The Food Ethics, Sustainability and Alternatives Course: A Mixed Assessment of University Students’ Readiness for Change

Abstract

Growing interest in food sustainability education aims to increase awareness of food distribution systems, environmental degradation, and the connectivity of sustainable and ethical food practices. However, recent scholarship has questioned whether such pedagogical efforts are meaningfully internalized by students or lead to sustained behavioral change. Prior studies document persistent gaps in students’ understanding of sustainability impacts and the limited effectiveness of existing instructional approaches in promoting transformative engagement. To address these concerns, the Food Ethics, Sustainability and Alternatives (FESA) course was implemented with 21 undergraduate and graduate students at Montclair State University (Montclair, NJ, USA). Course outcomes were evaluated using a mixed-methods design integrating qualitative analysis with quantitative measures informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior, to identify influences on students’ attitudes, and a Transtheoretical Model (TTM) panel survey to address progression from awareness to action, administered pre- and post-semester. Qualitative findings revealed five central themes: increased self-awareness of food system contexts, heightened attention to animal ethics, the importance of structured classroom dialogue, greater recognition of food waste, and increased openness to alternative food sources. TTM results indicated significant reductions in contemplation and preparation stages, suggesting greater readiness for change, though no significant gains were observed in action or maintenance scores. Overall, the findings suggest that while food sustainability education can positively shape student attitudes, the conversion of attitudinal shifts into sustained behavioral change remains limited by external constraints, including time pressures, economic factors, culturally embedded dietary practices, structural tensions within contemporary food systems, and perceptions of limited individual efficacy.

1. Introduction

Much focus has been placed on the relationship of sustainable food consumption to overall issues of food distribution, food justice, ethics, and environmental degradation. An increased emphasis on food sustainability education has been suggested to bring awareness to these issues and to aid in the mitigation of potential crises [1]. However, the acceptance and actual impact of food sustainability education modalities have been recently questioned. For example, investigations have shed light on the complexities surrounding students’ understanding of food sustainability [2]. It has been reported that food product attributes such as taste, nutrition, cost, and appearance have more influence on students’ food behaviors than sustainability attributes related to production and source. Despite students’ evident concern for the environment as identified through research utilizing the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) stages, there exists a substantial fissure between pro-environmental awareness and actual behaviors [3]. Silver found that while students enrolled in a food sustainability course agreed with the importance of its contents, they did not significantly alter their eating behaviors [1].

The collective body of scholarly literature indicates substantial gaps in students’ knowledge of food sustainability issues and the ineffectiveness of contemporary pedagogical methods to bring about transformative behaviors. While the importance of general global sustainability, and particularly food sustainability, has been acknowledged in recent college course offerings, it appears that there are not many programs that effectively inspire students to change their own behaviors or to engage in community food sustainability efforts [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Further, it has been suggested that the prescribed competencies of many sustainability courses in higher education consist of ideas that are abstract and difficult to mechanize into tangible strategies [14]. Other findings indicate that food sustainability education programs are more focused on diagnosis of the problems, instead of effectiveness. In addition, university educational efforts to promote food sustainability have been found to be generally focused on stand-alone areas such as waste and procurement management, which are likely to have a minimal effect outside of a more holistic approach [15].

The current incorporation of sustainability concepts into educational frameworks is not sufficient to bridge the deficiency of knowledge. There has been a call for clearly articulated learning outcomes for sustainable food practice curricula through newly designed or modified degree programs with clear evaluative protocols [4]. This underscores the necessity for comprehensive frameworks and collaborative efforts from various stakeholders to bridge awareness with outcomes that result in positive environmental actions. Addressing these gaps will contribute significantly to advancing food sustainability education and promoting informed practices among future professionals. It has been suggested that educational programs should prioritize long-term environmental considerations over immediate, intangible factors. Empowerment of learners to have responsible decisions and actions, the “ability to make a judgement and justify decisions” and the “ability to create and innovate,” have been suggested to be the most important skills for food sustainability students [16]. As the need for sustainability becomes more pronounced, it is imperative that students in the field are provided with a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with food sustainability. This includes ensuring a secure food supply that sustains essential nourishment and safeguards the ecology of the planet.

