OECD governments are increasingly recognising the need to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Food-related initiatives have the potential to help strengthen community social infrastructure (the spaces and organisations that encourage social interactions) and can be integrated into existing policy strategies to promote social connection. This chapter explores the policy relevance of promoting social connectedness and summarises existing evidence on how activities centred around food might be used to strengthen local social infrastructure in a way that helps boost social connectedness while contributing to broader well-being outcomes and policy goals.
Promoting Social Connectedness Through Food
Abstract
Social connectedness is rising on the policy agenda in many OECD countries, driven in part by a growing awareness of the significant individual and societal costs of loneliness and social isolation. However, despite an increased focus on identifying impactful interventions in recent years, these are relatively new areas for policy attention and governments are still at an early stage of understanding how to boost connectedness in practice. This report contributes to the practical knowledge in this field by focussing on the role of food and food-based activities for bringing people together, making use of existing community social infrastructure, and creating new opportunities for interaction and connection. Growing, preparing, and eating food together provides opportunities to potentially boost social connectedness while also generating broader individual, community and societal well-being benefits, such as improving physical and mental health, encouraging active lifestyles and more nutritious food choices, enabling new skill development, addressing food insecurity and financial deprivation, and contributing to stewardship of environmental resources.
This report builds on previous OECD research on social connection and loneliness (OECD, 2025[1]; Mahoney et al., 2024[2]). It also builds on academic research on the broader well-being benefits of sharing meals and practitioner research exploring how local communities can build programmes that simultaneously improve both access to nutritious food as well as social connections outcomes, expanding on these efforts to bring in evidence from a broader range of OECD countries (De Neve et al., 2025[3]; Dunbar, 2017[4]; Birla, Krombach and Pasricha, 2025[5]; Health Food Policy Project, 2023[6]). Its aim is to provide practical examples and insights for policymakers and other actors looking to improve social connections and broader well-being outcomes at the community level.
This chapter addresses the policy relevance of social connection and the value of fostering gathering spaces through social infrastructure in more depth, before outlining how food and food-related activities have been included in formal strategies that OECD governments have launched to combat loneliness and social isolation. It concludes with a consideration of the existing evidence on the benefits of food-related activities for social connectedness. Chapter 2 delves deeper into selected case studies to understand how programmes are being implemented by community organisations and local and national governments, highlighting what has worked well in practice, and how common challenges are being addressed.
OECD governments are increasingly recognising the need to promote social connectedness and reduce social isolation and loneliness. Japan, Korea, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom are among the countries to have launched national strategies to boost connectedness in recent years (OECD, 2025[1]; 2026[7]). At the international level, the OECD, the European Commission and the World Health Organization (through its Commission on Social Connection) have conducted research and knowledge exchange activities to support these efforts and further advance the agenda of putting social connections on the radar of policymakers (World Health Organization, 2025[8]; Mahoney et al., 2024[2]; European Commission, 2022[9]; OECD, 2025[1]). In 2025, delegates of the World Health Assembly approved a resolution identifying social connections as a global public health priority, encouraging public awareness campaigns, better measurement of loneliness and isolation and the establishment of national strategies (World Health Organization, 2025[8]; Health Policy Watch, 2025[10]). Existing initiatives are also being supported by growing international co‑ordination amongst non-governmental actors and researchers, such as through the Global Initiative on Loneliness and Connection (GILC, 2025[11]).
While some of these efforts predate the COVID‑19 pandemic, the widespread social distancing and confinement measures of 2020-2021 gave greater urgency to the need to understand how social ties can be strengthened. Additionally, trends such as population ageing (as older people tend to be more socially isolated than other age groups on average across OECD countries),1 increasing rates of people living alone, and changing modes of social interaction towards digital communication (see for example Figure 1.3, Panel A) have contributed to the rise in policy attention for this issue (OECD, 2025[1]).
Social connectedness is an essential component of overall well-being,2 which is multi-faceted and comprises structural aspects of people’s relationships as well as their quality and the support they provide.3 In principle, a person can be socially isolated in a structural sense (e.g. living alone and rarely seeing other people) without experiencing subjective feeling of loneliness. Conversely, someone with frequent social contact with friends and family can feel lonely or lacking in social support (see Glossary for definitions of key terms). However, both social isolation and loneliness are associated with poor physical and mental health outcomes such as heightened risk and worsened symptom severity for dementia (Akhter-Khan et al., 2021[12]; Penninkilampi et al., 2018[13]; Holwerda et al., 2014[14]), cardiovascular, coronary heart and other diseases (Valtorta et al., 2016[15]; Freak-Poli et al., 2021[16]; Liang et al., 2024[17]), as well as increased risk of premature mortality (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015[18]; Alm, Låftman and Bohman, 2019[19]), depression, anxiety, and other negative mental health outcomes (Wang et al., 2018[20]; Cruwys et al., 2013[21]; Cacioppo et al., 2011[22]; Hansen et al., 2017[23]); worse labour market outcomes (loneliness is also associated with poorer performance and productivity at work, a higher risk of absenteeism, unemployment or dropping out of an educational programme (Morrish, Mujica-Mota and Medina-Lara, 2022[24]; Matthews et al., 2016[25]; Maher et al., 2013[26]; Bowers et al., 2022[27])); and shape patterns in civic engagement and voting behaviours (Neu et al., 2023[28]). Conversely, strong social ties within communities – including close relationships with one’s neighbours, community leaders or local service providers – are associated with crime reduction (Stuart and Taylor, 2021[29]) and a greater ability of the local area to respond to natural disasters (The U.S. Surgeon General, 2023[30]; Aldrich and Meyer, 2014[31]).4 Furthermore, societies with higher levels of trust – an important aspect of social capital – have been shown to be more productive (Smith, 2020[32]; Bjørnskov and Méon, 2015[33]; Yamamura and Shin, 2012[34]; Ganau and Rodríguez-Pose, 2023[35]), have higher income per capita (Algan and Cahuc, 2010[36]), and higher rates of economic growth (Smith, 2020[32]; Horváth, 2013[37]; Beugelsdijk, de Groot and van Schaik, 2004[38]; Zak and Knack, 2001[39]; Knack and Keefer, 1997[40]).
The public health impact of loneliness is considered to be substantial, and the World Health Organization estimates that loneliness may be responsible for 871 000 deaths annually, across the globe (World Health Organization, 2025[8]). Methodology to estimate the economic costs of loneliness and isolation differ across studies but a systematic review of national appraisals found estimates ranging from USD 2 billion to USD 25.2 billion per year (Engel et al., 2025[41]): individual country estimates range from USD 400 billion annually for the US economy (Cigna, 2020[42]; CDC, 2023[43]), 1.2% of annual GDP in Spain (Rodríguez, Castiñeira and Rodríguez-Míguez, 2023[44]), DKK 7 million annually in Denmark (AGE Platform Europe, 2023[45]; Hamilton, 2023[46]), GBP 2 billion per year for employers in the United Kingdom (New Economics Foundation, 2017[47]), and KRW 7 trillion total – or KRW 21 million per capita – for young Korean adults (Korea Youth Foundation, 2023[48]).
Recent analysis at the OECD has also shed light on patterns in connection and disconnection in OECD Member states (OECD, 2025[1]) finding that:
While in general social connection outcomes are strong, there remains a substantial minority of people who feel disconnected: In 2022 10% of people say they have no one to count on in times of need, 8% report having no close friends, and 6% felt lonely most or all of the time over the past four weeks.
Socio‑economic deprivations – including unemployment, low earnings and lower levels of education – put one at heightened risk for disconnection, as does older age and living alone (Figure 1.1). For example, compared to the overall population, people who are unemployed or have lower incomes are around twice as likely to report feeling lonely; people who live alone (a growing share of the population) are 1.5 times more dissatisfied with their relationships; and the elderly are more socially isolated: 11% say they never meet friends in person in a typical year, more than double the rate of the general population.
In recent years, men and young people – groups traditionally not considered as vulnerable to disconnection – have seen some deterioration in social connection outcomes on average across OECD countries.
Ratio of social connections outcomes for different population groups compared to population outcomes, OECD average, 2022 or latest available year
Note: The figure depicts the ratio of the population group outcome compared to the total population average outcome, for each of four selected social connections outcomes. Latest available year refers to 2022 aside from “no one to count on” which refers to a pooled average of 2022-2023 for education, income and live alone outcomes; and a pooled average of 2017-2023 for age and education outcomes. Pooled averages are used to ensure sufficiently large sample sizes. Outcomes better than the population average are greater than 1, and outcomes that are worse than the population average are below 1. A value of 1 indicates equal outcomes for the population group and the population average.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries, https://doi.org/10.1787/6df2d6a0-en.
The need for social infrastructure to support community-level connectedness
Social connectedness is a relatively recent policy field with less established evidence on good practice than other parts of public health and social policy. The existing knowledge base on the effectiveness of programmes and policies to combat loneliness and social isolation is mostly limited to interventions at the individual level such as training in social skills and relationship-building, and psychological or therapeutic interventions, which have been found to have small-to-moderate effects on social connectedness outcomes (World Health Organization, 2025[8]). However, there is a widespread consensus that, beyond such individual-level efforts, community- and societal-level interventions are needed to tackle the environmental and structural drivers of disconnection (OECD, 2025[1]; WHO, 2025[49]; Holt‐Lunstad, 2024[50]; Schnepf, d’Hombres and Mauri, 2024[51]).
A key factor in the formation, maintenance and strengthening of social connectedness at the community level is the presence of widely accessible, high-quality local social infrastructure (Figure 1.2). Social infrastructure in this context (also known as “third places”, see Glossary) refers to spaces and organisations that encourage social interactions and thereby strengthen social capital and feelings of belonging. This can include public institutions and places (libraries, schools, playgrounds, parks, public libraries, pedestrian walking areas), community organisations (places of worship, civic associations) and commercial establishments (cafes, barbershops, bookstores) (OECD, 2025[1]; Klinenberg, 2019[52]).
Source: OECD (2025[1]), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries, https://doi.org/10.1787/6df2d6a0-en.
