No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Food policy councils-past, present, and future
... Overall, creating a diverse FPC has been described as a contributor to success (Clancy et al., 2008;Schiff, 2008;Dharmawan, 2015;De Marco et al., 2017) with benefits to internal and external networks; however, it appears to be a goal that many groups struggle to achieve. The existing membership structures serve to alienate others, limiting the council's ability to represent the community, and therefore decreasing its impact (Packer, 2014). ...
... Twenty of the articles we reviewed discussed the engagement of state actors in FPCs. Some of these articles discussed FPCs as being embedded within government offices or with direct links to government (Clancy et al., 2008;Mendes, 2008;Blay-Palmer, 2009;Coplen and Cuneo, 2015;Boden and Hoover, 2018;Bassarab et al., 2019). Some of the articles discussed directives or policies which mandated the inclusion of government representatives (Clayton et al., 2015;Siddiki et al., 2015;De Marco et al., 2017;Bassarab et al., 2019) while others noted the benefits of having paid staff funded directly through government (McCartan and Palermo, 2017). ...
... From a different perspective, some articles discussed ways that FPCs were intentionally established outside of government or developed to ensure distance from government reach (Clancy et al., 2008;Packer, 2014;Boden and Hoover, 2018;Bassarab et al., 2019). Bringing these two extremes (government based or non-government) together, Schiff (2008) noted that a "hybrid" model includes "some formal relationship with government through funding, resources, or otherwise while maintaining some NGO or non-profit status. ...
The proliferation of food policy councils (FPCs) in the past two decades has been accompanied by increasing academic interest and a growing number of research studies. Given the rapid interest and growth in the number of FPCs, their expanding geographic distribution, and the research on their activities, there is a need to assess the current state of knowledge on FPCs, gaps in that knowledge, and directions for future research. To address this need, we undertook a scoping review of the scholarly literature published on FPCs over the past two decades. The review identified four main themes in the FPC research—(1) Activities of FPCs; (2) Organizational dimensions; (3) Challenges; and, (4) Facilitators. We also note a significant sub-theme related to equity and diversity, race and class representation in FPCs. These themes frame a growing body of knowledge on FPCs along with key gaps in the current body of literature, which may help to direct research on these organizations for those interested in approaches to food systems change and cross-sectoral collaborative approaches to social-ecological governance.
... FPCs provide a forum to practice food democracy by way of working with government rather than taking an adversarial approach (Andrée, Clark, Levkoe, & Lowitt, 2019). They counter the problems of representational democracy serving mostly well-resourced interest groups by coordinating citizens, both lay stakeholders and paid professionals, from sectors and interests across the food supply chain and political institutions to address food system issues (Clancy, Hammer, & Lippoldt, 2007). Lay stakeholders can be defined as "unpaid citizens who have a deep interest in some public concern and thus are willing to invest substantial time and energy to represent and serve those who have similar interests or perspectives but choose not to participate" (Fung, 2006, p. 68). ...
... Members of collaborative governance networks and their relationships can drive the networks' decisions and actions (Ansell & Gash, 2008), and in the instance of FPCs, their eventual policy work (Koski, Siddiki, Sadiq, & Carboni, 2018). Scholars have explored dynamics related to participation and representation on FPCs (Clancy et al., 2007;Dahlberg et al., 1997;Harper et al., 2009;Schiff, 2008), emphasizing that FPCs should take a systemsbased perspective on membership from across three axes: across domains (e.g., health, education, economic development), across the supply chain (e.g., production, retail, distribution), and across sectors (e.g., public, private, community;Irish, Clark, Banks, Palmer, & Santo, 2017). Members become "boundary spanners" by crossing organizational and sector boundaries, creating a bridge that enables a systems-oriented approach (Williams, 2002). ...
... FPCs that have no relationship to government. A relationship with government can lend credibility and legitimacy to the work of an FPC and thus enable policy success, or it can hinder and even halt the efforts of an FPC(Clancy et al., 2007;Santo & Moragues-Faus, 2019;Scherb, Palmer, Frattaroli, & Pollack, 2012;Schiff, 2008). ...