The Food Ethics, Sustainability and Alternatives (FESA) course at Montclair State University (MSU) in New Jersey, US, was recently offered to both undergraduate and graduate students of the Nutrition and Food Studies department. The course was fundamentally designed to integrate innovative pedagogical approaches grounded in systems thinking, emphasizing holistic and pluralistic perspectives, alongside reasoned judgment, the capacity to make balanced decisions and informed tradeoffs under conditions of change or uncertainty. Within this framework, food sustainability is understood as the development and maintenance of food systems that provide sufficient, healthy food for all, both now and in the future, while minimizing environmental harm and supporting long-term ecological, economic, and social well-being. The ethics component of the course was structured to provide a foundational lens for examining food sustainability. Ethical considerations permeate a broad range of food sustainability issues, including the ethics of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs); the impacts of fish farming and monocrop agriculture on ecology, cultural practices, and identities; animal slaughter; carnivorism; gluttony; and food temperance. Additional ethical concerns related to distributive justice, food equity, genetic modification, and antibiotic use further inform debates and policy decisions. Collectively, these ethical dimensions shape the discourse and decision-making processes that influence the development and long-term viability of a sustainable food environment. Overall, the course was structured to promote collective action, critical reflection, systems thinking, and the competencies for autonomy [17].

The objectives of the course were as follows:

A.

A course of study that addresses students’ preferences and concerns related to food sustainability through engagement with the local and national food industry.

B.

A novel agenda that incorporates class activities that will help make the course impactful and the outcomes assessable [14,18,19].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study employed a convenience sample of 21 students enrolled in the recently offered course from the Nutrition and Food Studies major at MSU. The internally cross-listed class comprised a mix of 10 combined Bachelor’s and transitioning into Master’s and Master’s students (BS/MS and MS = 48%) and nine undergraduate students (UG = 42%). Seven were male (M = 33%), 14 were female (F = 66%), and six of these were international students (INT = 29%), totaling 21 students. See

Table 1. Student demographics.

Code	Academic Status	Gender	National Status
FO1	G	F	International
F02	UG	F	US
F03	UG	F	US
F04	G	F	International
F05	UG	F	US
M06	UG	M	US
M07	UG	M	US
M08	UG	M	US
M09	UG	M	US
M10	UG	F	US
F11	BS/MS	F	US
F12	G	F	International
F13	G	F	International
M14	G	M	US
M15	G	M	International
F16	BS/MS	F	US
F17	G	F	US
F18	UG	F	US
F19	G	F	International
M20	UG	M	US
M21	BS/MS	F	US

for their anonymized codes and demographic details. Beta versions of this course were offered once yearly in the fall of 2022 and 2023. An updated and revised fall 2024, live, and in-person version of this course is discussed here.

2.2. Course Design

The students were sent the syllabus before the semester began. In addition, they were asked to complete a non-graded Course Expectations quiz, which outlined the general requirements of the course including the requirements for active participation throughout the semester (12%); individual introspective postings on the course online Discussion Board (12%); in class quizzes (56%); and a team project report and presentation (20%). Class participation was monitored by two self-administered participation quizzes querying how many times the students contributed to class discussions. The online Discussion Board enabled students to share their thoughts on the weekly readings. There were also four in-class quizzes on the readings throughout the semester. In teams of three, the students were required to write a report and give a presentation on one of the course topics.

The readings for each week generally comprised a required topical journal article reading from a palette of choices, a lighter reading from the news or other media, and sometimes a video option. Students were required to submit a total of four discussions on the readings on topics of their choice throughout the semester. There were also four structured in-class quizzes during the semester based on the readings. For discussions and quizzes, BS/MS and MS students were required to report on two of the readings (only one is required in the third week), whilst undergraduate students had to report on only one reading for each discussion or quiz. For the Team Project, groups of three students (including one BS/MS or MS student) were required to submit a written report and give a presentation on one of the listed topics. The requirements for this included a review of 15 prescient, mostly journal articles on the subject. However, if the students were to bring an approved speaker to the class, then the literature requirement would drop to ten, mostly scholarly articles.

2.3. Course Topics

The course started out with a discussion on democratic ideation: the students’ right to express contrary opinions in a non-judgmental environment. The students were provided with the course reading list, which generally presented viewpoints from various and mostly opposing sides of the issues. The sessions commenced with readings and discussions of environmental ethics. Food politics was the next topic: the food environment from all sides of the political spectrum. Food Philosophy followed, with readings and discussions about temperance and food justice informed by advice from the ancient sages to modern theorists. This led to readings and discussions of the ethical, practical, and sustainable implications of veganism and omnivorism. The course then segued into animal agriculture and CAFOs, and then animal husbandry took the topical forefront. The next weekly sessions covered food waste, fish issues, plant-based proteins, edible insects, and future foods. For more details on the course structure, see

Table 2. Course schedule with a list of course topics.