Given the diversity of spaces that can be considered social infrastructure, measuring trends in social infrastructure availability and quality in a comprehensive and internationally comparative way can be challenging (OECD, 2025[1]). However, the disappearance of third spaces has become the subject of academic or media attention in a number of OECD countries (Joseph, 2025[53]; Khassen, 2025[54]; Finlay et al., 2019[55]), and there is some evidence that public and commercial spaces and their use is changing, in ways that potentially limit social interaction. For example, in the United Kingdom, more than 180 libraries operated by local government either closed or were handed over to volunteer groups between 2016 and 2024, with more socio‑economically deprived communities being four times more likely to have lost a publicly-funded library during the period (Lynch, Thomas and Hattenstone, 2024[56]). In France, the closure of more than 18 000 “bars-tabacs” (small bars also selling cigarettes, lottery tickets and other provisions such as postal stamps) between 2002 and 2022 has been associated with rising political polarisation at the local level due to the disappearance of spaces that previously facilitated discussion and debate (Subtil, 2026[57]). Even when public spaces remain, the ways that people interact with one another in these places are changing. Evidence from a study analysing video recordings and CCTV footage of pedestrian behaviour in three metropolitan areas in the United States over a 30‑year period showed that walking speeds increased by 15% and time spent lingering on public sidewalks declined, leading to an overall decrease in frequency of group encounters and interactions in public spaces, and indicating that urban residents view streets primarily as thoroughfares rather than social spaces (Salazar-Miranda et al., 2024[58]).
Changing patterns of social interaction may also be impacting the use of social infrastructure spaces. For example, on average across OECD countries, the share of people getting together with friends on a daily basis has dropped considerably over the last two decades (from 21% in 2006 to 12% in 2022). During the same period, daily remote contact with friends (by telephone, text, and social media) increased (Figure 1.3, Panel A). Both trends are occurring in the context of a large and growing share of the population in OECD countries living alone (Figure 1.3, Panel B). While these data do not directly pertain to social infrastructure usage, they may reflect broader societal trends where face‑to-face socialising is being replaced with remote interaction via digital platforms in some instances.
Note: Panel A: OECD EU-EFTA 21 refers to Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain. Panel B: OECD 30 refers to Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries, https://doi.org/10.1787/6df2d6a0-en.
Food as a social connector
Among several options for community-based social connection efforts, food can provide a valuable entry point because it has relatively broad-based appeal (being a universal human need which is often also an inherently pleasurable experience). Food-based activities can also be adapted to available social infrastructure and help strengthen the social purpose of shared public and private spaces – ranging from existing or repurposed green space (for community gardens, communal-supported agriculture, and community composting initiatives), built space (such as community halls, restaurants, and cafés for meal-sharing and cooking groups), and shared public outdoor areas (such as parks or neighbourhood streets for large‑scale community dining events).
Food-based activities are not the only group activity that can help strengthen both relational and broader well-being outcomes; this is for instance also true for sports (Bengtsson et al., 2025[59]; Eather et al., 2023[60]; World Economic Forum, 2021[61]), board games and role playing games (Novaes and Kanyat, 2025[62]; Abbott, Stauss and Burnett, 2021[63]), and singing (Rowan et al., 2025[64]; Williams, Dingle and Clift, 2018[65]) among other group activities. Nevertheless, food-based activities can be easily accessible to a wide range of people (e.g. no particular skill or fitness level is required for attending a communal meal, and it can be relatively low-cost), making it a promising vehicle for connecting people within and across communities.5
The social opportunities afforded by food-based activities have often been harnessed by actors at the local level such as municipal governments, civic or community organisations and local businesses. As strategies to promote social connections and combat loneliness become more widespread, some national and sub-national governments are beginning to consider the connecting power of food more systematically in these efforts as well.6
For example, the Japanese national government has taken a series of institutional steps to address loneliness and social isolation in recent years. In 2021 the government appointed the Minister for Loneliness and Isolation (Japan's Cabinet Office, 2021[66]). Furthermore, the Act on the Advancement of Measures to Address Loneliness and Isolation came into force in 2024, and in the same year, the Cabinet Office adopted the Priority Plan to Facilitate the Promotion of the Policies Regarding Measures to Loneliness and Isolation (Japan’s Cabinet Office, 2024[67]). The Priority Plan recognises loneliness and social isolation as national issues, and the associated policy recommendations include a number of food-related measures involving several different ministries across government.7 These include activities such as food and nutrition education; increasing participation in farming activities by people with disabilities, older adults and those experiencing poverty; redistributing public food stocks to children’s cafeterias, home‑meal delivery services and food banks; and expanding community cafés, particularly dementia cafés, providing older adults and their families with an inviting atmosphere to socialise and connect (Japan's Cabinet Office, 2025[68]).
At the municipal level in Korea, the Seoul without Loneliness strategy includes the introduction of “Seoul Mind Convenience Stores”, spaces where city residents prepare and share free meals with one another, while also accessing mental health support (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2024[14]; Joon-hyun, 2025[15]). The strategy also includes the Healthy Dining initiative, which supports social dining experiences for middle‑aged people living in single‑person households: this population group is targeted given their higher risk for neglecting to maintain a healthy diet, which can negatively affect their physical and mental health (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2024[69]).
Mobilising public participation: Activity banks, awareness campaigns
Food-based activities associated with anti-loneliness initiatives are not always directly implemented by governments. In several OECD countries (including the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and Germany, among others) the government uses national coalitions to bring together actors from multiple sectors to better enable cross-sectoral collaboration.8 These coalitions help inform national action plans, facilitate knowledge exchange and networking, support research, conduct outreach and advocacy, highlight good practices, and organise events to raise awareness around loneliness. Many have established online platforms to allow the public to find social connectedness activities in their area,9 which often include food-based activities (e.g. community gardens, shared meal events, and platforms that help residents set up local cooking clubs).
Food activities have also been integrated into awareness campaigns or themed action weeks designed to reduce stigma and encourage people to take part in social activities. For example, in Germany, the Together Out of Loneliness week used “drinking coffee together” as a theme in 2024, encouraging local actors to organise informal encounters around coffee tables (Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit, 2026[70]). During the Netherlands’ annual Week Against Loneliness, municipalities and neighbourhood organisations host a wide range of activities that invite people to connect, including communal meals, neighbourhood potlucks, and community cafés (Eén tegen eenzaamheid, 2026[71]). The role of food is most explicit in Denmark’s biannual campaign “Denmark Eats Together”,10 a nationwide campaign encouraging people across Denmark to host or join shared meals (Folkebevægelsen mod ensomhed, 2026[72]). The events are not intended as one‑off encounters, but as gateways into longer-term community involvement.
Mobilising private sector contributions: Funding and in-kind support
Government leadership in establishing social isolation and loneliness as policy priorities can also help mobilise support from private sector actors, in terms of providing additional funding, in-kind support (such as food surplus, or employee time for volunteering), and access to venues (such as restaurants, bars, or cafés) for community activities. Leadership from (sub-) national strategies against loneliness and isolation can – either explicitly or implicitly – encourage private sector actors to develop their own community social connectedness initiatives.
Examples of private sector engagement with (sub-) national social connections initiatives in OECD countries include:
Strengthening the social infrastructure functioning of Dutch supermarkets. As a part of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport’s National Coalition Against Loneliness, the supermarket chain Jumbo has introduced a “chat checkout” for customers who are not in a hurry and appreciate a short conversation with cashiers (Grimmer, 2023[73]). Following positive feedback from both employees and shoppers who enjoyed having more social interactions, the initiative has expanded to more than 200 stores nationwide (Jumbo, 2021[74]). In some locations, this is complemented by an “All Together Coffee Corner”, where neighbours can share a coffee and, in some cases, receive assistance with shopping from volunteers. Beyond these initiatives, other local supermarkets in the Netherlands have also contributed to the country’s efforts to combat loneliness by identifying and referring potentially lonely individuals to community initiatives. This approach recognises that people experiencing loneliness or social isolation still visit supermarkets for essential errands, making these familiar settings important points of contact for early outreach and support (Eén tegen eenzaamheid, 2024[75]).
Utilising food delivery services to identify individuals at risk of loneliness in Seoul, Korea. As a part of its Seoul without Loneliness strategy, the city of Seoul has partnered with delivery app services to identify users who may be more disconnected: For example, people in single‑person households who frequently order takeaway food through delivery apps. These users receive a pop-up window to assess their risk of isolation, are offered discount vouchers for community activities that encourage them to go outside and are notified about the availability of support services (including the Seoul Mind Convenience Stores, described above) (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2024[69]).
Boosting children’s nutrition and social connectedness through cafeterias and breakfast clubs. The national governments in Japan and the United Kingdom were both early to recognise the policy importance of loneliness, establishing central strategies and government positions to promote social connections. In both countries, as well, private companies are engaged in efforts to combat loneliness and isolation – even if not explicitly under the remit of a national initiative. For example, the Ajinomoto Group, a multinational food company based in Japan, has launched the “AjiPanda Shokudo” (cafeteria) scheme, which channels proceeds from the sale of its food waste reduction products to support local children’s cafeterias. In addition to contributing to environmental sustainability, this initiative strengthens community connections by enabling people to share meals in local community settings. By 2024, the programme had supported more than 280 community meal events, reaching over 16 000 students (Ajinomoto, 2025[76]). A similar approach has also been taken in the United Kingdom, with children’s Breakfast Clubs at local schools funded in part by the sales of food surplus by the bakery chain Greggs and its foundation (Greggs Foundation, 2026[77]).
The examples highlighted in this section provide a brief overview at how governments have already thought about the link between food and social connectedness promotion. Chapter 2 of this report is devoted to a detailed exploration of eight programmes, led by stakeholders within and outside of government, at the local, municipal and national levels, all of which use food-based activities to foster a sense of belonging and community cohesion. The case study approach informs our understanding of the cross-cutting challenges facing these types of initiatives, how programme leaders and policymakers have addressed these issues, and identifies emerging lessons for good practice in building community through food-based programmes.
