ArticlePDF Available

Food security, food justice, or food sovereignty

Authors:
Eric Holt-Giménez at Institute for Food and Development Policy
Eric Holt-Giménez
  • Institute for Food and Development Policy
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation
Content uploaded by Eric Holt-Giménez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Holt-Giménez on Mar 11, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
INSTITUTE FOR FOOD AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY
VOLUME 16 • NUMBER 4WINTER 2010
By Eric Holt-Giménez
Food Security,
Food Justice,
or Food
Sovereignty?*
e New Year saw renewed food riots in India and Africa, and record levels of hunger here in the US.
is year also saw transformation in the food movement, with new power and national recognition.
e food movement has successfully shone the spotlight on hunger and food access in the US, created
a drive for more local food, and gotten better policy from the federal to the local level. e question
now is: how do we turn these initial reforms into lasting, food system transformation?
How do we know the food movement is a force for transformative change, rather than a passing fad, a
collection of weak reforms, or isolated local efforts? To know this, we need a moment of reflection on
how the food system is structured historically, politically and economically. We need to build alliances
to take on the root of our failing food system.
Corporate Food Regimes
One way to imagine the food system is as a “regime.” A food regime is a “rule-governed structure of
production and consumption of food on a world scale.” e first global food regime spanned the
late 1800s through the Great Depression and linked food imports from Southern and American
colonies to European industrial expansion. e second food regime reversed the flow of food from the
Northern to the Southern Hemisphere to fuel Cold War industrialization in the ird World.
Today’s corporate food regime is characterized by the monopoly market power and mega-profits of
agrifood corporations, globalized meat production, and growing links between food and fuel. Virtually
* This Backgrounder is based on Eric Holt-Giménez and Annie Shattuck’s 2011 article ‘Food crises, food regimes and food
movements: rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?,’ Journal of Peasant Studies, 38: 1, 109 — 144. References are
at the end of that article which can be accessed at http://www.foodrst.org/en/node/3253
atcher ushered in our current era
of neoliberal “globalization,” in the
1980s, characterized by deregulation,
privatization, and the growth and
consolidation of corporate monopoly
power in food systems around the
globe.
With the global food and financial
crises of 2007-2010, desperate
calls for reform have sprung up
worldwide. However, few substantive
reforms have been forthcoming, and
most government and multilateral
solutions simply call for more of the
same policies that brought about
the crisis to begin with: extending
liberal (“free”) markets, privatizing
common resources (like forests
and the atmosphere), and protecting
monopoly concentration while
mediating the regime’s collateral
damage to community food systems
and the environment. Unless there
is strong pressure from society,
reformists will not likely affect (much
less reverse) the present neoliberal
direction of the corporate food
regime.
Food Enterprise, Food Security,
Food Justice, Food Sovereignty
Combating the steady increase in
global hunger and environmental
degradation has prompted
government, industry and civil
society to pursue a wide array of
initiatives, including food enterprise,
food security, food justice and food
sovereignty. Some seek to ameliorate
hunger and poverty through charity.
Others see it as a business opportunity
and call for public-private
partnerships. Human rights activists
insist that government and industry
should be held accountable when they
undermine the right to food. ose
who can afford good food promote
individual consumer choices (vote
with your forks). Food justice activists
from underserved communities
struggle against structural racism in
the food system. Some efforts are
highly institutionalized, others are
community-based, while still others
build broad-based movements aimed
at transforming our global food
system.
Understanding which strategies work
to stabilize the corporate food regime
and which seek to actually change it
is essential if we are to move toward
more equitable and sustainable food
systems.
Some actors within the growing global
food movement have a radical critique
of the corporate food regime, calling
for food sovereignty and structural,
redistributive reforms including land,
water and markets. Others advance
a progressive, food justice agenda
calling for access to healthy food
by marginalized groups defined by
race, gender and economic status.
Family farm, sustainable agriculture
advocates, and those seeking quality
and authenticity in the food system
also fall in this progressive camp.
