematic reviews to our already large evidence mapping project (containing 2,035 studies at its launch in January 2021). Although this represents a 60 percent increase, we find that the rate of expansion in the evidence base has decreased since 2019. After reviewing the studies added to the map for the mid-term report, we determined that none of the previously identified evidence gaps have been filled. Since then, the evidence base of some of these has grown, especially for women’s empowerment outcomes, which now are measured in 128 studies. In addition, few high- or medium-confidence systematic reviews have been published during the update period, meaning that this evidence base is rapidly becoming out of date.

The map is expanding. We have added a filter for ‘year’ across the top of the map, interventions and outcomes considering gender transformative approaches and social protection interventions.  Read the brief, full report, mid-term report and notes on the December 2021, April 2022, August 2022, January 2023, July 2023, November 2023, May 2024 and July 2024 updates.

Findings from the original map

In the original E&GM (covering January 2000 – September 2020), evaluations disproportionally considered supplement provision (20%); fortification (16%); direct food provision (11%); and peer support and counseling targeting consumer behavior (7%). No or few evaluations assessed advertising regulations, food waste education programs, food packaging, governmental price manipulations, and interventions supporting women’s decision-making or measured women’s empowerment outcomes. 

Latest findings

The map has now been updated in eight instances—December 2021 (covering September 2020-June 2021), April 2022 (covering July 2021 – January 2022), August 2022 (covering January – April 2022), January 2023 (covering May 2022 – December 2022), June 2023 (covering January 2023 – April 2023), and November 2023 (covering May 2023-July 2023), May 2024 (covering August 2023-October 2023) and July 2024 (covering November 2023-January 2024). We have also published a mid-term report, summarizing the evolution of the evidence base from January 2021 to January 2023.

In this latest update, we added 315 new studies to the map. The addition includes three new high-confidence systematic reviews. The most common interventions identified for the update were nutrition classes, professional services related to nutrition and conditional and unconditional cash transfers. Overall for the E&GM, the most common interventions are still provision of supplements, classes, fortification and direct provision of food. 

Studies added to the EGM
Data table summarizing updates on interventions, identified gaps, and outcomes for evaluation in food systems research. Columns represent update periods from Jan- April 2024. Sections include total studies on food supply, environment, consumer behavior, and multi-component interventions. Lists illustrative interventions like government gas price manipulations and advertising regulations, outcomes like women’s empowerment and environmental impacts, and evidence synthesis priorities such as free farm inputs and educational approaches

*These represent new priority areas identified through our mid-term report

Benefits of a living EGM

Because this is a living evidence-mapping process, as new policy priorities develop in the field, we are able to rapidly identify studies evaluating relevant interventions and make these easily accessible to decision makers. This ensures that the most up to date evidence is available. We are also able to highlight the evolving evidence needs of the field through our regular stocktaking of the distribution of the evidence.

Extending the use of the living EGM

To fill some of the key gaps identified through the mapping process, 3ie produced two additional synthesis products: a rapid evidence assessment on the impact evaluations of women’s empowerment interventions included in the map and a systematic review on the use of fiscal policies to support a healthy diet. These synthesis products were produced in less than half the time of traditional systematic reviews because we were able to leverage the E&GM. 

Evidence on women’s empowerment within the food systems 

Findings: There were ten impact evaluations of interventions to support women’s empowerment within the Food Systems and Nutrition Evidence and Gap Map. Overall, these interventions generally had positive impacts on food security and food affordability and availability. Evidence from qualitative work suggests that women’s empowerment interventions best influenced nutritional outcomes when adopting gender-transformative approaches and addressing gender and social norms.  

Implications: Policy-makers should consider improving women’s social capital so they can better control and decide how to feed their families. Qualitative evidence suggests that multi-component interventions seem to be more sustainable than single-focus interventions, especially when they combine a livelihoods component (asset transfer or financial services) with behavioural change communication. Researchers need to address issues with inconsistent data and reporting, particularly relating to seasonal changes, social norms and time taken between rounds of data collection in order to implement high-quality evaluations. Future studies could further contribute to the evidence base of gender-transformative approaches by carefully considering contextual norms and avoiding stereotyping women into pre-decided roles which may perpetuate social norms. 

Read the Brief

Evidence on taxes and subsidies to support a healthy diet

Findings: We identified 49 impact evaluations and two systematic reviews through an additional systematic search that extended beyond the Food Systems and Nutrition Evidence and Gap Map. Unfortunately, these represented only 24 unique intervention-outcome-population combinations due to the repeated evaluation of the same taxes. We found that taxes on unhealthy foods may decrease the purchases of unhealthy foods, but this effect was driven by a single, high risk of bias study. Impacts on diet, health, and well-being were rarely considered, so conclusions could not be reached. However, we did find evidence that awareness of the health-based justifications for the taxes and the health consequences of consuming such foods may facilitate the impacts of these interventions.  

Implications: Tax and subsidy policies aimed at improving diets should incorporate information campaigns on health benefits and health risks associated with certain food and beverage consumption. For tax policies, exposure to health information may amplify the signalling effects of taxes and reduce avoidance behaviours, such as cross-border shopping. Future evaluations of fiscal policies should diversify data sources to better understand the impact on diet and health outcomes. Future research should also use evaluation design strategies that account for confounding and independence from other programs or events that may occur during the implementation period. 

Read the Brief

Evidence on long-term outcomes of food systems interventions

Findings: We identified 78 impact evaluations on the long-term effects of food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. This comprises four per cent of the 2,019 impact evaluations in our Food Systems and Nutrition Evidence Gap Map. The primary research objective of this was to identify and describe the available evidence on the effects of food systems interventions ten, or more, years after their inception. The number of identified impact evaluations generally declines as the length of the study period increases. We find 1,076 studies reporting on the outcomes of an intervention a year or less years after an intervention started, 533 studies reporting on outcomes between two and four years after intervention inception, and 208 studies considering between five and nine years. 
The Department for Evaluation at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) funded this REA to promote learning of what works in the long-run and ensure easy access to evaluative findings of long-term effects in food security.

Implications: Due to the highly variable nature of the evidence base, policymakers should avoid concluding that agricultural interventions do not work in the long-term and maintain a state of equipoise. Intervention effects ranged widely and several interventions were found to be successful in specific local contexts. With regards funders and implementers, project design should consider the possibility of adverse events from agricultural interventions, such as inappropriate fertilsier use or increased inequality. 

Read the Report

Effects of food security and nutrition (FSN) interventions on women’s empowerment outcomes

The existing analyses focus on the effects of women's empowerment interventions on food security outcomes. However, by transforming the food systems towards higher levels of gender equality, FSN interventions have the potential to contribute to women's empowerment. We are working on a rapid evidence assessment to complement and build on the body of evidence covered by 3ie's living E&GM.

Read blog | Read protocol


Watch our webinar on ‘Filling knowledge gaps to transform the food system’ which brought together experts from GIZ, EAT Forum, IFPRI, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Centre for Global Child Health. The panel focused on the experience in navigating the evidence base within the field, the types of evidence needed, and how the research community can better respond to the evidence needs of policymakers and implementers.

The effects of food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in LMICs

The devastating impacts of malnutrition and food insecurity are well documented. In low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs), constraints and complexities within food systems are significant drivers of these conditions. As a result, there has been a significant global focus on improving food systems to facilitate better food security and nutrition outcomes. The evidence base regarding the impact of interventions within food systems in achieving these aims is massive, but complicated and disorganized, making it difficult for donors, policymakers and practitioners to navigate. 3ie's Evidence Gap Map addresses this challenge.