Before moving to specific case studies, it is useful to first take stock of what is known from existing research about the relationship between food and social connections. Indeed, there is a growing evidence base highlighting the association between food practices and broader well-being outcomes, including social connectedness. This section unpacks what is known about the social benefits of food more generally (with a focus on food security, cooking, and eating meals with others) before providing a summary overview of different types of food-based interventions and associated evidence.
Food security and access to nutritious food
There is a robust literature highlighting the economic, developmental, physical and mental health costs of lacking access to nutritious food (Giner and Placzek, 2022[78]; Placzek, 2021[79]), with now also increasing evidence as to the social costs of food insecurity. Research has demonstrated that individuals experiencing food insecurity are at increased risk of loneliness and a lack of social support. Socio‑economic inequalities in the regular consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables (Figure 1.4) overlap with deprivations in social connections outcomes (Figure 1.1). In a similar vein, the inability to get together with friends and family to share a meal, or to afford to eat meat, chicken, fish (or the vegetarian equivalent) at least every other day, are more likely to affect those already experiencing other socio‑economic deprivations (Figure 1.5) – such as unemployment, lower education and lower earnings (Figure 1.1). Food insecurity among the young exists in all OECD countries with comparable data, with 8% of 15‑year‑old students reporting they skip a meal at least weekly because they cannot afford to buy food (Figure 1.6).
Beyond nutritional deprivation, there is also a link to the ability to connect with others: for example, those experiencing food insecurity may feel isolated or ashamed, with stigma acting as a barrier to seeking help and socialising with others, leading to a downward spiral of further withdrawal (Garthwaite, 2016[80]; Runnels, Kristjansson and Calhoun, 2011[81]; Bernal, Frongillo and Jaffe, 2016[82]). Food insecurity can also be associated with social exclusion, as individuals may feel unable to afford food-related social activities, such as meeting up with friends at a local café or restaurant, or participating in culturally-relevant events (e.g. birthday celebrations), resulting in less time spent with friends and more time spent alone (Knight, O’Connell and Brannen, 2018[83]; Meijs et al., 2020[84]; Pfeiffer, Ritter and Hirseland, 2011[85]).
Note: Data refer to 2019 aside from Belgium (2018), Austria (2018-2019) and Germany (2019).
Source: OECD calculations based on European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) wave 3 data, Eurostat (n.d.[86]) (database),
Share of respondents who cannot afford each activity, OECD EU-EFTA 24, 2024
Note: OECD EU-EFTA 24 refers to Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Item non-response rates exceed 20% for Poland for inability to afford meeting friends/family for a monthly meal (22%). The dotted lines represent the overall population average for each indicator.
Source: OECD calculations based on Eurostat (n.d.[87]), European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) – Scientific Use File (SUF) (database), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-statistics-on-income-and-living-conditions.
Share of students reporting not eating once a week or more because there was not enough money to buy food in the past 30 days, OECD 25, 2022
Source: OECD (2024[88]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume V): Learning Strategies and Attitudes for Life, PISA, https://doi.org/10.1787/c2e44201-en.
Cooking and food preparation
Analysis of cross-sectional data show that people who prepare and consume home‑cooked meals tend to also have better nutritional literacy and healthier diets (Gallup & the Ajinomoto Group, 2023[89]; Mills et al., 2017[90]; Nature Research Intelligence, 2024[91]). While this is particularly true for older people (Beck et al., 2020[92]; Studiyanti et al., 2025[93]), children who are involved in preparing meals with their parents can also benefit and are more likely to develop life‑long cooking skills, better nutrition, reduced risk of obesity and disordered eating, and higher academic achievement (Hagmann, Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020[94]; Glanz et al., 2021[95]; Nature Research Intelligence, 2024[91]).
Recent associational evidence from the Gallup World Poll shows people who cook often, especially with or for others, report higher life satisfaction, improved well-being and a stronger sense of belonging (Figure 1.7); cooking in general is associated with slightly higher social support than not cooking (Figure 1.7, Panel B). In OECD countries in 2022, 67% of respondents reported they enjoyed cooking over the past week, 14% reported they did not enjoy cooking, and 19% did not cook. Those who enjoyed cooking had the best outcomes across two indices of subjective well-being – measuring experience of positive emotions (Figure 1.7, Panel A) and life evaluation (Figure 1.7, Panel B). Women are more likely to take on the responsibility for domestic food preparation than men – across OECD countries in 2022, 28% of men said they had not cooked at all in the previous 7 days compared with only 10% of women – highlighting the case for bringing men (and particularly older men) together to strengthen their ability to cook for themselves while building social connections (Men’s Pie Club, 2026[96]; Men’s Kitchen, 2025[97]) (see also Chapter 2 for the case study on Men’s Pie Clubs).
Note: Both data panels refer to an OECD 38 average. Panel A: The positive experience index runs from 0 (lowest possible score) to 100 (highest/best possible score), based on how many positive emotions the respondent experienced the previous day. Panel B: “Thriving” refers to respondents who rate their current life satisfaction a 7 or higher (on a 0‑10 scale) and their future expected life satisfaction an 8 or higher.
Source: Adapted, to limit analysis to OECD countries only, from Gallup and the Ajinomoto Group (2023[89]), Well-being Through Cooking: Global Insights Into Cooking Enjoyment and Eating Together, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/544376/cooking-enjoyment-communal-wellbeing.aspx.
Aside from cooking with others, qualitative studies have shown that people derive meaning from cooking for others: the acts of feeding loved ones and gifting food can provide a sense of purpose and joy (Farmer and Cotter, 2021[98]). The social benefits of cooking may be particularly strong for older people, with cooking associated with having more opportunities to socially engage with others, in addition to a sense of autonomy, purpose and independence (Studiyanti et al., 2025[93]; Mayer, 2024[99]). A population-based study in Japan found that older women with better cooking skills were more than twice as likely to have strong neighbourhood ties and 65% more likely to eat with friends compared to those with lower cooking skill levels (Tani, Fujiwara and Kondo, 2023[100]).
Eating meals with others
Beyond cooking together, a number of studies have explored the beneficial outcomes associated with sharing meals (Gallup & the Ajinomoto Group, 2023[89]; Gallup, 2023[101]; De Neve et al., 2025[3]; Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2025[102]; Birla, Krombach and Pasricha, 2025[5]). Data from the Gallup World Poll show a positive association between shared meals and subjective well-being outcomes: life satisfaction and positive affect increase with the number of shared meals in an average week, and negative affect decreases (Figure 1.8).
Note: Panel A: Life satisfaction is measured on a 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied) scale; Panels B and C: Positive and negative affect refer to the number of positive or negative emotions the respondent experienced the day prior, higher values indicate a higher frequency of positive (/negative) emotions. Number of shared weekly meals refers to the number of meals that were consumed with others over the past 14 days.
Source: Adapted, to limit analysis to OECD countries only, from De Neve et al., (2025[3]), “Sharing meals with others: How sharing meals supports happiness and social connections”, in Helliwell, J. et al. (eds.), World Happiness Report 2025, https://doi.org/10.18724/whr-g119-bv60.
Indeed, evidence shows that individuals who regularly share meals with others report higher levels of happiness, life satisfaction, trust, connection to others in the household, community engagement, and fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety (Dunbar, 2017[4]; Berge et al., 2024[103]; De Neve et al., 2025[3]; Victoria-Montesinos et al., 2023[104]; Prati and Senik, 2026[105]). In addition to experiencing more frequent positive emotions, people who share meals with others are also more likely to report enjoying their food (De Neve et al., 2025[3]). Social meals serve as moments of togetherness, deepening bonds and increasing the number of dependable friendships (Dunbar, 2017[4]; Birla, Krombach and Pasricha, 2025[5]).
Shared family meals also play an important role in the lives of children and adolescents. Data from 25 OECD countries reveal that fewer than half (43%) of young people (students aged 11, 13 or 15 who attend mainstream schools) report that they have a shared meal as a family every day, though rates vary widely across countries, from as low as 21% to as high as 68% (Figure 1.9).
Share of 11‑, 13‑ and 15‑year‑olds who report having a shared family meal “every day”, OECD 25, 2021-2022
Note: The OECD average excludes Belgium (Flemish- (BE‑VLG) and French- (BE‑WAL) speaking regions) and the United Kingdom (England (GB-ENG), Scotland (GB-SCT) and Wales (GB-WLS)).
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) World Health Organization Collaborative Cross-National Survey 2017-2018 and 2021-2022. OECD (n.d.[106]), Child well-being drivers (database), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/child-well-being-drivers.html.
Regular family meals are associated with improved mental health, stronger social ties and positive development outcomes for young people. For example, in a large‑scale Canadian study, adolescents who frequently ate dinner with their families reported fewer emotional and behavioural problems, greater life satisfaction and higher levels of prosocial behaviours (Elgar, Craig and Trites, 2013[107]). The study found that meals created opportunities for emotional exchange, helping children and adolescents develop coping strategies and enhancing family communication. Similarly, in the United States, data from nearly 100 000 students demonstrated that the frequency of family dinners was positively linked to developmental assets like social competence and parental involvement, while being inversely associated with high-risk behaviours including substance use and depression (Fulkerson et al., 2006[108]). A New Zealand report also describes how adolescents who regularly ate family meals had better family relationships, improved communication, lower levels of depressive symptoms and healthier dietary patterns. These associations were seen for both male and female adolescents, and were persistent across income and family structure, reinforcing the idea that sharing meals is a protective practice linked to multiple aspects of adolescent well-being (Utter et al., 2011[109]).
Older adults are also likely to report benefits from sharing meals with others. Shared meals are associated not only with improved dietary habits and better nutritional outcomes (Eto, Sakamoto and Ainuki, 2022[110]; Ishikawa et al., 2017[111]), but also with better quality of life and a greater ability to maintain or rebuild social ties later in life (Ishikawa et al., 2017[111]; Hansen, 2022[112]). Programmes to facilitate shared meals may be particularly important for low-income seniors who live alone (Ishikawa et al., 2017[111]).