(Week 1)	Introduction to the Course
(W2)	Topic: Getting Started; Environmental Ethics—Your Thoughts on the Readings (Discussion Board)
(W3)	Topic: Perspectives on Animal Ethics
	Speaker from the Library: Researching your topic
	In-Class Quiz: Sandler, Perspectives on Animal Ethics
(W4)	Topic: Food Politics (Discussion Board)
	Team: Narrative and PowerPoint Submission
(W5)	Topic & In-Class Quiz: Food Philosophy
(W6)	Topic: Veganism (Discussion Board)
	Team Narrative and PowerPoint Submission
(W7)	Topic: Omnivorism (Discussion Board)
	Team Narrative and PowerPoint Submission
(W8)	Topic: CAFOS & Big Agriculture (Discussion Board)
	NJ Secretary of Agriculture Ed Wengryn
(W9)	Topic & In-Class Quiz: Humane Husbandry, Manufacturing and Slaughter
(W10)	Topic: Discussion with Temple Grandin
(W11)	Topic: Food Waste (Discussion Board)
	Team Narrative and PowerPoint Submission
(W12)	Topic & In-Class Quiz: Fish
(W13)	Topic: Plant Based Proteins and Insects (Discussion Board)
	Team Narrative and PowerPoint Submission
(W14)	Topic: Future Foods (but not insects or plant-based products)
	Team Narrative and PowerPoint Submission

and

Table 3. List of course readings.

Week 1	Introduction
Week 2 *	Required: Norcross (2004). Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases [20] Supplementary: Keulartz & Kotthals (2014). Environmental Ethics [21]
Week 3	Required: Sandler (2023). Food Ethics the Basics, Chapter 3 [22]
Week 4	Required: Jayson Lusk (2013). A Skeptical Foodie [23] Supplementary: Singer (2015). The logic of effective altruism [24]
Week 5	Required (choose): Stephens (2022). Stoicism and food ethics [25] Augustyn (2022). Pragmatism and the fixation of 21st century food beliefs [26] University of North Texas (2023). The Philosophy of Food Project [27] Supplementary: Christensen (2017). Confucianism, Food, and Sustainability [28]
Week 6	Required: McPherson (2016). How to argue for and against veganism [29] Supplementary: De Groeve & Rosenfeld (2022). Morally admirable or moralistically deplorable? A theoretical framework [30]
Week 7	Required: Milburn & Bobier (2022). New Omnivorism: A Novel Approach to Food and Animal Ethics [31] Supplementary: Robinson (2016) Is the Moose Still My Brother if I Don’t Eat Him? [32]
Week 8	Required: Guthman (2022). The CAFO in the Bioreactor: Reflections on Efficiency Logics in Bio-industrialization. Present and Future [33] Supplementary (choice): Nordhaus (2021). Big Agriculture is Best [34] The Guardian (2022). Big Agriculture Warns Farming Must Change or Risk ‘Destroying the Planet.’ [35]
Week 9	Required (choose): Grandin (2020). The Slaughter of Farmed Animals Practical Ways [36] Pachirat (2011). Killing at Close Range. In: Every twelve seconds: Industrialized slaughter and the politics of sight [37] Lamey (2019). The Animal Ethics of Temple Grandin [38] Supplementary: Grandin (2012). Tour of a beef plant with Temple Grandin [39] Grandin (2013). Turkey Farm & Processing Plant Tour: Temple Grandin [40] Grandin (2022) Carbon Dioxide Stunning of Pigs [41]
Week 10	Open
Week 11	Required: Niedek & Krajewski (2021). Ethical Consumption as the Basis for Counteracting Food Waste [42] Supplementary: Roe, Qi & Bender (2020). Some issues in the ethics of food waste [43]
Week 12	Required: Bennett (2019) Wild Salmon-B Protecting the Icon of the Pacific Northwest [44] Supplementary (choice): Maesano et al. (2020). The Role of Credence Attributes in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products—A Review [45]
Week 13	Required. (BS/MS, MS choice of any two, UG only one): Andreani et al. (2023). Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities [46] Artifishal, (2019). [Online Video] [47] Mudry & Philips (2023). Making hamburgers healthy: plant-based meat and the rhetorical (re)constructions of food through science [48] Beacom, Bogue & Repar (2021). Market oriented Development of Plant based Food and Beverage Products A Usage Segmentation Approach [49] Aschemann-Witzel (2021). Plant-based food and protein trend from a business perspective: markets, consumers, and the challenges and opportunities in the future [50] Or, Insects: Delvendahl, Rumpold & Nina Langen (2022). Edible Insects as Food–Insect Welfare and Ethical Aspects from a Consumer Perspective [51] Bisconsin-Júnior et al. (2022). “Food made with edible insects”: Exploring the social representation of entomophagy where it is unfamiliar [52] Gorvett (2021). Why insects are more sensitive than they seem [53]
Week 14	Required. (BS/MS, MS choice of any two, UG only one): McClements (202). Future foods: a manifesto for research priorities in structural design of foods-1.pdf [54] Heidmeier & Teuber (2023). Acceptance of in vitro meat and the role of food technology neophobia, dietary patterns and information—Empirical evidence for Germany [55] van der Weele et al. (2019). Meat alternatives—an integrative comparison.pdf [56] Bhat et al. (2019). Technological, Regulatory, and Ethical Aspects of In Vitro Meat—A Future Slaughter-Free Harvest [57]