Food policy councils (FPCs) are an embodiment of food democracy, providing a space for community members, professionals, and government to learn together, deliberate, and collectively devise place-based strategies to address complex food systems issues. These collaborative governance networks can be considered a transitional stage in the democratic process, an intermediary institution that coordinates interests not typically present in food policymaking. In practice, FPCs are complex and varied. Due to this variety, it is not entirely clear how the structure, membership, and relationship to government of an FPC influence its policy priorities. This article will examine the relationship between an FPC’s organizational structure, relationship to government, and membership and its policy priorities. Using data from a 2018 survey of FPCs in the United States by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future paired with illustrative cases, we find that an FPC’s relationship to government and membership have more bearing on its policy priorities than the organizational structure. Further, the cases illustrate how membership is determined and deliberation occurs, highlighting the difficulty of including underrepresented voices in the process.
... Published research on FPCs is scant, leaving many gaps in knowledge as to their role in the policy process. Much of what is known about FPCs is based on several decades of work by a few food policy experts (Clancy, Hammer, & Lippoldt, 2007;Dahlberg, 1994;Fiser, 2006;Lang, Rayner, Rayner, Barling, & Millstone, 2004;Schiff, 2007;Winne, 2008). In "Food Policy Councils: Past, Present and Future," Dr. Clancy and colleagues describe the work of eight government-sanctioned state and local FPCs that were operational for at least three years (as of 2007), and concluded that these FPCs' policy activities were focused on advising and making recommendations to local and state government agencies. ...
... In "Food Policy Councils: Past, Present and Future," Dr. Clancy and colleagues describe the work of eight government-sanctioned state and local FPCs that were operational for at least three years (as of 2007), and concluded that these FPCs' policy activities were focused on advising and making recommendations to local and state government agencies. FPCs most frequently offered recommendations to local policy agencies and participated in creating comprehensive food policy plans designed to improve local food systems (Clancy et al., 2007). The degree to which these plans have been implemented is undocumented in the literature and may be related to each council's length of existence and/or efficacy. ...
... These activities range from coordi-nating state agencies that affect food security to increasing state procurement of local foods. Connecticut is highlighted by both Clancy et al. (2007) and Winne (2008) as a model state FPC that was established in response to a state statute charging the council to "develop, coordinate, and implement a food system policy" (Connecticut General Assembly, 1997). The scope of this research by Clancy and Winne provides important foundational examinations of FPCs and their role in the policy process and sets the stage well for a more in-depth assessment of the range of topics and processes through which FPCs engage in policy. ...
Food policy councils (FPCs) have become a popular way to organize various food system stakeholders at the local, municipal, and state levels. FPCs typically build partnerships with stakeholders; examine current policies, regulations, and ordinances related to food; and support or create programs that address food system issues. While FPCs have the potential to affect policy change and often include policy-related goals in their missions, the literature on how FPCs engage in the policy process, what policies FPCs address, and the policy impacts of their work are very limited. We conducted an electronic survey of FPC leaders to describe FPCs, their level of engagement in policy processes, and the scope of their policy activities. We invited all U.S. FPCs that were included in an FPC database (N =92) to participate. Of the 56 FPCs that completed the survey (64 percent response rate), 52 percent had been in existence for at least 3 years and 85 percent were engaged in policy activities at the time of the survey. Most FPCs engage in policy work in multiple venues (88 percent) and on multiple topics (79 percent). Many FPCs reported participating in the policy process through problem identification (95 percent) and education (78 percent); few mentioned evaluating their policy work. Those not engaged in policy most often cited lack of resources and technical expertise as barriers. These results suggest that while most FPCs are engaging in policy, why and how they engage varies greatly. Since FPCs are frequently cited as an effective way to address local and state food system issues, there is a need for more rigorous evaluation of the processes, outcomes, and impacts of their work.
... Recognizing their growth and increasing presence in food system discussions, some research has sought to understand the needs and challenges of FPC policy engagement [1,[4][5][6]. According to a 2009 Food First Report, in order to advance food systems policy FPCs must be viewed as credible by decision-makers and earn support from other food system stakeholders. ...
... FPCs' diverse networks, which often include different interests and policy agendas, can be a challenge [1,6]. Some struggle to navigate thorny political climates; balance policy and program priorities; evaluate their impact; and identify sufficient time, funding, training, and skills to advance their policy agenda [5][6][7][8]. FPCs appear to be more effective when they harness local momentum and address needs with local organizations [9]; however, partnering with organizations within the local food environment can take years [1]. ...
... The identified benefits of partnerships may help FPCs overcome some of the documented barriers to policy engagement [1,[4][5][6]. Previous research supports the notion that partnerships with high-level leaders (such as policymakers and researchers) add credibility to the FPC mission [1,16]. ...