In contrast, individuals who eat alone frequently are also more likely to report feeling more isolated, have worse self-reported health ratings and express less optimism about life (Gallup & the Ajinomoto Group, 2023[89]). Solo dining is on the rise: time use data from the United States show that by 2023 more than 1 in 4 respondents reported having eaten every meal alone the previous day, compared to 17% two decades prior (Figure 1.10, Panel A). Data from France find similar rates of solo dining: a June 2025 survey found 24% of respondents had eaten dinner alone four or more days the week prior, and 31% had eaten lunch alone (CEPREMAP, 2025[113]).
Note: Panel A: Data are taken from the American Time Use Survey, 95% confidence intervals are shown. Refer to original source for additional details. Panel B: Data refer to the share of respondents who “often” or “always” watch television during dinner (other response options include “never”, “rarely” and “sometimes”. Parents provide information on television viewing habits for children aged 3‑9. Data for respondents 65+ are not available.
Source: Panel A: De Neve et al., (2025[3]), “Sharing meals with others: How sharing meals supports happiness and social connections”, in Helliwell, J. et al. (eds.), World Happiness Report 2025, https://doi.org/10.18724/whr-g119-bv60. Panel B: Vasquez et al. (2025[114]), EatMoveStats: Estimates from the Belgian Food Consumption Survey (v2025‑11‑20) [dataset], https://eatmovestats.sciensano.be.
Another behaviour that reduces the social quality of mealtimes is watching television or using a smartphone while eating. Simultaneously consuming media and a meal is shown to not only be negatively associated with dietary choices and weight (especially among children) (Coon et al., 2001[115]; Avery, Anderson and McCullough, 2017[116]; Martines et al., 2019[117]; Alblas et al., 2023[118]), but also with lower quality mealtime experiences – for example, a worse emotional atmosphere, less communication and lower group enjoyment during family meals (Berge et al., 2024[103]; Fulkerson et al., 2014[119]; Trofholz et al., 2017[120]).11 Data from Belgium show that in 2022 almost one‑third of adults aged 18‑39 reported “often” or “always” watching television during dinner. Rates for children are also high, at 18% and 20% for 3‑ to 9‑year‑olds and 10‑ to 17‑year‑olds, respectively (Figure 1.10, Panel B).
Collective approaches to growing, accessing, preparing, eating, and disposing of food all present potential opportunities to boost social connectedness
As the preceding sections have summarised, people’s ability to access nutritious food, their participation in cooking and food preparation, and their engagement in eating meals with others can be linked with their social connectedness outcomes. These activities – accessing, preparing, and consuming food – can also be classified as stages within a broader cycle of food production and use which begins with growing food and ends with food disposal (Figure 1.11):
Source: Adapted from Healthy Food Policy Project (2023[6]), Local Policy to Promote Healthy Food Access: A Food Systems Framework, https://healthyfoodpolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Food-Systems-Framework.pdf, with additional inputs from FAO (2018[121]), Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework, https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca2079en and OECD (2025[122]), “Food systems”, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/food-systems.html.
The food system model presented in Figure 1.11 is usually applied to analyse social and environmental issues across the agri-food supply chain, including food security and nutrition. In this report, we have adapted the approach to categorise different food-based activities that can provide opportunities to boost social connectedness, as follows:
Growing food together can be a way to connect people, as well as to foster a deeper awareness of and appreciation for the seasonal, environmental, agricultural and cultural processes involved in bringing food to the table.
Food access shapes who can reach healthy and nutritious food, when, where and at what cost. Activities to improve access to nutritious food can also bring social benefits.
Prepare refers to all of the ways food is made for personal or communal consumption. While food preparation often takes place in the home, collective food preparation outside the home can also provide opportunities for connection.
The consume stage of the food system relates to eating food and sharing meals with others. While these can take place in a variety of settings – including at home; in bars, cafes or restaurants; or in schools and the workplace – the case studies in this report focus on community meal-sharing initiatives outside domestic, commercial or institutional settings. Also referred to as “commensality”, sociological and anthropological literature recognises meal-sharing as a fundamental aspect of human connection and communal relationship building (Fiske, 1991[123]; Fischler, 2011[124]).
Dispose refers to recycling, composting and donating or redistributing food waste or surplus.
Table 1.1 describes example activities for each of these categories and accompanying evidence for their impacts. These examples include community gardens and communal-supported agriculture programmes (growing food); food banks and meal delivery programmes (accessing food); community kitchens and cooking groups (preparing food); community dining events, social cafés, and pop-up neighbourhood restaurants (consuming food); and community composting initiatives and food redistribution programmes (food disposal).
Despite the breadth of existing intervention examples and their potential, the majority of evidence on their impact are based on correlations rather than established causality (see Box 1.1). Indeed, much of the evidence on programme impacts on social connections rely on non-experimental, small sample size research. Yet already, the recent inclusion of food practice questions in both large‑scale international surveys as well as large‑scale population surveys has enabled more robust statistical analysis of the relationship between food and various aspects of well-being (Gallup & the Ajinomoto Group, 2023[89]; Gallup, 2023[101]; De Neve et al., 2025[3]; Prati and Senik, 2026[105]). Generating better evidence on the underlying mechanisms and causal pathways linking food-related activities to social connections and broader well-being outcomes – to then be able to assess their cost-effectiveness and value for money – is a central priority moving forward, as also highlighted in Chapter 2.
Previous OECD work has found that most research on the drivers and impacts of social connectedness outcomes tends to be based on correlational or associative analysis, rather than designs allowing for the establishment of causal pathways. Further, some relationships appear to be bidirectional, with causal mechanisms acting in both directions simultaneously, such as the relationship between loneliness and unemployment: becoming unemployed leads to less time socialising and a loss of community, both of which can contribute to loneliness, while conversely, loneliness is associated with worse mental health outcomes, which is then demonstrated to affect future employment opportunities.
Strengthening causal evidence on the drivers of social connectedness requires improved evidence such as more longitudinal data collection of social connectedness outcomes at the population level, as well as rigorous impact evaluation of community-level interventions, including randomised control trials. Beyond causality, there is also a need for more nuanced impact evaluations to provide information on the magnitude and duration of programme outcomes, as well as differences in outcomes for different population groups and across implementation designs. Improving the rigour and breadth of impact evidence is especially important in the context of establishing cost-effectiveness and value for money to inform whether and when to invest in such programmes. Nevertheless, the existing evidence presented in this report suggests strong theoretical and associational links between actively participating in food-based initiatives and better social connections outcomes.
Source: OECD (2025[1]), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries, https://doi.org/10.1787/6df2d6a0-en.
References
[63] Abbott, M., K. Stauss and A. Burnett (2021), “Table-top role-playing games as a therapeutic intervention with adults to increase social connectedness”, Social Work with Groups, Vol. 45/1, pp. 16-31, https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2021.1932014.
[171] Abran, P. (2025), “« Ce sera le cœur du quartier » : à Paris, 2 000 voisins achètent ensemble une maison dans le XIVe”, Le Parisien, https://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/ce-sera-le-coeur-du-quartier-a-paris-2-000-hyper-voisins-achetent-ensemble-une-maison-dans-le-xive-13-08-2025-XQVUXQIXDBGGDKKYSIE2DHPOUI.php (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[45] AGE Platform Europe (2023), “Proposal for national strategy against loneliness in Denmark - AGE Platform Europe”, https://www.age-platform.eu/proposal-for-national-strategy-against-loneliness-in-denmark/.
[76] Ajinomoto (2025), “Co-Creation of Value with Local Communities and Our Group”, https://www.ajinomoto.com/sustainability/society/17/ (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[12] Akhter-Khan, S. et al. (2021), “Associations of loneliness with risk of Alzheimer’s disease dementia in the Framingham Heart Study”, Alzheimer’s & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, Vol. 17/10, pp. 1619-1627, https://doi.org/10.1002/ALZ.12327.
[160] Aktary, M. (2025), “Exploring the impacts of a farmers’ market healthy food subsidy in Canada on the diet quality, household food insecurity, and psychosocial well-being of adults with low incomes”, Doctoral thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/50744.
[136] Alaimo, K. et al. (2008), “Fruit and Vegetable Intake among Urban Community Gardeners”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 40/2, pp. 94-101, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNEB.2006.12.003.
[118] Alblas, M. et al. (2023), “Consuming media, consuming food: investigating concurrent TV viewing and eating using a 7-d time use diary survey”, Public health nutrition, Vol. 26/4, pp. 748-757, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021002858.
[139] Al-Delaimy, W. and M. Webb (2017), “Community Gardens as Environmental Health Interventions: Benefits Versus Potential Risks”, Current environmental health reports, Vol. 4/2, pp. 252-265, https://doi.org/10.1007/S40572-017-0133-4/TABLES/3.
[31] Aldrich, D. and M. Meyer (2014), “Social capital and community resilience”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 59/2, pp. 254-269, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299.
[36] Algan, Y. and P. Cahuc (2010), “Inherited Trust and Growth”, American Economic Review, Vol. 100/5, pp. 2060-92, https://doi.org/10.1257/AER.100.5.2060.
[19] Alm, S., S. Låftman and H. Bohman (2019), “Poor family relationships in adolescence and the risk of premature death: Findings from the Stockholm Birth Cohort Study”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019, Vol. 16, Page 1690, Vol. 16/10, p. 1690, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH16101690.
[116] Avery, A., C. Anderson and F. McCullough (2017), “Associations between children’s diet quality and watching television during meal or snack consumption: A systematic review”, Maternal & child nutrition, Vol. 13/4, https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12428.
[92] Beck, A. et al. (2020), “Interventions to Support Older People’s Involvement in Activities Related to Meals. A Systematic Review”, Journal of nutrition in gerontology and geriatrics, Vol. 39/3-4, pp. 155-191, https://doi.org/10.1080/21551197.2020.1834484.
[59] Bengtsson, D. et al. (2025), “Health-related outcomes of youth sport participation: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 22/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-025-01792-x.