While progressives focus more on
localizing production and improving
access to good, healthy food, radicals
direct their energy at changing
regime structures and creating
politically enabling conditions for
more equitable and sustainable food
systems. Both overlap significantly
in their approaches. Together,
folks in this global food movement
seek to open up food systems to
serve people of color, smallholders,
and low income communities
while striving for sustainable and
healthy environments. Radicals and
progressives are the arms and legs of
the same food movement.
e Food Regime—Food Movement
Matrix helps describe the dominant
trend in the food system according
to the politics, production models,
tendencies, issues and approaches to
the food crisis:
2
all the world’s food systems are tied
into today’s corporate food regime.
is regime is controlled by a far-flung
agrifood industrial complex, made up
of huge monopolies like Monsanto,
ADM, Cargill and Walmart. Together,
these corporations are powerful
enough to dominate the governments
and the multilateral organizations that
make and enforce the regime’s rules for
trade, labor, property and technology.
is political-economic partnership is
supported by both public and private
institutions like the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund, the
World Food Program, USAID, the
USDA and big philanthropy.
Liberalization and Reform
Like the larger economic system of
which they are a part, global food
regimes alternate between periods
of liberalization characterized by
unregulated markets, corporate
privatization and massive
concentrations of wealth, followed
by devastating financial busts. When
these busts provoke widespread
social unrest—threatening profits
and governability—governments
usher in reformist periods in which
markets, supply, and consumption
are re-regulated to reign in the crisis
and restore stability to the regime.
Infinitely unregulated markets would
eventually destroy both society and
the natural resources that the regime
depends on for profits. erefore,
while the ‘mission’ of reform is to
mitigate the social and environmental
externalities of the corporate food
regime, its ‘job’ is identical to that of
the liberal trend: the reproduction of
the corporate food regime. ough
liberalization and reform may appear
politically distinct, they are actually
two sides of the same system.
Reformists dominated the global
food regime from the Great
Depression of the 1930s until
Ronald Reagan and Margaret
3
International
Finance Corporation
(World Bank);
IMF, WTO: USDA
(Vilsak); Global
Food Security Bill;
Green Revolution;
Millennium
Challenge; Heritage
Foundation;
Chicago Global
Council; Bill and
Melinda Gates
Foundation; Feed
the Future (USAID)
Corporate Food Regime
International Bank
for Reconstruction
and Development
(World Bank); FAO;
UN Commission
on Sustainable
Development;
USDA (Merrigan);
mainstream fair
trade; some Slow
Food Chapters;
some Food Policy
Councils; most food
banks & food aid
programs
Alternative fair
trade and many
Slow Food
chapters; many
organizations in
the Community
Food Security
Movement; CSAs;
many Food Policy
Councils and youth
food and justice
movements; many
farmworker and
labor organizations
Via Campesina,
International
Planning Committee
on Food Sovereignty;
Global March for
Women; many food
justice and rights-
based movements
Food Movements
Neoliberal
Food Enterprise
Reformist
Food Security
Progressive
Food Justice
Radical
Food Sovereignty
Politics
Discourse
Corporate EntitlementEmpowerment
Development
Orientation
Overproduction;
corporate
concentration;
unregulated markets
and monopolies;
monocultures
(including organic);
GMOs; agrofuels;
mass global
consumption of
industrial food;
phasing out of
peasant and family
agriculture and local
retail
Mainstreaming/
certication of
niche markets
(e.g. organic, fair,
local, sustainable);
maintaining
northern agricultural
subsidies;
“sustainable”
roundtables for
agrofuels, soy, forest
products, etc.;
market-led land
reform
Agroecologically
produced local
food; investment
in underserved
communities; new
business models
and community
benet packages
for production,
processing, and
retail; better wages
for agriculture
workers; solidarity
economies; land &
food access
Dismantle corporate
agrifoods monopoly
power; parity;
redistributive land
reform; community
rights to water and
seed; regionally
based food systems;
democratization of food
systems; sustainable
livelihoods; protection
from dumping/
overproduction; revival
of agroecologically