* Full citations could be found in References.

.

2.4. Speakers

The course featured a few regular speakers who were reprised from the previous beta versions of the class. This included Dr. Temple Grandin (via Zoom), a reputed scholar on animal husbandry, and Ed Wengryn, the New Jersey Secretary of Agriculture (in person), who took over the class presentation from his predecessors. A former nutrition faculty member joined the university’s executive chef to reprise an annual in-person debate on food waste. But this time, they were joined by a local farmer. The students also brought speakers to class to accentuate their topical presentations. This included an in-person presentation by Niyeti Shah, the founder of Food of Systems Collaborative; a Zoom presentation by a regional representative of a socially responsible food organization; the previously mentioned farmer; and an international PhD student who specializes in the development of faux meat.

2.5. Measures

The effectiveness of the course on modifying student behaviors was comparatively assessed utilizing qualitative and quantitative measures that were administered without faculty present. For the qualitative component, at the end of the semester, students were asked to write an open-ended, unconditional, and ungraded individual assessment of the course impacts. The students first gave written consent, then they were assigned numbered codes to be used as anonymized identifiers during the discussions. The anonymity of the students was vigorously protected. COREQ qualitative standards were also applied as appropriate for the present research. A qualitative content and thematic analysis approach, drawing on the protocols articulated by Braun and Clarke, Moen and Middelthon, and Vears and Gillam, was employed to systematically analyze the textual and interview data, ensuring a rigorous, reflective, and inductive process for identifying patterns and themes [58,59,60]. Transcripts were reread multiple times and independently reviewed by two researchers to support a comprehensive interpretation of students’ perspectives and experiences. Thematic codes were collaboratively developed and iteratively examined by both researchers for confirmation or refinement, as needed. Final codes were then organized, synthesized, and integrated into broader thematic elements to elucidate underlying patterns across the dataset [58,59,60]. While there was general thematic saturation of repetitive data, the sample size was restricted to the 21 students enrolled in the class. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), originally developed by Ajzen [61] in 1991, was applied to the qualitative data to further contextualize and interpret the study findings. Although the TPB is effective in identifying the factors that influence behavioral intentions, it does not explicate the mechanisms through which behavior change unfolds.

To address this limitation, a Transtheoretical Model (TTM) survey was employed to conceptualize potential behavior changes as a progression from minimal awareness or concern to a heightened recognition of food sustainability issues, and ultimately to active engagement in food sustainability practices and sustained behavioral maintenance [62]. Identifying an individual’s stage of change provides valuable guidance for developing and tailoring targeted interventions. Originally popularized by Prochaska and Velicer [63], the TTM has been applied to explain transitional behaviors across diverse food-related contexts, including farmers’ conservation practices [64], sustainable dietary transitions among Generation Z [65], pro-environmental behaviors [2], and intentions to reduce processed meat consumption [66]. Accordingly, an adapted anonymous TTM panel survey [2] was administered during the first and last classes of the Fall 2024 semester to assess changes in sustainable food behaviors. The survey was developed verbatim from Saulick et al.’s validated instrument [2], which is structured across five sequential stages of behavior change, each measured using five rank-ordered response options. The first, precontemplation stage, defined by minimal awareness or concern, is illustrated by the following potential response: “Because my personal contribution is very small, I do not feel responsible for polluting the environment.” The contemplation stage reflects the emergence of concern and consideration of behavioral change, as reflected in “I feel it is important to use environmentally friendly products.” The preparation stage captures intentionality and planning for action, exemplified by, “I am looking for ways to protect the environment.” The action stage denotes the active adoption of new behaviors: “I have started using environmentally friendly products.” Finally, the maintenance stage represents the sustained integration of behavioral changes over time, as in “I have already made it a habit to reduce harm to the environment” [2,63,64,65]. The assessments were primarily exploratory, intended to generate preliminary insights and assess feasibility rather than to draw population-level inferences. Findings should therefore be interpreted as indicative trends.