[103] Berge, J. et al. (2024), “A Descriptive Examination of International Family/Shared Meals: Prevalence, Meal Types, Media at Meals, and Emotional Well-Being”, Families, Systems and Health, Vol. 42/4, pp. 525-537, https://doi.org/10.1037/FSH0000874.
[82] Bernal, J., E. Frongillo and K. Jaffe (2016), “Food Insecurity of Children and Shame of Others Knowing They Are Without Food”, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 11/2, pp. 180-194, https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2016.1157543.
[38] Beugelsdijk, S., H. de Groot and A. van Schaik (2004), “Trust and economic growth: a robustness analysis”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 56/1, pp. 118-134, https://doi.org/10.1093/OEP/56.1.118.
[157] Bimbo, F. et al. (2015), “The Hidden Benefits of Short Food Supply Chains: Farmers’ Markets Density and Body Mass Index in Italy”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 18/1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.197756.
[5] Birla, V., A. Krombach and P. Pasricha (2025), Systems Of Cross-sector Integration and Action across the Lifespan (SOCIAL) Framework Report: Food and Nutrition, Foundation for Social Connection, https://www.social-connection.org/social-framework/food-and-nutrition/ (accessed on 25 March 2026).
[143] Birtalan, I. et al. (2020), “Community Supported Agriculture as a Driver of Food-Related Well-Being”, Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12, Page 4516, Vol. 12/11, p. 4516, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12114516.
[33] Bjørnskov, C. and P. Méon (2015), “The Productivity of Trust”, World Development, Vol. 70, pp. 317-331, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.01.015.
[189] Bliuc, A. et al. (2024), “A theoretical framework for polarization as the gradual fragmentation of a divided society”, Communications Psychology, Vol. 2/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00125-1.
[178] Bosio, A. (2025), “Des menus étoilés pour des personnes précaires: au Refettorio, la haute gastronomie pour la bonne cause”, Le Figaro, https://www.lefigaro.fr/gastronomie/des-menus-etoiles-pour-des-personnes-precaires-au-refettorio-la-haute-gastronomie-pour-la-bonne-cause-20250516 (accessed on 18 October 2025).
[27] Bowers, A. et al. (2022), “Loneliness influences avoidable absenteeism and turnover intention reported by adult workers in the United States”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, Vol. 9/2, pp. 312-335, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2021-0076/FULL/PDF.
[135] Brigance, C. et al. (2018), “The Mental Health of the Organic Farmer: Psychosocial and Contextual Actors”, Workplace Health & Safety, Vol. 66/12, pp. 606-616, https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079918783211.
[22] Cacioppo, J. et al. (2011), “Social isolation”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1231/1, pp. 17-22, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1749-6632.2011.06028.X.
[168] Çakr, E. (2014), “Let’s Cook Together: Empowering intergenerational communication through cooking”, Formazione & insegnamento, Vol. 12/2, https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/7617/761779945018.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[43] CDC (2023), Health Risks of Social Isolation and Loneliness, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/emotional-wellbeing/social-connectedness/loneliness.htm.
[113] CEPREMAP (2025), “Le Bien-Être en France”, https://www.cepremap.fr/Tableau_de_Bord_Bien-Etre.html (accessed on 24 March 2026).
[173] Christie, B. and V. Waller (2019), “Community learnings through residential composting in apartment buildings”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 50/2, pp. 97-112, https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2018.1509289;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
[42] Cigna (2020), Loneliness and Its Impact on the American Workplace: Understanding the drivers of workplace loneliness, the costs and the solutions, Cigna, https://legacy.cigna.com/static/www-cigna-com/docs/about-us/newsroom/studies-and-reports/combatting-loneliness/loneliness-and-its-impact-on-the-american-workplace.pdf.
[172] Clark, N. (2015), “The Business Of Community Composting”, BioCycle, https://www.biocycle.net/the-business-of-community-composting/ (accessed on 18 October 2025).
[115] Coon, K. et al. (2001), “Relationships between use of television during meals and children’s food consumption patterns”, Pediatrics, Vol. 107/1, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.1.e7.
[21] Cruwys, T. et al. (2013), “Social group memberships protect against future depression, alleviate depression symptoms and prevent depression relapse”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 98, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2013.09.013.
[181] Damiani, M. et al. (2021), “Quantifying environmental implications of surplus food redistribution to reduce food waste”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 289, p. 125813, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.125813.
[3] De Neve, J. et al. (2025), “Sharing meals with others: How sharing meals supports happiness and social connections”, in Helliwell, J. et al. (eds.), World Happiness Report 2025, University of Oxford: Wellbeing Research Centre, https://doi.org/10.18724/whr-g119-bv60 (accessed on 30 July 2025).
[141] DeMuth, S. (1993), Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): An annotated bibliography and resource guide, National Agricultural Library, https://books.google.fr/books/about/Community_Supported_Agriculture_CSA.html?id=K-wFMiP008IC&redir_esc=y (accessed on 13 October 2025).
[4] Dunbar, R. (2017), “Breaking Bread: the Functions of Social Eating”, Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, Vol. 3/3, p. 211, https://doi.org/10.1007/S40750-017-0061-4.
[60] Eather, N. et al. (2023), “The impact of sports participation on mental health and social outcomes in adults: a systematic review and the ‘Mental Health through Sport’ conceptual model”, Systematic Reviews, Vol. 12/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02264-8.
[194] Eén tegen eenzaamheid (2026), “Mensen ontmoeten”, https://www.eentegeneenzaamheid.nl/dit-kun-jij-doen (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[195] Eén tegen eenzaamheid (2026), “Nationale Coalitie tegen Eenzaamheid”, https://www.eentegeneenzaamheid.nl/gemeenten-en-organisaties/nationale-coalitie-tegen-eenzaamheid (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[71] Eén tegen eenzaamheid (2026), “Week tegen Eenzaamheid”, https://www.eentegeneenzaamheid.nl/gemeenten-en-organisaties/week-tegen-eenzaamheid (accessed on 26 March 2026).
[75] Eén tegen eenzaamheid (2024), “Het signaleren van eenzaamheid past precies bij wat wij als buurtwinkel doen”, https://www.eentegeneenzaamheid.nl/gemeenten-en-organisaties/toolkit-voor-gemeenten/praktijkverhalen/het-signaleren-van-eenzaamheid-past-precies-bij-wat-wij-als-buurtwinkel-doen (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[107] Elgar, F., W. Craig and S. Trites (2013), “Family Dinners, Communication, and Mental Health in Canadian Adolescents”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 52/4, pp. 433-438, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JADOHEALTH.2012.07.012.
[41] Engel, L. et al. (2025), “An updated systematic literature review of the economic costs of loneliness and social isolation and the cost effectiveness of interventions”, PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 43/9, https://doi.org/10.1007/S40273-025-01516-W.
[110] Eto, K., T. Sakamoto and T. Ainuki (2022), “A Review on Eating Together and Its Health, Diet, and Lifestyle Influences among Japanese”, Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology, Vol. 68/Supplement, pp. S52-S54, https://doi.org/10.3177/JNSV.68.S52.
[9] European Commission (2022), “Loneliness in the European Union”, https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/projects-and-activities/survey-methods-and-analysis-centre/loneliness_en (accessed on 1 December 2022).
[86] Eurostat (n.d.), European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) (database), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:European_health_interview_survey_(EHIS) (accessed on 16 June 2021).
[87] Eurostat (n.d.), European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) – Scientific Use File (SUF) (database), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-statistics-on-income-and-living-conditions.
[121] FAO (2018), Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca2079en (accessed on 8 July 2025).
[98] Farmer, N. and E. Cotter (2021), “Well-Being and Cooking Behavior: Using the Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment (PERMA) Model as a Theoretical Framework”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, p. 560578, https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.560578.
[163] Farmer, N., K. Touchton-Leonard and A. Ross (2018), “Psychosocial Benefits of Cooking Interventions: A Systematic Review”, Health Education and Behavior, Vol. 45/2, pp. 167-180, https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117736352.
[185] Feldman, S. et al. (2007), “Associations between watching TV during family meals and dietary intake among adolescents”, Journal of nutrition education and behavior, Vol. 39/5, pp. 257-263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2007.04.181.
[55] Finlay, J. et al. (2019), “Closure of ‘third places’? Exploring potential consequences for collective health and wellbeing”, Health & Place, Vol. 60, p. 102225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102225.
[129] Firth, C., D. Maye and D. Pearson (2011), “Developing “community” in community gardens”, Local Environment, Vol. 16/6, pp. 555-568, https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.586025.
[124] Fischler, C. (2011), “Commensality, society and culture”, Social Science Information, Vol. 50/3-4, pp. 528-548, https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018411413963.
[123] Fiske, A. (1991), Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations, Free Press.
[186] Folkebevægelsen mod Ensomhed (2026), Om Folkebevægelsen mod Ensomhed, Modensomhed, https://modensomhed.dk/om-folkebevaegelsen/ (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[72] Folkebevægelsen mod ensomhed (2026), SPIS fællesskabet I gang, Danmark Spiser Sammen, https://danmarkspisersammen.dk/ (accessed on 26 March 2026).
[16] Freak-Poli, R. et al. (2021), “Social isolation, social support and loneliness as predictors of cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 21/1, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12877-021-02602-2/FIGURES/2.
[119] Fulkerson, J. et al. (2014), “Time 2 tlk 2nite: Use of electronic media by adolescents during family meals and associations with demographic characteristics, family characteristics, and foods served”, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 114/7, pp. 1053-1058, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2013.10.015.
[108] Fulkerson, J. et al. (2006), “Family Dinner Meal Frequency and Adolescent Development: Relationships with Developmental Assets and High-Risk Behaviors”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 39/3, pp. 337-345, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JADOHEALTH.2005.12.026.
[142] Furness, E. et al. (2022), “Communication and building social capital in community supported agriculture”, Journal of agriculture, food systems, and community development, Vol. 12/1, p. 63, https://doi.org/10.5304/JAFSCD.2022.121.009.