managed peasant
agriculture to distribute
wealth and cool the
planet; regulated
markets and supply
Model
Increased industrial
production;
unregulated corporate
monopolies; land
grabs; expansion of
GMOs; public-private
partnerships; liberal
markets; international
sourced food aid
Same as neoliberal but
with increased medium
farmer production
and some locally
sourced food aid;
more agricultural aid
but tied to GMOs and
“bio-fortied/climate-
resistant” crops
Right to food;
better safety
nets; sustainably
produced, locally-
sourced food;
agroecologically
based agricultural
development
Human right to food
sovereignty; locally
sourced, sustainably
produced, culturally
appropriate,
democratically
controlled focus on
UN/FAO negotiations
World Bank 2009
Development Report;
“Realizing a New
Vision for Agriculture
(World Economic
Forum)”
World Bank 2009
Development Report;
“Realizing a New
Vision for Agriculture
(World Economic
Forum)”
International
Assessment on
Agriculture Science
Technology and
Development
Peoples’
Comprehensive
Framework for Action
to Eradicate Hunger
Approach
to the food
crisis
Guiding
Document
Main
Institutions
i n s t i t u t e f o r f o o d a n d d e v e l o p m e n t p o l i c y
398 6 0TH STRE ET • O AKLAND, CAL IFORNIA 94618 U SA • T EL: 510 654 4400 • E MAIL FOODF IRST FOOD FIRST.ORG
©2009 BY FO OD FI RST. ALL R IGHTS RESE RVED. PL EASE OBTAIN PERMI SSION TO CO PY.
Time for transformation
e current food crisis reflects the
environmental vulnerability, social
inequity, and economic volatility of
the corporate food regime. Absent
profound changes we will continue
to experience cycles of free market
liberalization and mild regime reform,
plunging the world’s food systems into
ever graver crises. While food system
reforms—such as localizing food
assistance, increasing aid to agriculture
in the Global South, increasing food
stamps and funding research in organic
agriculture—are certainly needed
and long overdue, they don’t alter
the balance of power within the food
system, and in some cases, may even
reinforce existing inequities.
Progressive projects are tremendously
energetic, creative and diverse, but can
also be locally focused and issue—rather
than system—driven. For example, the
movement to improve access to food
in low-income urban communities has
received high level support from the
White House and the USDA. But the
causes of nutritional deficiency among
underserved communities go beyond
the location of grocery stores. e
abysmal wages, unemployment, skewed
patterns of ownership and inner-city
blight, and the economic devastation
that has been historically visited on
these communities are the result of
structural racism and class struggles
lost. No amount of fresh produce will
fix urban America’s food and health gap
unless it is accompanied by changes
in the structures of ownership and a
reversal of the diminished political and
economic power of low-income people
of color. To end hunger at home and
abroad practices, rules and institutions
(structures) determining the world’s
food systems must be transformed.
Food movements unite!
e challenge for food movements is
to address the immediate problems of
hunger, malnutrition, food insecurity
and environmental degradation,
while working steadily towards the
structural changes needed to turn
sustainable, equitable and democratic
food systems into the norm rather than
a collection of projects. is means
that both reform and transformation
are needed. Historically, substantive
reforms have been introduced to our
political and economic systems, not
by the good intentions of reformists
per se, but through massive social
pressure on legislators—who then
introduce reforms. e social pressure
for system change comes from social
movements.
e food crisis of 2007-2010 has
opened up new opportunities for
reform and transformation, but
has also led to a retrenchment of
liberalization. is suggests that
substantive changes to the corporate
food regime will originate outside
the regime’s institutions—from the
food movement. Whether or not
the food movement can bring about
change depends on whether or not
progressive and radical trends unite.
e inequities and injustices of the
corporate food regime are the default
condition between food movement
organizations. ese social, economic
and political divides of race and class
can’t be ignored or willed away. An
honest and committed effort to the
original food justice principles of
anti-racism and equity within the
food movement is just as important as
working for justice in the food system.