Food Policy Councils (FPC) help to identify and address the priorities of local, state, and regional food systems with the goal of improving food systems through policy. There is limited research describing FPCs' strategies for accomplishing this goal. As part of a larger study examining FPC policy efforts, this paper investigates the role of partnerships in food systems policy change. We conducted interviews with representatives from 12 purposefully selected FPCs in the United States and 6 policy experts identified by the selected FPC representatives to document and describe their policy work. One theme that emerged from those interviews was the role of partners. Interviewees described a range of partners (e.g., stakeholders from government, business, and education) and credited FPC partnerships with advancing their policy goals by increasing the visibility and credibility of FPCs, focusing their policy agenda, connecting FPCs to key policy inputs (e.g., local food community knowledge and priorities), and obtaining stakeholder buy-in for policy initiatives. Partnerships were also described as barriers to policy progress when partners were less engaged or had either disproportionate or little influence in a given food sector. Despite these challenges, partnerships were found to be valuable for FPCs efforts to effectively engage in the food policy arena.
... In those that did, the selection mechanism that was found to be most common was the invitation of participants by governmental actors (7 studies). In a comparative study of food policy councils in North America, for example, Clancy et al. (2008) found that in most councils members were appointed by either the mayor, county or state legislatures. Similarly, participants of the London Food Board had to be appointed by the mayor (Hasson 2019). ...
... In two studies, a lack of such transparency was found. Clancy et al. (2008), for example, describe that whereas some North American food policy councils invest considerably in their exposure, others deliberately opt for a low public profile, as they believe a behind the scenes way of working is more effective in influencing policy. For similar reasons, many food policy councils evade media exposure (Schiff 2008). ...
In order to foster a transition of the food system toward more sustainable outcomes, scholars have increasingly pointed at the need for organizing strengthened food democracy. By increasing the participation of citizens and food system actors, democratic innovations, such as food policy councils, are believed to promote the quality and legitimacy of food policymaking. However, the question of whether and how food democracy initiatives do indeed contribute to more democratic modes of governance largely remains unexplored. This study addresses this gap by performing a systematic literature review of the existing scholarship on food democracy, assessing democratic innovations for their contributions to four democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment and transparency. The analysis shows that food democracy initiatives tend to be dominated by organized interests, have more influence on agenda-setting and implementation compared to decision-making, and generally aim for some form of deliberation or knowledge exchange. The precise selection mechanisms, processes and quality of deliberation, and transparency of democratic innovations remain important research gaps. The paper ends with a plea to better connect food democracy scholarship with the broader political sciences, as well as various suggestions for future research.
Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10460-022-10322-5.
... 10) that appeals to a specific group of individuals and limits the FPG's ability to represent the community, therefore decreasing its impact. Overall, ensuring FPGs have a diverse membership has been identified as a significant contribution to their success (Clancy et al., 2008;De Marco et al., 2017;Dharmawan, 2015;Schiff, 2008). ...
... FPGs that had the support of government agencies reported more collaboration with government than independent groups, and they cite this engagement as a key factor in their success (Clancy et al., 2008;Schiff, 2007). Furthermore, partnerships with policy experts can be valuable for engaging in high-level policy work (Clayton et al., 2015, Ilieva, 2016. ...
Over the past decades, there has been a rapid expansion in the number of Food Policy Groups (FPG) (including food policy councils, strategies, networks, and informal alliances) operating at municipal and regional levels across North America. FPGs are typically established with the intent of bringing together food systems stakeholders across private (e.g., small businesses, industry associations), public (e.g., government, public health, postsecondary institutions), and community (e.g., non-profits and charitable organizations) sectors to develop participatory governance mechanisms. Recognizing that food systems challenges are too often addressed in isolation, FPGs aim to instill integrated approaches to food related policy, programs, and planning. Despite growing interest, there is little quantitative or mixed methods research about the relationships that constitute FPGs or the degree to which they achieve cross-sectoral integration. Turning to Social Network Analysis (SNA) as an approach for understanding networked organizational relationships, we explore how SNA might contribute to a better understanding of FPGs. This paper presents results from a study of the Thunder Bay and Area Food Strategy (TBAFS), a FPG established in 2007 when an informal network of diverse organizations came together around shared goals of ensuring that municipal policy and governance supported healthy, equitable and sustainable food systems in the Thunder Bay region in Ontario, Canada. Drawing on data from a survey of TBAFS organizational members, we suggest that SNA can improve our understanding of the networks formed by FPGs and enhance their goals of cross-sectoral integration.