[101] Gallup (2023), Nourishing Wellbeing: A Global Perspective on Food Enjoyment, Healthy Eating and Choices in Food: 2023 Edition, Gallup, Ando Foundation and Nissin Food Products, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/512390/eating-behavior-wellbeing.aspx (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[89] Gallup & the Ajinomoto Group (2023), “Wellbeing Through Cooking: Global Insights Into Cooking Enjoyment and Eating Together”, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/544376/cooking-enjoyment-communal-wellbeing.aspx (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[35] Ganau, R. and A. Rodríguez-Pose (2023), “Firm-level productivity growth returns of social capital: Evidence from Western Europe”, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 63/3, pp. 529-551, https://doi.org/10.1111/JORS.12636.
[80] Garthwaite, K. (2016), “Stigma, shame and ’people like us’: An ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK”, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, Vol. 24/3, pp. 277-289, https://doi.org/10.1332/175982716X14721954314922.
[11] GILC (2025), “Global Initiative on Loneliness and Connection”, https://www.gilc.global/ (accessed on 29 July 2025).
[78] Giner, C. and O. Placzek (2022), “Food insecurity and food assistance programmes across OECD countries: Overcoming evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42b4a7fa-en.
[95] Glanz, K. et al. (2021), “Diet and Health Benefits Associated with In-Home Eating and Sharing Meals at Home: A Systematic Review”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18/4, p. 1577, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18041577.
[132] Graham, S. and J. Connell (2006), “Nurturing Relationships: the gardens of Greek and Vietnamese migrants in Marrickville, Sydney”, Australian Geographer, Vol. 37/3, pp. 375-393, https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180600954799.
[77] Greggs Foundation (2026), “Feeding Brighter Futures”, https://www.greggsfoundation.org.uk/schools (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[179] Greggs Foundation (2025), “Everything you need to know about Greggs Outlet Shops”, https://www.greggsfoundation.org.uk/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-greggs-outlet-shops (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[73] Grimmer, L. (2023), “Feeling lonely? Too many of us do. Here’s what our supermarkets can do to help”, ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-05/can-supermarkets-help-cure-loneliness/102811322 (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[94] Hagmann, D., M. Siegrist and C. Hartmann (2020), “Acquisition of Cooking Skills and Associations With Healthy Eating in Swiss Adults”, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, Vol. 52/5, pp. 483-491, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2019.12.016.
[46] Hamilton, B. (2023), “Finding a place for Denmark’s estimated 600,000 lonely people to belong”, The Copenhagen Post, https://cphpost.dk/2023-06-21/news/finding-a-place-for-denmarks-estimated-600000-lonely-people-to-belong/.
[112] Hansen, K. (2022), “Loneliness among Elderly People: Can Food and Meals Change this Situation?”, Journal of Population Ageing, Vol. 15/2, pp. 413-423, https://doi.org/10.1007/S12062-020-09298-Z/FIGURES/1.
[23] Hansen, L. et al. (2017), “Associations between the structural and functional aspects of social relations and poor mental health: A cross-sectional register study”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 17/1, pp. 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-017-4871-X/FIGURES/4.
[144] Hanson, K. et al. (2017), “Adults and Children in Low-Income Households that Participate in Cost-Offset Community Supported Agriculture Have High Fruit and Vegetable Consumption”, Nutrients 2017, Vol. 9, Page 726, Vol. 9/7, p. 726, https://doi.org/10.3390/NU9070726.
[6] Health Food Policy Project (2023), Local Policy to Promote Healthy Food Access: A Food Systems Framework, https://healthyfoodpolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Food-Systems-Framework.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2025).
[10] Health Policy Watch (2025), “WHO Member States Recognize Social Connection As A Global Health Priority”, https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-member-states-recognize-social-connection-as-a-global-health-priority/ (accessed on 20 June 2025).
[164] Herbert, J. et al. (2014), “Wider impacts of a 10-week community cooking skills program - Jamie’s Ministry of Food, Australia.”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 14/1, pp. NA-NA, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1161.
[169] Hill, K., K. O’Brien and R. Yurt (2007), “Therapeutic Efficacy of a Therapeutic Cooking Group from the Patients’ Perspective”, Journal of Burn Care & Research, Vol. 28/2, pp. 324-327, https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0B013E318031A24C.
[50] Holt‐Lunstad, J. (2024), “Social connection as a critical factor for mental and physical health: evidence, trends, challenges, and future implications”, World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), Vol. 23/3, pp. 312-332, https://doi.org/10.1002/WPS.21224.
[183] Holt-Lunstad, J., T. Robles and D. Sbarra (2017), “Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States.”, American Psychologist, Vol. 72/6, pp. 517-530, https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000103.
[18] Holt-Lunstad, J. et al. (2015), “Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 10/2, pp. 227-237, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352.
[14] Holwerda, T. et al. (2014), “Feelings of loneliness, but not social isolation, predict dementia onset: results from the Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL)”, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, Vol. 85/2, pp. 135-142, https://doi.org/10.1136/JNNP-2012-302755.
[37] Horváth, R. (2013), “Does trust promote growth?”, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 41/3, pp. 777-788, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCE.2012.10.006.
[159] Hu, X., L. Clarke and K. Zendehdel (2021), “Farmers’ Market Usage, Fruit and Vegetable Consumption, Meals at Home and Health–Evidence from Washington, DC”, Sustainability 2021, Vol. 13, Page 7437, Vol. 13/13, p. 7437, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13137437.
[161] Iacovou, M. et al. (2013), “Social health and nutrition impacts of community kitchens: a systematic review”, Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 16/3, pp. 535-543, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012002753.
[193] IDRC (2017), “When community ties lead to violent crimes”, https://idrc-crdi.ca/en/research-in-action/when-community-ties-lead-violent-crimes (accessed on 21 May 2026).
[111] Ishikawa, M. et al. (2017), ““Eating together” is associated with food behaviors and demographic factors of older Japanese people who live alone”, Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging, Vol. 21/6, pp. 662-672, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-016-0805-z.
[190] Japan’s Cabinet Office (2026), Promoting distinctive initiatives through public-private partnerships that contribute to measures against loneliness and isolation, Public-Private Partnership Platform for Loneliness and Isolation Countermeasures, https://www.notalone-cao.go.jp/platform/promotion/ (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[68] Japan’s Cabinet Office (2025), “Priority Plan for Promoting Measures to Combat Loneliness and Isolation (Priority Plan for Combating Loneliness and Isolation)”, https://www.cao.go.jp/kodoku_koritsu/torikumi/jutenkeikaku.html.
[67] Japan’s Cabinet Office (2024), “Act on the Advancement of Measures to Address Loneliness and Isolation”, https://www.cao.go.jp/kodoku_koritsu/index-e.html (accessed on 26 March 2026).
[66] Japan’s Cabinet Office (2021), “Priority Plan for Countermeasures against Loneliness and Isolation (Decided by the Loneliness and Isolation Countermeasures Promotion Council on December 28, 2021)”, https://www.cao.go.jp/kodoku_koritsu/torikumi/jutenkeikaku/r03/index.html.
[53] Joseph, A. (2025), The Impact of Losing Third Places in Europe, The Borgen Project, https://borgenproject.org/third-places-in-europe/ (accessed on 23 March 2026).
[74] Jumbo (2021), “Jumbo geeft startschot voor opening 200 Kletskassa’s”, https://www.jumbo.com/nieuws/jumbo-geeft-startschot-voor-opening-200-kletskassas/ (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[54] Khassen, A. (2025), Nowhere to go: the growing disappearance of third places, PAC Mag, https://mccs-journalism.gold.ac.uk/wp/pacmag/nowhere-to-go-the-growing-disappearance-of-third-places/ (accessed on 23 March 2026).
[165] Kheraj, A. (2025), “‘It’s less intimidating, less vulnerable’: why cooking in company helps us to talk | Food | The Guardian”, https://www.theguardian.com/food/2025/apr/19/its-less-intimidating-less-vulnerable-why-cooking-in-company-helps-us-to-talk (accessed on 11 July 2025).
[52] Klinenberg, E. (2019), Palaces for the People: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life, Penguin Random House, https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/557044/palaces-for-the-people-by-ericklinenberg/ (accessed on 16 February 2026).
[40] Knack, S. and P. Keefer (1997), “Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country Investigation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112/4, pp. 1251-1288, https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555475.
[83] Knight, A., R. O’Connell and J. Brannen (2018), “Eating with Friends, Family or Not at All: Young People’s Experiences of Food Poverty in the UK”, Children and Society, Vol. 32/3, pp. 185-194, https://doi.org/10.1111/CHSO.12264;WEBSITE:WEBSITE:PERICLES;JOURNAL:JOURNAL:10990860;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
[191] Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit (2026), “Angebote”, https://kompetenznetz-einsamkeit.de/angebote (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[70] Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit (2026), Das war die Aktionswoche „Gemeinsam aus der Einsamkeit“ 2024, Strategie gegen Einsamkeit, https://kompetenznetz-einsamkeit.de/das-war-die-aktionswoche-gemeinsam-aus-der-einsamkeit-2024 (accessed on 26 March 2026).
[192] Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit (2026), “Was ist das KNE?”, https://kompetenznetz-einsamkeit.de/das-kne (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[48] Korea Youth Foundation (2023), Social Isolation among Young Adults, Korea Youth Foundation, https://kyf.or.kr/eng/user/content.do?pageId=PAGE_000000000000059.
[188] Lee, B. et al. (2026), “Negative social ties as emerging risk factors for accelerated aging, inflammation, and multimorbidity”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 123/8, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2515331123.
[151] Lee, R., C. Coulson and K. Hackett (2023), “The Social Practices of Food Bank Volunteer Work”, Social Policy and Society, Vol. 22/3, pp. 408-425, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746421000555.
[17] Liang, Y. et al. (2024), “Observational and genetic evidence disagree on the association between loneliness and risk of multiple diseases”, Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 8/11, pp. 2209-2221, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01970-0.
[138] Litt, J. et al. (2011), “The influence of social involvement, neighborhood aesthetics, and community garden participation on fruit and vegetable consumption”, American journal of public health, Vol. 101/8, pp. 1466-1473, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300111.