Rural-urban and North-South divides
must also be addressed in practice and
in policy for the food movement to
unite in a significant way.
In this regard, the progressive trend is
pivotal: If progressive organizations
build their primary alliances with
reformist institutions from the
corporate food regime, the regime
will be strengthened, and the food
movement will be weakened. In
this scenario, we are unlikely to see
substantive changes to the status quo.
However, if progressive and radical
trends find ways to build strategic
alliances, the food movement will be
strengthened. Social pressure from a
united food movement has a much
higher likelihood of bringing about
reforms and of moving our food
systems towards transformation.
JOIN FOOD FIRST & TELL YOUR FRIENDS ~ MORE INFO AT WWW.FOODFIRST.ORG
Photo by the Growing Youth Project, Alameda Point Collaborative
... We embedded SEs within our model in a set of systems relationships, including a domain of feedback that the team hypothesized would catalyze community empowerment and sovereignty, ultimately bringing forth equity and, as a result, food justice. Many scholars make a clear distinction between two of the concepts that became central to the foodNEST 2.0 project-food sovereignty and food justice (Holt-Giménez, 2010; McEntee & Naumova, 2012)-but a clear distinction did not seem relevant to our practice. This is not to say that these terms meant the same thing to team members, but the mechanisms to achieve these twin goals were inextricably linked. ...
... This is not to say that these terms meant the same thing to team members, but the mechanisms to achieve these twin goals were inextricably linked. Further, while there is debate in the literature about addressing symptoms of food system problems with market-based approaches, like SEs (for example, see Holt-Giménez, 2010), these activities are interrelated in local food systems, as understood by our community-university team. ...
... The theoretical difference in the literature between FS and FJ movements primarily relates to their view on how to best effect change. FJ is seen as a progressive movement that resists but also coexists with the neoliberally minded corporate food system, whereas FS is seen as a radical movement whose ideology seeks to overturn neoliberal economic systems (Alkon & Mares, 2012;Holt-Giménez, 2010). While this theoretical distinction can be made in academia, it seems less relevant in practice to food activists in the literature and those on our foodNEST 2.0 team. ...
Social enterprise, food justice, and food sovereignty: Strange bedfellows or systemic supports?
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2024
There is a debate in the literature about whether one can address food system problems with market-based approaches while seeking food justice or food sovereignty. However, as part of a team of researchers and community leaders, we have found that this debate is less relevant in practice. The concepts are interrelated within real-world food systems. As such, we were motivated to ask, how do social enterprises (SEs) interact with food justice and food sovereignty movements and their visions in order to realize more democratic and equitable local food systems in communities? To answer this question, we conducted a systematic review at the intersection of SE, food sovereignty, and food justice literature. Analyzing nine articles, which included 17 food-related SEs, we found evidence of potential interactions between food SEs, food justice, and food sovereignty that are compatible (e.g., create employment) and incompatible e.g., limited ability to address issues like commu­nity employability and green gentrification). The lit­erature includes at least three important character­istics that inform how food-related SEs may interact with food justice and sovereignty, includ­ing employee and ownership demographics, the enterprise business model, and aspects of the food system targeted by the enterprise via market activi­ties. If we consider a systems perspective, we can envision the ways in which the aspects are embed­ded and interdependent in a neoliberal society. SEs, as market-based agents for social change, exist in the same system as justice and sovereignty.
View
... Scholars of food insecurity and access frequently describe mitigation programs with a threepart typology: those that emphasize food security (access), those that strive for food justice, and those that seek to promote food sovereignty (Holt-Giménez, 2010). These three categories can describe any effort to address food insecurity; we apply them to the college and university context. ...
