**5. Conclusions**

The conclusion is drawn from the findings of current research that a major shift toward sustainability requires an entire institutional change in relation to the consumers' rationale behind votes for or against choice editing, specifically reduction in the food choices in favor of sustainable consumption. The majority of the consumers revealed that they disagree with the idea that government should be allowed to impose the selection choices. There is less willingness to give up on the product preferences in order to encourage and develop sustainable consumption patterns. The clear division between disagreed and agreed consumers enables the research to explore the reasons behind their choices for and against sustainable consumption. Those who disagreed that government should be allowed to force

sustainable consumption and reduce the consumers' preferred items stated various reasons; however, the most common that emerged is such force is against freedom of choice. This reflects that consumers have the right to choose for themselves, irrespective of the fact that the selection might not be sustainable. Other themes driven by the disagreement include: the responsibility and ultimate decision lie with what the individual prefers. Instead of forcing the decision on the consumer, the burden of sustainability should be upon the producers. They should be forced rather than the consumers. Interestingly, the theme also emerged that, before forcing a choice, there is a need for education about the importance of sustainable consumption. The opinion also emerged that power is and should be with the consumers. Ultimately, the argument is that if the consumer is spending money, then it is their right to buy what they like. Another interesting thought also occurred that consumers who do not develop sustainable consumption behavior should make donations to health organizations for such acts while others thought that it is the government's responsibility, thus, they should fund the production of sustainable foods. Perhaps it will make it less expensive and easier for consumers to buy. The last theme that emerged was that the competition in the market will shrink because only sustainable items would be available. There should be a wide range to keep the competition, which ultimately benefits the consumers and producers.

On the other hand, those in favor of the government imposing sustainable practices by force stated their various reasons. The most widely stated theme was that the food industry has been renowned for being notorious for selling unhealthy food, thus, sustainable consumption should be imposed to eradicate unhealthy food selling practices. The food processors and producers must be bound to produce healthy and sustainable items. Moreover, the prices should be kept reasonable so that consumers can afford to buy organic products. A strong reason for avoiding organic food also is that it is expensive in comparison to inorganic products. Governments should play a key role in controlling production and consumption patterns by ensuring there are only organic items on shelves ensuring that the prices are monitored and legislating and regulating the production process. This would encourage healthy and sustainable food production and consumption patterns and behaviors. Moreover, there is also the suggestion that there should only be whole natural food production and promotion in the market. Government and producers should work together to ensure that only organic choices are available on shelves by discarding inorganic and unhealthy food items.

Obesity is a critical issue and unhealthy food is the main reason behind the increasing obesity problem. Retailers should be encouraged to produce sustainable items to control the issue of obesity. There are no harms in organic food, but there is an extremely adverse impact of inorganic (unhealthy) food on both humans and the environment. Thus, the government should legislate, regulate, and control the adverse impact by intervening in the process. Such intervention would promote sustainable consumption behavior and sustainable production practices and would contribute towards healthy communities. Neuromarketing (NM) application could be valuable; neuroimaging and physiological tools such as emotions, decision-making, attention, and memory towards brands and advertisements [57] should be frequently used by the producers to correlate the consumer's behavior. Thus, the use of innovation and technology would further help in understanding the consumer's psychology. Moreover, the use of eye-tracking and electroencephalogram (EEG) are other effective marketing innovations [58,59] that could help in improving the understanding of consumer psychology.

We also conclude that change interventions have been gradually reducing the growth pace of the industry. There have been traces of more consumer awareness, encouraging sustainable practices, yet most consumers are still not being fully educated about the benefits of organic items and the adverse impact of unhealthy food, resulting in higher opposition to the sustainable consumption pattern.