[56] Lynch, P., P. Thomas and A. Hattenstone (2024), “Public libraries in ’crisis’ as councils cut services”, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9lexplel5o (accessed on 16 February 2026).
[26] Maher, B. et al. (2013), “Medical school attrition-beyond the statistics: A ten year retrospective study”, BMC Medical Education, Vol. 13/1, p. 13, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-13/.
[2] Mahoney, J. et al. (2024), “Measuring social connectedness in OECD countries: A scoping review”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, No. 28, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f758bd20-en.
[162] Marovelli, B. (2019), “Cooking and eating together in London: Food sharing initiatives as collective spaces of encounter”, Geoforum, Vol. 99, pp. 190-201, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2018.09.006.
[155] Maró, Z. et al. (2023), “Profiling the consumers of farmers’ markets: a systematic review of survey-based empirical evidence”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 38, p. e53, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170523000467.
[117] Martines, R. et al. (2019), “Association between watching TV whilst eating and children’s consumption of ultraprocessed foods in United Kingdom”, Maternal & child nutrition, Vol. 15/4, https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12819.
[25] Matthews, T. et al. (2016), “Social isolation, loneliness and depression in young adulthood: A behavioural genetic analysis”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 51/3, pp. 339-348, https://doi.org/10.1007/S00127-016-1178-7/.
[99] Mayer, J. (2024), “Prevention through cooking for older people: Food norms put to the test in everyday life”, Gérontologie et société, Vol. 46175/3, pp. 135-153, https://doi.org/10.3917/GS1.175.0135.
[128] McDaniel, T., F. Soto Mas and A. Sussman (2021), “Growing Connections: Local Food Systems and Community Resilience”, Society & Natural Resources, Vol. 34/10, pp. 1375-1393, https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1958965.
[84] Meijs, L. et al. (2020), “A Social Innovation: Addressing Relative Food Insecurity and Social Exclusion”, Voluntas, Vol. 31/5, pp. 894-906, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11266-019-00105-8/TABLES/3.
[97] Men’s Kitchen (2025), “Men’s Kitchen”, https://www.menskitchen.org.au/ (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[96] Men’s Pie Club (2026), “Men’s Pie Club”, https://menspieclub.co.uk/ (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[166] Migrateful (2026), “Migrateful Impact”, https://www.migrateful.org/our-impact/ (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[90] Mills, S. et al. (2017), “Frequency of eating home cooked meals and potential benefits for diet and health: Cross-sectional analysis of a population-based cohort study”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 14/1, pp. 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12966-017-0567-Y/TABLES/2.
[146] Minaker, L. et al. (2014), “Food Purchasing From Farmers’ Markets and Community-Supported Agriculture Is Associated With Reduced Weight and Better Diets in a Population-Based Sample”, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 9/4, pp. 485-497, https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2014.898175.
[24] Morrish, N., R. Mujica-Mota and A. Medina-Lara (2022), “Understanding the effect of loneliness on unemployment: Propensity score matching”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 22/1, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-022-13107-X/.
[175] Morrow, O. and A. Davies (2021), “Creating careful circularities: Community composting in New York City”, Transactions, Vol. 47/2, p. 529, https://doi.org/10.1111/TRAN.12523.
[91] Nature Research Intelligence (2024), Scientifically-Supported Links Between Cooking and Well-being, https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-024-00020-7.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[153] Neighbourly Lab (2025), The opportunity local shops and businesses can play in community health and wellbeing. A How To Guide for public sector teams on working with local businesses to support residents - Neighbourly Lab, https://www.neighbourlylab.com/how-to-guide-for-public-sector-teamss-on-working-local-businesses-to-support-residents/ (accessed on 4 July 2025).
[182] Nenert, C. et al. (2025), “The potential effects of reducing food loss and waste: Impacts on the triple challenge and cost-benefits analysis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 222, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd2aedc6-en.
[28] Neu, C. et al. (2023), Extrem einsam? Eine Studie zur demokratischen Relevanz von Einsamkeitserfahrungen unter Jugendlichen in Deutschland, Das Progressive Zentrum, https://www.progressives-zentrum.org/publication/extrem-einsam/.
[47] New Economics Foundation (2017), The Cost of Loneliness to UK Employers, https://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/wp-content/uploads/cost-of-loneliness-2017.pdf.
[62] Novaes, A. and L. Kanyat (2025), “From Play to Belonging: Board Game Cafes as Mediators for Social Wellness and Community Building in Japan”, Acta Ludologica, Vol. 8/1, pp. 78-97, https://doi.org/10.34135/actaludologica.2025-8-1.78-97.
[7] OECD (2026), Inclusive and Sustainable Well-being in Korea: 30 Years of OECD Membership and Future Policy Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a8940343-en.
[176] OECD (2025), “Beyond food loss and waste reduction targets: Translating reduction ambitions into policy outcomes”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 214, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59cf6c95-en.
[122] OECD (2025), “Food systems”, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/food-systems.html (accessed on 24 June 2025).
[1] OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/6df2d6a0-en.
[184] OECD (2024), How’s Life? 2024: Well-being and Resilience in Times of Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90ba854a-en.
[88] OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Results (Volume V): Learning Strategies and Attitudes for Life, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c2e44201-en.
[147] OECD (2023), “Food for thought: School meals for sustainable societies”, OECD Education Spotlights, No. 5, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/629a2730-en.
[126] OECD (2013), Providing Agri-environmental Public Goods through Collective Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264197213-en.
[106] OECD (n.d.), Child well-being drivers (database), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/child-well-being-drivers.html (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[102] Office of the U.S. Surgeon General (2025), Recipes for Connection, https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/recipes/index.html (accessed on 17 July 2025).
[148] Papadaki, A. et al. (2023), ““The Service, I Could Not Do without It…”: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Significance of Meals on Wheels among Service Users and People Who Refer Them to the Service”, Health & Social Care in the Community, Vol. 2023/1, p. 6054895, https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6054895.
[152] Peirce, P. et al. (2022), New Zealand healthy school lunches programme: Impact evaluation, Ministry of Education NZ, https://apo.org.au/node/321482 (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[13] Penninkilampi, R. et al. (2018), “The association between social engagement, loneliness, and risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, Vol. 66/4, pp. 1619-1633, https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-180439.
[85] Pfeiffer, S., T. Ritter and A. Hirseland (2011), “Hunger and nutritional poverty in Germany: quantitative and qualitative empirical insights”, Critical Public Health, Vol. 21/4, pp. 417-428, https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2011.619519.
[158] Pitts, S. et al. (2015), “Farmers’ market shopping and dietary behaviours among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants”, Public health nutrition, Vol. 18/13, pp. 2407-2414, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015001111.
[79] Placzek, O. (2021), “Socio-economic and demographic aspects of food security and nutrition”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 150, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/49d7059f-en.
[187] Plattform Gegen Einsamkeit (2026), Über uns, https://plattform-gegen-einsamkeit.at/%C3%BCber-uns (accessed on 27 March 2026).
[105] Prati, A. and C. Senik (2026), “Les malheurs du dîneur solitaire”, No. 2026-04, Observatoire du bien-être du Cepremap, https://www.cepremap.fr/2026/02/les-malheurs-du-dineur-solitaire/ (accessed on 24 March 2026).
[177] Refettorio (2018), Refettorio Paris au Foyer de la Madeleine, https://refettorioparis.com/fr/index.html (accessed on 18 October 2025).
[167] RIA Schlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging (2025), Connecting Generations: The Power of Intergenerational Cooking, https://the-ria.ca/news/connecting-generations-the-power-of-intergenerational-cooking/ (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[44] Rodríguez, B., B. Castiñeira and E. Rodríguez-Míguez (2023), The Cost of Loneliness in Spain, Observatorio Estatal de la Soledad No Deseada (SoledadES), https://www.soledades.es/sites/default/files/contenidos/Executive%20summary_The%20cost%20of%20loneliness%20in%20Spain.pdf.
[149] Rotenberg, K., E. Surman and M. McGrath (2021), “Loneliness, Food Poverty, and Perceived Benefits of Communal Food Consumption from a Charity Service”, Journal of Poverty, Vol. 25/5, pp. 465-479, https://doi.org/10.1080/10875549.2020.1869667;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
[64] Rowan, N. et al. (2025), “Exploring the impact of choral singing on older adult community health and well-being”, Innovation in Aging, Vol. 9/Supplement 2, https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf122.3585.
[81] Runnels, V., E. Kristjansson and M. Calhoun (2011), “An Investigation of Adults’ Everyday Experiences and Effects of Food Insecurity in an Urban Area in Canada”, Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, Vol. 30/1, pp. 157-172, https://doi.org/10.7870/cjcmh-2011-0011.
[154] Russomanno, J. and J. Tree (2021), “Assessing sense of community at farmers markets: A systematic review”, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, Vol. 10/2, pp. 489-506, https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.102.032.
[58] Salazar-Miranda, A. et al. (2024), Shifting Patterns of Social Interaction: Exploring the Social Life of Urban Spaces Through A.I., National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w33185.
[131] Saldivar-Tanaka, L. and M. Krasny (2004), “Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: The case of Latino community gardens in New York City”, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 21/4, pp. 399-412, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10460-003-1248-9/METRICS.
[51] Schnepf, S., B. d’Hombres and C. Mauri (2024), Loneliness in Europe: Determinants, risks and interventions, Springer Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66582-0.
[145] Seguin-Fowler, R. et al. (2021), “Community supported agriculture plus nutrition education improves skills, self-efficacy, and eating behaviors among low-income caregivers but not their children: a randomized controlled trial”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2021 18:1, Vol. 18/1, pp. 112-, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12966-021-01168-X.
[69] Seoul Metropolitan Government (2024), “Knock” Anytime When You Feel Lonely: Seoul Becomes a City Where No One Is Lonely, https://english.seoul.go.kr/knock-anytime-when-you-feel-lonely-seoul-becomes-a-city-where-no-one-is-lonely/ (accessed on 1 May 2025).