... Since the 1980s, food system stakeholders across North America have formed entities to consolidate their efforts to increase the accessibility, consump-tion, and affordability of healthy and sustainable food (Clancy, Hammer, & Lippoldt, 2007;Scherb, Palmer, Frattarolli, & Pollack, 2012). They are motivated by a variety of issues -frustration with supermarket chains relocating to the suburbs, increasing rates of diet-related diseases, loss of farmland, and the poor quality of school mealsall of which reflect broader trends in the food system (Scherb et al., 2012). ...
... How and where food policy councils (FPCs) originate has a lasting influence on their evolution and potential impact. Some of the earliest iterations of FPCs were started in the 1980s by city governments to cope with hunger, nutrition, and food supply issues (Clancy et al., 2007). A recent report analyzing 13 U.S. municipal food policy directors (sought out through the Urban Sustainability Directors Network) found that over half of the cities' efforts originated from within local government through a centralized, top-down approach directed by the mayor, a city council member, or another civil servant (Hatfield, 2012). ...
As cities across the nation seek to improve healthy food access, this participant observer case study highlights how one midsized city successfully developed a collaborative infrastructure to understand and address inequity in healthy food access. We trace the genesis and evolution of Baltimore's Food Policy Task Force, the hiring of a food policy director, and the establishment of the Baltimore Food Policy Initiative, which is an intergovernmental partnership to increase access to healthy, affordable foods in urban food deserts. While some cities have approached food access issues through community coalitions pressuring city government or government edicts, Baltimore successfully identified its need, used available research to drive and inform action, established priorities, and acted expeditiously with a focus on sustainability. This case study is relevant and applicable for those seeking to influence change in local food policy in midsized urban settings.
... Since the 1980s, food system stakeholders across North America have formed entities to consolidate their efforts to increase the accessibility, consump-tion, and affordability of healthy and sustainable food (Clancy, Hammer, & Lippoldt, 2007;Scherb, Palmer, Frattarolli, & Pollack, 2012). They are motivated by a variety of issues -frustration with supermarket chains relocating to the suburbs, increasing rates of diet-related diseases, loss of farmland, and the poor quality of school mealsall of which reflect broader trends in the food system (Scherb et al., 2012). ...
... How and where food policy councils (FPCs) originate has a lasting influence on their evolution and potential impact. Some of the earliest iterations of FPCs were started in the 1980s by city governments to cope with hunger, nutrition, and food supply issues (Clancy et al., 2007). A recent report analyzing 13 U.S. municipal food policy directors (sought out through the Urban Sustainability Directors Network) found that over half of the cities' efforts originated from within local government through a centralized, top-down approach directed by the mayor, a city council member, or another civil servant (Hatfield, 2012). ...
... Planning scholars have long argued for planners to develop multi-stakeholder forums to engage professionals and citizens in FSP development (Reece 2018, Raja et al. 2018a). Food policy councils (FPCs) -a type of collaborative multi-stakeholder body -have long served as "link tanks" to bring together diverse stakeholders, typically as advisory councils for local policy makers and planners (Clancy 1994, Clancy et al. 2007, Schiff 2008. FPCs also function as community engagement forums, emphasizing the inclusion of community representatives, particularly of traditionally disenfranchised groups (McCullagh and Santo 2014). ...
The process of developing food system policies (FSP) that comprehensively address systemic issues requires the inclusion of a diverse array of actors from all parts of the food system. Drawing on literature on collaborative governance, we argue that interpersonal relationships, and the factors that facilitate their development and maintenance, are essential to FSP development. Based on this assertion, we ask: how do interpersonal relationships shape collaborative food systems policy processes? Specifically, we explore: (1) what motivates the emergence of interpersonal relationships in FSP; (2) what are the characteristics of social environments that foster such interpersonal relationships; and (3) what traits/activities foster interpersonal relationships in food systems policy processes.
This research draws on qualitative analysis of 26 semi-structured interviews in four preeminent examples of FSP development in the United States identified by Growing Food Connections (GFC), an FSP research group: Seattle, WA; Lawrence/Douglas County, KS; a five-county region in Minnesota; and Marquette County, MI. Following an inductive description of key cross-case themes responding to the previous questions, we discuss the implications of these findings for equity and ethics in FSP development. This discussion highlights that, while equity did not appear as an explicit motivation for developing interpersonal relationships, practices of humble listening by policy practitioners foster inclusive engagement as a basis for equitable collaboration.