... Food security (access) programs are efforts that put financial resources and/or food in the hands of people who need it; within this framework, a "lack of food security is largely understood as an 'access' issue" (Noll & Murdock, 2020, p. 3). While these efforts often provide vital material benefits to individuals, they do little to address the underlying structures of neoliberalism that created conditions of food insecurity in the first place, nor do they tend to engage those affected by food insecurity in decision-making processes (Holt-Giménez, 2010). These programs are temporary fixes that are often short-lived, underfunded and therefore unsustainable: they are necessary, but not sufficient if the underlying causal mechanisms for food insecurity remain unaddressed (Holt-Giménez & Shattuck, 2011). ...
... Food justice efforts often provide alternatives to corporate food regimes and neoliberal conditions without directly challenging them (Clendenning et al., 2016). In other words, food justice efforts reflect a progressive political stance that attempts to create just food provisioning systems without addressing the foundational causes of food insecurity (Holt-Giménez, 2010). ...
From food access to food sovereignty: Striving to meet university student needs
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2023
The ongoing neoliberalization of higher education has meant that college and university students at state institutions face declining state support for their education, increasing debt, precarious post-graduation job opportunities, and a dominant cul­tural emphasis on personal responsibility rather than collective care. These neoliberal conditions exacerbate structural inequities (along various axes, including race, economic status, disability, etc.) within student populations. This paper explores two aspects of inequity in food insecurity among students: specific challenges and inequities students face by virtue of their position as college students, and intersectional inequities faced by some stu­dents by virtue of other identities to which they belong. This paper presents findings from two research efforts at Western Washington University, a public university in the USA Pacific Northwest. First, we share findings from a 2018 qualitative, interview-based study of food-insecure students on the campus. We then draw from our experiences as practitioners and present critical reflections on our own campus food security efforts, differentiating between those that address food security (access), food justice, and food sovereignty. Our findings from the qualitative study suggest that students feel a sense of personal responsibility for their food insecurity, and that food-insecure students both rely on social networks for support and feel stigma­tized by their food insecurity. Our critical reflec­tions on campus programs reveal that most of the traditional food security efforts (e.g. emergency aid, food pantries) neglect to either effectively support BIPOC students and others most affected by food insecurity, or provide a sustained community-support mechanism for food-insecure students in general. We position food sovereignty-oriented programs as a way forward in addressing the inter­sectional inequities faced by students, and also in bolstering communities of support.
View
... The trend toward food system industrialization and globalization leads to economic and political power being concentrated in the hands of a limited number of actors. These actors hold hegemonic power with respect to access to materials, information, and political decision-making, producing an unbalanced power structure within the agri-food system (Holt-Giménez, 2011;IPES-Food, 2016;IPES-Food, 2017). Under these conditions, alternative food initiatives that promote local food supply chains, smallholder farming, and product diversification constitute a counterforce to the prevailing market economy, challenging the hegemonic power imbalance within it (Deverre and Lamine, 2010;Holt-Giménez, 2011). ...
... These actors hold hegemonic power with respect to access to materials, information, and political decision-making, producing an unbalanced power structure within the agri-food system (Holt-Giménez, 2011;IPES-Food, 2016;IPES-Food, 2017). Under these conditions, alternative food initiatives that promote local food supply chains, smallholder farming, and product diversification constitute a counterforce to the prevailing market economy, challenging the hegemonic power imbalance within it (Deverre and Lamine, 2010;Holt-Giménez, 2011). Williams et al. (2023) propose a typology of agri-food systems by distinguishing between agro-industrial control, multifunctional value chains, and civic food networks. ...