[134] Shimpo, N. (2024), “Community garden management for resilient cities: A case study in suburban Tokyo during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 251, p. 105148, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2024.105148.
[32] Smith, C. (2020), “Trust and Total Factor Productivity: What Do We Know About Effect Size and Causal Pathways?”, International Productivity Monitor, Vol. 38, pp. 3-28, https://ideas.repec.org/a/sls/ipmsls/v38y20201.html.
[133] Soga, M. et al. (2017), “Health Benefits of Urban Allotment Gardening: Improved Physical and Psychological Well-Being and Social Integration”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2017, Vol. 14, Page 71, Vol. 14/1, p. 71, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH14010071.
[29] Stuart, B. and E. Taylor (2021), “The effect of social connectedness on crime: Evidence from the Great Migration”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 103/1, p. 18, https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_A_00860.
[93] Studiyanti, L. et al. (2025), “The Health Benefits of Cooking Influencing the Quality of Life for the Older Generation: A Systematic Review”, Aging Medicine and Healthcare, https://www.agingmedhealthc.com/?p=32186 (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[57] Subtil, H. (2026), Quand les bars-tabacs ferment : l’érosion du lien social local et la progression du vote d’extrême droite en France – CEPREMAP, CEPREMAP, https://www.cepremap.fr/2026/01/quand-les-bars-tabacs-ferment-lerosion-du-lien-social-local-et-la-progression-du-vote-dextreme-droite-en-france/ (accessed on 16 February 2026).
[100] Tani, Y., T. Fujiwara and K. Kondo (2023), “Associations of Cooking Skill with Social Relationships and Social Capital among Older Men and Women in Japan: Results from the JAGES”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 20/5, p. 4633, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH20054633/S1.
[170] The Longest Table (2025), “The Longest Table”, https://www.longesttablecommunity.org/ (accessed on 17 February 2026).
[30] The U.S. Surgeon General (2023), Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37792968/.
[120] Trofholz, A. et al. (2017), “Associations between TV viewing at family meals and the emotional atmosphere of the meal, meal healthfulness, child dietary intake, and child weight status”, Appetite, Vol. 108, pp. 361-366, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.018.
[174] US EPA (2025), Community Composting, United States Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/community-composting (accessed on 22 April 2026).
[109] Utter, J. et al. (2011), “Eating together at mealtimes”, https://thehub.sia.govt.nz/assets/documents/RF-eating-together-final.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2025).
[15] Valtorta, N. et al. (2016), “Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies”, Heart (British Cardiac Society), Vol. 102/13, pp. 1009-1016, https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2015-308790.
[114] Vasquez, M. et al. (2025), EatMoveStats: estimates from the Belgian Food Consumption Survey (v2025-11-20) [dataset], https://healthinformation.sciensano.be/shiny/fcs2022/ (accessed on 24 March 2026).
[125] Vicenzi, A., F. Calzolari and R. Hasterok (2022), Inclusive Approaches to Community Gardening & Green Learning Spaces: Experiences and Practices from Five European Countries, Erasmus+ Gardens Partnership, https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/project-result-content/4c6dfead-e73f-455d-9b6c-24d29f4bf857/English_-_EBook_-_GARDENS_-_Inclusive_Approaches_to_Community_Gardening___Green_Learning_Spaces.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2025).
[104] Victoria-Montesinos, D. et al. (2023), “Are family meals and social eating behaviour associated with depression, anxiety, and stress in adolescents? The EHDLA study”, Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 42/4, pp. 505-510, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLNU.2023.01.020.
[156] Vittersø, G. et al. (2019), “Short Food Supply Chains and Their Contributions to Sustainability: Participants’ Views and Perceptions from 12 European Cases”, Sustainability 2019, Vol. 11, Page 4800, Vol. 11/17, p. 4800, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11174800.
[180] Vittuari, M. et al. (2017), “The Second Life of Food: An Assessment of the Social Impact of Food Redistribution Activities in Emilia Romagna, Italy”, Sustainability 2017, Vol. 9, Page 1817, Vol. 9/10, p. 1817, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU9101817.
[127] Wakefield, S. et al. (2007), “Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto”, Health Promotion International, Vol. 22/2, pp. 92-101, https://doi.org/10.1093/HEAPRO/DAM001.
[20] Wang, J. et al. (2018), “Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review”, BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 18/1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12888-018-1736-5.
[130] Wen Li, W., D. Hodgetts and E. Ho (2010), “Gardens, Transitions and Identity Reconstruction among Older Chinese Immigrants to New Zealand”, Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 15/5, pp. 786-796, https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310368179.
[49] WHO (2025), WHO Commission on Social Connection Flagship Report, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/groups/commission-on-social-connection (accessed on 24 June 2025).
[65] Williams, E., G. Dingle and S. Clift (2018), “A systematic review of mental health and wellbeing outcomes of group singing for adults with a mental health condition”, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 28/6, pp. 1035-1042, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky115.
[61] World Economic Forum (2021), “Global Well-Being Index: Building Social Cohesion through Sport Executive summary”, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Well_Being_Index_Community_Paper_2021.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2026).
[8] World Health Organization (2025), From Loneliness to Social Connection: Charting a Path to Healthier Societies - Report of the WHO Commission on Social Connection, https://www.who.int/groups/commission-on-social-connection/report (accessed on 28 July 2025).
[150] Wright, L. et al. (2021), “Food Fighters: A Food Recovery-Meal Delivery Program Benefits Meal Recipients, Volunteers and Agencies”, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 16/5, pp. 725-737, https://doi.org/10.1080/19320248.2021.1883496;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
[34] Yamamura, E. and I. Shin (2012), “Heterogeneity, Trust, Human Capital and Productivity Growth: Decomposition Analysis”, Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Vol. 55/2, pp. 51-77, https://ideas.repec.org/a/eei/journl/v55y2012i2p51-77.html.
[39] Zak, P. and S. Knack (2001), “Trust and Growth”, The Economics Journal, Vol. 111/470, pp. 295-321, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2667866.
[137] Zoellner, J. et al. (2012), “Exploring Community Gardens in a Health Disparate Population: Findings from a Mixed Methods Pilot Study”, Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, Vol. 6/2, pp. 153-165, https://doi.org/10.1353/CPR.2012.0014.
← 1. Although OECD analysis indicates that according to some data sources, younger people have seen a slight rise in loneliness and other indicators of social disconnection in recent years on average across OECD European countries (OECD, 2025[1]).
← 2. The OECD Well-being Framework includes Social Connections as one of the 11 dimensions of current well-being and Social Capital (societal norms, shared values and institutional arrangements that encourage co‑operation between groups) as one of the four capital stocks driving the long-term sustainability of well-being (OECD, 2024[184]).
← 3. Recent OECD work has drawn from a widely-adopted conceptual framework developed by Holt-Lundstad, Robles, and Sbarra (2017[183]) to recognise that social connectedness consists of structural aspects (referring to the existence of social relationships, roles and interactions); functional outcomes (which capture the actual or perceived support provided through these relationships); qualitative features (recognising that social relationships are complex, and are not always inherently positive); and communal and societal connectedness, capturing an individual’s sense of belonging and relationship to broader social groups (OECD, 2025[1]).
← 4. It should be noted that social ties are complex and can also be associated with negative individual and community outcomes such as deteriorated health outcomes (Lee et al., 2026[188]) or participation in gang violence (IDRC, 2017[193]). Strong ties within different communities or social groups can also contribute to in-group out-group dynamics which can foster exclusion or polarisation (Bliuc et al., 2024[189]). For this reason, it is important to consider the quality of social connection alongside structural and functional aspects (OECD, 2025[1]).
← 5. It should also be noted that while the consumption of food is a universal basic need, food-based activities may not always be perfectly inclusive as different individuals or groups of people may experience limitations or aversion to participation due to cultural, religious, physical, or psychological restrictions around food, which need to be taken into account to maximise inclusivity of programmes.
← 6. Recent OECD work on social connections and loneliness in OECD countries (OECD, 2025[1]) guided the identification of relevant plans from Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
← 7. Relevant ministries include the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; the Ministry of the Environment; and the Consumer Affairs Agency.
← 8. See, for example: The National Coalition against Loneliness in the Netherlands (Eén tegen eenzaamheid, 2026[195]); the People’s Movement Against Loneliness and the former National Partnership against Loneliness in Denmark (Folkebevægelsen mod Ensomhed, 2026[186]); the Public-Private Partnership Platform to Combat Loneliness and Isolation in Japan (Japan's Cabinet Office, 2026[190]); and, the Competence Network on Loneliness in Germany (Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit, 2026[192]).
← 9. Examples include Austria’s Platform Against Loneliness (Plattform Gegen Einsamkeit, 2026[187]); One Against Loneliness in the Netherlands (Eén tegen eenzaamheid, 2026[194]); and Germany’s Competence Network on Loneliness (Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit, 2026[191]).
← 10. The initiative began in 2016 under the national umbrella coalition, “United Against Loneliness”, which brings together around 100 civil society organisations, municipalities, foundations and private actors to address loneliness. Local actors organise the meals and the coalition plays a central facilitating role through: An online platform where people can find and create meal-sharing events; practical toolkits and guidance on organising communal dining, including communication materials, conversation starters and inclusion guidelines; and co‑ordinated media outreach that raises awareness and encourages participation. The coalition chose to centre its campaign around food as a low-barrier, everyday activity: Everyone eats, and hosting or joining a communal meal requires limited specialised skills, equipment or long-term commitment.
← 11. As with much of the evidence in this field, many of the studies assessing the relationship between television viewing during mealtimes are associational, rather than causal, so care should be taken in interpreting results (see Box 1.2). Moreover, research into watching television during mealtimes tends to focus on its effects on family (i.e. group) meals – as opposed to the effects of eating alone while watching television. Researchers note that the social benefits of shared family meals may not disappear entirely when television is present, and that, for example, adolescents who watch television while having a family meal may still experience some of the communal dining benefits as compared to those who rarely share meals at all (Feldman et al., 2007[185]).