2.6. Ethical Consideration

The present research was approved by Montclair State University’s Institutional Review Board #IRB-FY23-24-3450, with students’ consent on 22 March 2024.

3. Results

The qualitative data retrieved at the end of the course were meant to highlight areas that worked best or needed improvement. There was a comment that the voluntary timeline for submissions of the four discussions was arbitrary; fixed submission dates would have added structure. However, there was a clear consensus among the students that the course increased their awareness and their perceptions of changes needed for a balanced and ethical food system. In addition, the analysis indicated the most prescient components of the course that piqued their particular interests, or were most effective, as illuminated in the following themes.

3.1. Theme 1: Self-Awareness of the Food System Milieu

There was a unanimous consensus (n = 21) on the need for all consumers to understand their personal and extended overall effects on the food environment. In the following verbatim examples (sic with anonymized demographic identifiers), students generally expressed their previous unawareness of ethical and food sustainability issues:

Before taking this course, I had limited knowledge about the issues in food systems later through all classes I have been to. Now I have a greater awareness of the environmental problems brought on by animal husbandry in CAFOs, the effects of agriculture on the environment, and the destruction of soil fertility and rise in crop diseases caused by monocultures. Peers don’t talk about these issues.

(F01, G, INT)

This was reiterated by another:

Before taking this course, I didn’t fully grasp how our food choices are tied to environmental sustainability, global fairness, and cultural traditions.

(F04, G, INT)

While another student expressed that his broadminded upbringing did not adequately prepare him for the issues covered in the class:

Growing up in a progressive generation, I have often found myself considering humanitarian matters. Healthcare for all, increased gun control, and even the natural environment. However, very little thought went into the ethics and sustainability of modern food practices.

(M14, G)

3.2. Theme 2: Increased Consciousness of Animal Ethics

This was a major theme that was repeatedly mentioned by the students (n = 11). They were inspired by Secretary Ed Wengryn’s perspective on New Jersey agricultural production and particularly by Temple Grandin’s Zoom visit to the class and the supplementary readings and videos on animal ethics. There was an increased understanding of animal rights, as demonstrated below:

I’ve learned that animals deserve ethical treatment and should not be subjected to unnecessary harm. Understanding that animals are sentient beings has made me more aware of the responsibility we have to treat them with care and respect.

(F-04)

One reading in particular [about slaughterhouse practices] that instantly captured my attention and stuck with me was “Killing at Close Range,” a chapter from Timothy Pachirat’s book “Every Twelve Seconds”.

(M06, UG)

Slaughterhouses were generally viewed, as described by one student, as “an inhumane system that is also potentially unsanitary along with possible unsafe working conditions” (F17, G). In addition, there was reported empathy for animal welfare. Still, many of the students regarded meat production as necessary, but it should be done with compassion as per Temple Grandin’s approach, reflected as follows:

While many of us [students] agreed that the killing of animals is unethical when viewing it as a means for food it is not seen as a negative. Rather the animal welfare before they are killed that seemed more concerning.

(F17, G)

Dr. Temple Grandin’s [discussion] gave me more awareness about humane treatment of animals and meat consumption. Her approach regarding reducing animal suffering made me understand the importance of production with [com]passion.

(F12, G)

The supplementary Temple Grandin tour videos on beef, pigs, and particularly, turkey processing operations (as recalled by one student) were the “most impactful out of all of the other videos and interviews” (F-05, UG), as they demonstrated the mechanization of the animal husbandry industry. Concerns about the food processing industry extended into the students’ understandings of aquaculture and the contradictions inherent to fish farming, as one student stated:

Farmed raised fishing for years was talked about being sustainable and a better option for commercial fishing, however after seeing the negative effects on the fish themselves, the environment and the population of the fish, it has left farmed raised fish less of an option when choosing seafood options or even fish as an option at all.