Integrating land and food policy to transform territorial food systems in the context of coexisting agri-food models: Case studies in France
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2024
Making the shift from global to territorial food systems is critical for sustainability and demands transformative, coherent, and integrated land and food policies. However, how policy integration may be achieved or hindered remains unclear, particularly in the case of coexisting agri-food models. The coexistence of conflicting models, such as specialization versus diversification and agro-industrial versus ecological practices, entails power relations that significantly influence the political agenda. Drawing on semi-structured interviews and document analysis, we focus on land-use planning and local food policies to examine how policy integration is shaped by, and reshapes, power relations in the context of coexisting agri-food models in a sample of case studies in France. Our findings show that policy integration occurs with innovative initiatives at the stage where territorial agriculture is assessed, strategies are determined, and policy instruments designed. Integration is, however, constrained by unbalanced power relations, which restrict land-based policy interventions that seek to transform food systems. Local authorities exercise caution when applying these interventions, seeking to involve major farmers’ organizations while mitigating contentions. The policy integration process reshapes power relations, empowering alternative minority agri-food professionals through greater influence in the political arena. This process also helps local authorities to acquire legitimacy in agri-food matters. As one of the first studies to offer empirical evidence about land and food policy integration, this article provides insights for policymaking in terms of the crafting of enabling institutional contexts for the transformation of territorial food systems. Future research is suggested to explore contextual influences and power dynamics in policy implementation.
View
... The FEW Nexus can help make contested issues and conflicting value systems visible in topics like Food Justice so that students can be empowered to take action (Box 5). Food justice can be conceived of at varying scales of complexity, from an overly simple "feed the world" perspective to one that is more inclusive of other elements of justice, including "trauma/inequity, exchange, land, and labor" (Cadieux and Slocum, 2015, p1), or social movement activism (strategic thinking competency), the development of alternative food practices (values-thinking and strategic thinking competencies), and analyses of inequalities (systems thinking and values-thinking competency) (Holt-Giménez, 2010). FEW can help connect justice theories with other considerations related to food production, and help students consider justice alongside more traditional considerations of technological advancements in irrigation, chemical inputs, and Box 6 | Values thinking in FEW Nexus trade-offs in water use Floridan Aquifer Case Study-University of Florida Institution Type: Public, 4-year, Carnegie Classification: Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive Level: Undergraduate major and non-major courses in Environmental Science Scale: Multi-day activity Case Location(s): United States Description: Instructors developed two case studies to enhance student learning in water resource units in undergraduate non-major and major-track Environmental Science courses. ...
Implementing interdisciplinary sustainability education with the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2024
Growth in the green jobs sector has increased demand for college graduates who are prepared to enter the workforce with interdisciplinary sustainability skills. Simultaneously, scholarly calls for interdisciplinary collaboration in the service of addressing the societal challenges of enhancing resilience and sustainability have also increased in recent years. However, developing, executing, and assessing interdisciplinary content and skills at the post-secondary level has been challenging. The objective of this paper is to offer the Food-Energy-Water (FEW) Nexus as a powerful way to achieve sustainability competencies and matriculate graduates who will be equipped to facilitate the transformation of the global society by meeting the targets set by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The paper presents 10 curricular design examples that span multiple levels, including modules, courses, and programs. These modules enable clear evaluation and assessment of key sustainability competencies, helping to prepare graduates with well-defined skillsets who are equipped to address current and future workforce needs.
View
... Explícitamente, intentan descentrar al alimento de su carácter de mercancía (Oreggioni & Carámbula, 2019;González de Molina et al., 2017). Se materializan en experiencias colectivas y comunitarias en territorios concretos, pero que buscan trascender su acción hacia la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios, desde la perspectiva de la agroecología y la soberanía alimentaria (Holt-Giménez, 2010;Di Masso, 2012;Pérez-Cassarino, 2012;Holt-Giménez & Patel, 2009). ...
LOS PROCESOS COLECTIVOS DE POLITIZACIÓN DEL CONSUMO DE ALIMENTOS PROVENIENTES DE LA AGROECOLOGÍA. EL CASO DE LA ASOCIACIÓN BARRIAL DE CONSUMO (ASOBACO) DE URUGUAY
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2024
Este artículo reflexiona sobre: i) la configuración de los sistemas alimentarios en la sociedad capitalista, ii) las condicionantes al proceso de producción y consumo alimentario y iii) las posibilidades y limitaciones de los colectivos de consumidores de alimentos agroecológicos en Uruguay. Se basa en un estudio cualitativo, con entrevistas a actores clave y observación, complementado con revisión y análisis teórico. Se identifica a ASOBACO con una alternativa popular de consumo, que establece nuevas formas organizativas y de vínculo con productores, visibilizando los planos de la producción y reproducción de la vida, en el marco de la propuesta agroecológica. Como conclusiones, se destaca la importancia que toma el consumo en la reflexión teórica del pensamiento crítico contemporáneo. Asimismo, se observa la materialización de los procesos de politización del consumo como ASOBACO en los denominados valores de uso sanos y soberanos, con la centralidad en los alimentos, pero que eventualmente los trascienden.