... FPCs emerged in the late 1980s as stakeholders in the sustainable agriculture and food and nutrition movements began to pay more attention to community food systems. Early FPCs were created by and embedded within local government, much like a planning or social service commission (Clancy et al., 2008;Dahlberg, 1994). As the local food movement expanded in the 2000s, a newer generation of FPCs emerged, typically organized as nonprofit organizations or community coalitions that could bring a more diverse group of food system stakeholders into the planning process and avoid bureaucratic restrictions (Schiff, 2008). ...
This paper presents findings from a survey of 34 food policy councils (FPCs) in California. The survey addressed organizational structure and functions, policy priorities and achievements, and the use of research or other information. We find that most FPCs have formed in recent years, operate with small budgets and limited or no staff, and function primarily to foster network relationships. FPCs rely on community-based knowledge more than academic research, suggesting an opportunity for Extension professionals to lend expertise. We conclude by identifying specific ways Extension professionals can support FPCs as they seek to enhance local and regional food systems.
... Engagement has also increased at the national level, with policy interventions led by food movements, such as the People's Food Policies in Canada (2011), Australia (2013), and the UK (2017). Each of these efforts began with social movements and non-profit organizations identifying and defining problems that could be addressed through policy initiatives (Levkoe & Sheedy, 2018;Clancy et al, 2007). ...
... To date, researchers have explored the creation, actions, and initial impacts of individual LFPGs (Mendes, 2008;Blay-Palmer, 2009;Santo et al., 2014;Packer, 2014;Coplen and Cuneo, 2015). Others have compared the structures, issues, and activities of multiple LFPGs ( Lang et al., 2004;Clancy et al., 2007;Schiff, 2008;Scherb et al., 2012;Moragues-Faus and Morgan, 2015;Halliday, 2015;Horst, 2017), although with limited evaluation of their collective impact on changing policy or shifting conventional food governance paradigms (Clark et al., 2015). Scant research exists on how LFPGs connect with one another, why these trans-local networks emerge, or what achievements and challenges these initiatives are experiencing. ...
A diversity of cross-sectoral, multi-scalar networks are emerging to connect place-based food governance initiatives, such as food policy councils and partnerships, aimed to foster sustainable food security. Yet little research has explored how local food policy groups (LFPGs) are (horizontally) connecting to share knowledge and resources, or interacting (vertically) with other scales of food governance. To address this gap, we examine the trans-local dimension of food policy networks—and its potential to facilitate transformative food system
reform. We build on alternative food network, social network, and assemblage thinking to develop an analytical framework that unveils the mobile, unstable, and relational processes and spatialities of LFPGs and the networks which connect them. Through an action-research project comprising a comparative analysis of the Food Policy Networks project in the US and Sustainable Food Cities Network in the UK, we explore how LFPGs connect across different scales and emerge as social-spatial assemblages of food system knowledge, practices, and infrastructure. The findings suggest that conceptualizing these entities as dynamic and place-contingent enables evaluations of their relations and effects to account for features that (could) make them more interconnected, resilient, and transformative, but may also limit their ability to address structurally entrenched food system challenges.
... Food policy councils and food system alliances bring together diverse food system stakeholders to address issues of local concern. Typically, they make recommendations on food policy to city, county, and state governments; raise residents' awareness of the food system; encourage connections and communication among various food system actors; and undertake food system projects and research (Clancy, Hammer, & Lippoldt, 2007). For Extension and others, participating in networks helps to build connections between people and produces results at a greater scale than a single individual or organization could alone (Wenger, McDermott, & Synder, 2002). ...
Nationwide, Extension is increasingly involved in local food system work. In cities, initiatives to improve the local food system often include urban agriculture, which has attracted the attention of diverse stakeholders for its many potential social, health, economic, and environmental impacts. This article illustrates how Extension in the San Francisco Bay Area is developing urban agriculture programming and engaging in food-system-related partnerships. It also shares lessons learned from these efforts. In this metropolitan region, Extension practice aligns well with research findings on Extension involvement in local food systems, particularly with the emphasis on providing educational opportunities and resources adapted to unique needs of city residents and working collaboratively with community and government partners to facilitate broader food system change. The results of this case study will be useful for Extension personnel in designing and implementing programs related to urban food systems.