(F17, G)

As another student expressed surprise:

I had no idea how much fish is being killed yearly for food. One thing that stood out during week 12 readings was how much money and resources are dumped into trying to “fix” the issue. When all humans need to do is work to restore the environment and back off.

(F11, BS/MS)

3.3. Theme 3: Impacts of Required Class Discussions

Surprisingly, another theme mentioned frequently (n = 11) was the appreciation of the mandated class discussions, even though students were graded for participation. Some students struggled with this requirement (cf. M08, UG), but most benefited, as testified in the following statements:

I thoroughly enjoyed exploring our ethical discussions and hearing everyone’s perspectives. It was enlightening to learn about different viewpoints, especially regarding moral dilemmas and societal issues.

(F18, UG)

What I loved most about this class was how open discussions were, even when the topics got controversial… I was challenged and pushed me to think critically and step out of my comfort zone, which I really appreciated.

(F10, UG)

Our class was very differed, and our discussions, which were occasionally heated, provided me with understanding of the culture and social value systems maintained by an extensive variety of eaters.

(F13, G, INT)

In previous classes on sustainability… participation was not required, which made discussions less engaging. In contrast, this class encouraged active participation, creating a richer and more interactive learning experience.

(F19, G, INT)

I was pleasantly surprised from our class discussions… I appreciated how we were able to openly discuss our opinions about controversial food topics. It allowed me to learn and understand new perspectives. However, it also made me realize our rationale for our thoughts are similar to each other.

(F03, UG)

The class has shown me that dialogue is a tool and is one I could use to grow.

(M08, UG)

3.4. Theme 4: Awareness of Food Waste and Its Consequences

This was another thematic issue mentioned multiple times (n = 11), namely food waste, particularly in reference to the chef’s (n = 5) contributions to the panel debate. “His insights”, it was reported, let the students know the “thought and effort go[ing] into serving a single plate of food,’ the benefits of local food production and the “surprising and eye-opening amounts of food being wasted,” in some food service operations (M07, UG; M08, UG; M15, G, INT; F12, G, INT; F18, UG; F19, G, INT).

3.5. Theme 5: Willingness to Explore Alternative Food Sources

A reported impactful part of the course (n = 8) was the students’ assessments of alternative food sources, such as edible insects and lab-grown meat. This topic challenged student assumptions about ethical and cultural food practices, while demonstrating how these options could combat hunger and reduce environmental harm (F04, G, INT). While the thought of eating edible insects was revolting to some, for example:

I thought I would eat insects if it was my last option, but other than that, I do not want to eat bugs.

(F11, BS/MS)

However, eating insects was seen as a viable alternative for providing food access by some students as they are “highly nutrient dense and sustainable” (F-17, G; cf. F-05, UG). One student commented that she recently ate a chocolate ball made with crickets. However, while she viewed this and laboratory-developed meat as an “ethical and sustainable food system solution,” she is “not rushing to get some” (F20).

3.6. Transtheoretical Data

A series of paired-samples t-tests was conducted to examine changes in Stage of Change scores from pre- to post-intervention. As noted in

Table 4. Stage of change scores.

	N	Mean (SD)	Correlation	p	Paired Difference Mean (SD)	t	p	Cohen’s D	Effect Size 95% CI
Precontemplation pre-score	20	12.7 (3.1)	0.66	0.002	1.0 (2.5)	1.9	0.07	0.43	−0.004	0.88
Precontemplation post-score	20	13.7 (2.7)
Contemplation pre-score	20	6.7 (2.7)	0.70	<0.001	−1.5 (2.1)	−3.2	0.005	0.71	−0.04	0.86
Contemplation post-score	20	5.2 (2.7)
Preparation pre-score	19	8.9 (3.4)	0.70	<0.001	−1.9 (2.6)	−3.3	0.004	0.76	−1.2	−0.21
Preparation post-score	19	6.9 (3.3)
Action pre-score	19	8.9 (2.4)	0.10	0.67	−1.3 (4.1)	−1.3	0.2	0.31	−0.076	0.16
Action post-score	19	7.6 (3.6)
Maintenance pre-score	19	10.0 (2.4)	0.12	0.61	−1.3 (3.7)	−1.5	0.14	0.35	−0.80	0.11
Maintenance post-score	19	8.7 (3.2)

and

Table 5. Stage of change scores.