View
Food Design Activism. Fusing Design Activism and Food Activism into a new Food Design Sub-discipline
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Dec 2024
This paper explores Food Design Activism, a specialized branch of Design Activism that applies its transformative principles to the food sector. While Design Activism broadly seeks societal change through Design, Food Design Activism focuses on reshaping food systems to address issues such as sustainability, justice, and equity. The paper introduces the food-specificity of Food Design Activism, and outlines the 7 principles that define it: 1) Food Design Activism changes food systems, Food Design Activism is 2) revealing, 3) political, 4) contesting, 5) disruptive, 6) designerly, 7) real. The paper discusses the critical role of Food Design Activism in the transformation of the food system, as Food System Design serves as the broadest and most encompassing sub-discipline, integrating all aspects of food production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. Ultimately, Food Design Activism is the new Food Design sub-discipline for those interested in projects that contest and disrupt injustices, focus on marginalised groups, and use Design to confront political oppression and inequality. Food Design Activism-by Francesca Zampollo
View
Making Spaces Something Like Freedom: Black Feminist Praxis in the Re/Imagining of a Just Food System
Chapter
  • Oct 2023
Over the last decade, there has been an increasing amount of scholarship focused on race and food inequity. Much of this research is focused on the United States and its densely populated urban centers. Looking deeply into Black women’s roles—economically, environmentally, and socially—in food and agriculture systems in the Caribbean, Africa, and the United States, the contributors address the ways Black women, both now and in the past, have used food as a part of community building and sustenance. They also examine matrilineal food-based education; the importance of Black women’s social, cultural, and familial networks in addressing nutrition and food insecurity; the ways gender intersects with class and race globally when thinking about food; and how women-led science and technology initiatives can be used to create healthier and more just food systems.
View
Cause-and-effect relationship between elements of the country's economic security
Article
  • Nov 2024
Subject. I present my own concept of the country's economic security structure, the elements of which are economic stability, economic independence, and economic sovereignty. The article considers the problem of forming a system of indicators designed to assess economic security. Objectives. The article focuses on the analysis of Russia's historical experience in the interaction with the International Monetary Fund for 1990–1999. Methods. The study draws on comparative analysis, observation, and modeling. Results. The adoption of the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund by the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as the loss of economic stability, contributed to the loss of economic sovereignty. The paper confirms that the loss of economic stability leads to the reproduction of threats to economic independence and sovereignty. The loss of economic sovereignty increases the threats of loss of independence and stability. A decrease in the degree of independence contributes to the reproduction of threats to sovereignty and stability. Conclusions. Elements of the structure of economic security have cause-and-effect relationships and intersection zones, which should be taken into account when developing a system of indicators to measure the stability, independence and sovereignty of the national economy.
View
Divergent approaches to the ‘family farm’: celebrate, reform, or abolish?
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2024
  • AGR HUM VALUES
As the United Nations declared the beginning of the “Decade of Family Farming” in 2017, scholars were increasingly questioning the romanticized and uncritical use of the term to mask some structural inequalities, including patriarchal ownership, colonialism, heteronormativity, family and child labor exploitation, poor labor standards, and environmental destruction. This introduction to a special symposium on the family farm differentiates scholarly approaches to studying family farming into three categories: celebratory, reformist, and abolitionist. After summarizing the papers included in this special issue, this introduction contends that it may be time to move beyond biological and marital relations when analyzing the most effective ways to solve social and environmental problems related to agricultural production.
View
View
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.