	N	Mean (SD)	Correlation	p	Paired Difference Mean (SD)	t	p	Cohen’s D	Effect Size 95% CI
Precontemplation pre-score	20	12.6 (3.1)	−0.030	0.19	−7.4 (4.7)	−7.0	<0.001	1.60	−2.2	−0.90
Contemplation post-score	20	5.3 (2.7)
Contemplation pre-score	20	6.7 (2.7)	0.66	0.002	0.4 (2.6)	0.70	0.49	0.16	−0.29	0.60
Preparation post-score	20	7.1 (3.3)
Preparation pre-score	19	8.9 (3.4)	0.74	<0.001	−1.3 (2.5)	−2.2	0.04	0.50	−0.97	−0.01
Action post-score	19	7.6 (3.6)
Action pre-score	19	8.9 (2.4)	−0.03	0.92	−0.21 (4.0)	−0.23	0.82	0.05	−0.50	0.40
Maintenance post-score	19	8.7 (3.2)

, precontemplation scores increased slightly, but this change was not statistically significant, t(19) = 1.9, p = 0.07, d = 0.43. Statistically significant reductions were observed in contemplation, t(19) = −3.2, p = 0.005, d = 0.71, and preparation, t(18) = −3.3, p = 0.004, d = 0.76, indicating movement away from earlier stages of readiness. Changes in action and maintenance were nonsignificant (both ps > 0.10). In examining movement between stages, precontemplation scores decreased substantially from pre- to post-intervention, t(19) = –7.0, p < 0.001, reflecting a very large effect (d = 1.60). Preparation scores also decreased significantly, t(18) = –2.2, p = 0.04, d = 0.50. No significant changes were detected for contemplation or action (both ps > 0.40). These data indicate that the intervention produced the strongest effects in reducing early stage scores (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation), consistent with increased readiness for behavior change. Paired-samples t-tests assume that observations are independent across pairs and that the within-pair difference scores are approximately normally distributed and free of extreme outliers. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d for paired samples, which similarly assumes normality of the within-person difference distribution while explicitly accounting for the statistical dependence between paired observations (see Table 4 and Table 5). No significant differences were observed between the undergraduate and graduate responses for either the qualitative or quantitative data.

4. Discussion

The findings from the students’ qualitative statements indicated a struggle to couch their positionality on sustainable issues. There was a general acknowledgement that action must be taken to sustain or improve the food environment. Some have even taken small steps in this direction, though there was agreement that this was not enough (cf F19). The myriad conflicting personal priorities and external values perplexed their decision-making processes. This included balancing self-indulgence with temperance, when others are starving; balancing a need for nutritional equity and access with the reality of industrial agriculture; food accessibility with food waste; animal husbandry with ethical philosophy; farming with hunting; local with global; and nutrition with technology. All of these issues are moderated by cultural requirements, personal preferences, health issues, and social norms. Sustainable food solutions, it was reported, “are not so black and white” (F06). In general, the students expressed a greater awareness of sustainable food issues, are more inclined to be conscious of their food choices, and are ready to make adjustments, but sustainable food advocacy was not generally expressed.

The data assessed from the TTM surveys taken at the beginning and end of the semester demonstrated a significant positive change in student attitudes from the contemplation pre-score to the contemplation post-score and a significant positive change from the preparation pre-score to the preparation post-score. Further, there were no significant differences between the pre- and post-scores in the precontemplation, action, and maintenance stages. This indicates that the students had a high degree of concern, and they were ready and perhaps seriously considered taking positive action [67,68,69]. In addition, the students’ scores for the Preparation stage significantly indicated that they are readily and actively planning pro-environmental behavior. However, as a limitation to this research, the semester ended before the action and maintenance steps could be assessed. In addition, the small sample size necessarily limits statistical power and generalizability. These results, therefore, should be interpreted with caution, with emphasis placed on effect sizes and confidence intervals to better contextualize the strength and direction of associations. Future research with larger, more representative samples is needed to confirm these patterns.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), originally developed by Ajzen [61], provides a useful framework for interpreting both the reflective and quantitative data generated in this study and has been widely applied in environmental behavior research to examine intentions to adopt sustainable and ethical food practices [65,70,71,72,73,74]. The TPB conceptualizes behavioral intention as the most proximal determinant of action and as a marker of an individual’s readiness for behavioral change, allowing for the identification of key inflection points at which targeted motivators may facilitate positive outcomes. Within this framework, intentions are shaped by three core constructs: attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, which together mediate the translation of intentions into actual behavior [61]. Specifically, individuals are more likely to intend to engage in a behavior when they perceive its outcomes as beneficial, believe that significant others support or approve of the behavior (i.e., subjective and injunctive norms), perceive engagement in the behavior as normative (i.e., descriptive norms), and feel capable of performing and sustaining the behavior. However, the extent to which intentions are enacted remains contingent upon affective and contextual factors such as access to resources, personal affective states, and perceived competence in making and maintaining behavioral change [61,72,74,75].

In the present study, students generally exhibited positive attitudes toward adopting sustainable behaviors, highlighting the significance of “maintaining harmony with nature, preventing resource depletion, and improving the planet for future generations” (e.g., F01, G). Participants also reported receiving both subjective and injunctive normative support from peers, a core objective of the FESA course (e.g., “Hearing other students’ perspectives made the class more engaging and enlightening,” (F19, G), as well as from professional guest speakers, another core goal (e.g., “their [the speakers’] passion and desire to do better…inspires me,” M06, UG). Beyond assigned readings and coursework, these discussion-based subjective norms, reinforced by peers and the perspectives of industry experts, appear to have contributed to the development of increasingly progressive attitudes toward sustainability. Although students articulated intentions to modify their sustainable behaviors (e.g., “it made me want to do more for the sustainability of our future,” F02, UG), their qualitative responses did not provide evidence of active engagement in sustainable food-related behaviors.

While the TPB provided insight into students’ intentions, it did not reveal how or whether the anticipated behavior changes manifested throughout the semester. In contrast, the TTM survey data indicated that the intervention led to reductions in early-stage precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation scores, consistent with increased readiness for behavioral change. However, the overall findings suggest that the students were not yet ready to actively implement and sustain behavioral changes, generally aligning with the qualitative results. This may be attributable to the limited timeframe of the course, which did not allow for a broader, longitudinal assessment. Still, while students did indicate a desire to moderate some of their behaviors, they did not express an overall mandate for huge changes. This supports findings by Silver [1] indicating that while students enrolled in a food sustainability course agreed with the importance of its contents, they did not significantly alter their eating behaviors. In sum, while the FESA class addressed students’ preferences and concerns related to food sustainability, its impact only influenced the students’ prospective behaviors or intentions, but not necessarily their actions. The lack of more substantive changes may have been due to their lack of accessibility to resources to make the change, the external subjective normative environment, time constraints, and their perceived behavioral control over their own actions and those of others [75].

5. Limitations

This study was designed as an exploratory investigation that had a number of limitations, including a small, convenience-based sample that restricts the generalizability of the results beyond the study population. The research design did not include a longitudinal assessment of students’ behavior beyond the conclusion of the academic term, limiting insight into possible attitudinal or behavioral changes. The reliance on self-reported measures also introduces the potential for response bias, particularly given that participants were evaluating outcomes within their own academic discipline. The findings should be viewed as preliminary but nonetheless contribute important early evidence to an under-studied area and can inform the design, power calculations, and sampling strategies of future larger studies.

6. Conclusions

This research examines the limited effectiveness of contemporary pedagogical approaches in fostering transformative student behaviors related to sustainable food practices, and proposes instructional strategies that may more effectively influence student behavior while also identifying barriers to achieving lasting change. The outcome data from the FESA course suggest that while student attitudes toward food sustainability appear amenable to change, the translation of these attitudinal shifts into sustained behavioral change may be influenced by a range of contextual factors. For instance, students’ intentions to eat more sustainably may be constrained by practical considerations such as time limitations, financial pressures, and competing commitments related to employment, coursework, and family responsibilities. Students may also experience uncertainty when negotiating among traditional or cultural dietary norms, contemporary agricultural practices, and sustainability considerations. Additionally, as Sandler [22] (p. 84) notes, individuals may be influenced by the “appeal of inconsequentialism,” wherein well-intentioned actions are tempered by perceptions of their limited individual impact. Collectively, these considerations underscore the complexity of fostering durable behavior change, which may extend beyond the influence of a single course. However, these issues may be mitigated by curricular strategies to promote student engagement with sustainable food practices. These should include fostering subjective peer norms through structured classroom and online discussions, alongside providing injunctive normative support through affirmation and validation from invited industry professionals. In addition, a broader curriculum that includes food sustainability courses with classes on political advocacy, critical thinking, ethics, agriculture, and food distribution management may be more impactful. Further research is required to understand what motivators are needed to inspire students to take individual and collective sustainable food actions.