... The evidence behind food policy councils and coalitions stems largely from North America. Their origins can be traced back to state nutrition councils which operated in the 1960s (8) . Since the early 1980s, there has been steady increase in the number of food councils operating at the local, regional and state levels in North America (9) and a 2015 audit found 278 food policy councils across the USA and Canada (10) . ...
Objective:
To explore how an Australian rural food policy coalition acts to influence a local food environment, focusing specifically on its composition, functions and processes as well as its food-related strategies and policy outputs.
Design:
A qualitative case study approach was undertaken. Three sources were used to triangulate data: eleven semi-structured in-depth interviews with coalition members, analysis of thirty-seven documents relating to the coalition and observation at one coalition meeting. Data were analysed using a thematic and constant comparison approach. Community Coalition Action Theory provided a theoretical framework from which to interpret findings.
Setting:
Two rural local government areas on the south-eastern coast of Victoria, Australia.
Subjects:
Eleven members of the food policy coalition.
Results:
Five themes emerged from the data analysis. The themes described the coalition's leadership processes, membership structure, function to pool resources for food system advocacy, focus on collaborative cross-jurisdictional strategies and ability to influence policy change.
Conclusions:
This Australian case study demonstrates that with strong leadership, a small-sized core membership and focus on collaborative strategies, food policy coalitions may be a mechanism to positively influence local food environments.
... Toronto, Ontario and Hartford, Connecticut established FPCs in 1991 and 1992 respectively. The latter have become among the most exemplary, successful programs in North America (Clancy, Hammer, & Lippoldt, 2008). These early innovators initiated a process of FPC expansion across North America during the 1990s that has dramatically accelerated in the last decade (see Fig. 3).What's in a Name? ...
This chapter seeks to address questions related to the convergence among alternative agrifood movements as well as the convergence between alternative and conventional practices with a focus on local movements. We reconstruct the common conflation of the alternative/conventional binary into a multidimensional measure that recognizes the complex interactions of economic, political, social, and cultural elements in the construction of convention, alterity, and opposition. We also consider several forms of possible convergence: multi-organizational, multi-sectoral (among elements of the agrifood system), multidimensional (among political, economic, cultural, and social practices), and multilevel or scale (hierarchy of spatially embedded governance units). These matters are empirically examined by focusing on the rapidly growing Food Policy Council (FPC) movement in North America. We address the question of this movement's diffusion, consider its variable linkages between state and civil society, and examine the substantive practices and framings in which the movement has been engaged. While we find that most FPC practices are probably vulnerable to conventionalization, the movement's most valuable function may be its modular form. That form functions as an incubator of multi-organizational and multi-sectoral experimental practices in a multiplicity of local environments. Further, ties between FPCs provide a networking mechanism for transmitting information about the successes and failures of those experiments among hundreds of locales and regions. Finally, the discourse among the FPC leadership amplifies values favoring the democratization of food, and articulates beliefs in the right to food as well as notions of food citizenship and sovereignty.
... In the case of agrifood system agenda, emergent governance partnerships have been driven by food policy councils (FPC), networks and coalitions. These citizen-oriented groups undertake activities that identify and define problems that could be addressed through policy initiatives (Clancy et al., 2007). The first FPC was established in 1981 in Knoxville, TN. 7 The most recent census shows over 200 FPCs in the US (Center for a Livable Future, 2014). ...
In the US, traditionally food policy has been considered a federal concern dealing with issues such as nutrition, anti-hunger, food safety, food labeling, international trade and food aid. In the 1970s, new concerns arose about the potentially deleterious consequences of the modern global food system. Social movement groups, often referred to as the Alternative Agrifood Movement, successfully championed these concerns into policy discussions, expanding the federal food policy frame to include the agrifood system agenda, while also creating new roles for local and state governments in food system governance. A body of agrifood system policy research emerged to address both the concerns and policies addressing modern global food system issues. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to summarize the underpinnings of the agrifood system policy agenda, trace the emergence of initiatives in federal policy, and describe expressions in local policy; and, second, to describe the corresponding research domain, focusing on seminal works that inform or directly speak to policy development. Findings indicate that, as a whole, agrifood system policy research is interdisciplinary and draws from a core of knowledge. The most highly cited publications come from the fields of geography, sociology and rural sociology, environmental science and nutrition education, and follow a consistent trajectory of conceptualizing alternatives, providing friendly critique and proposing research agendas attentive to hybridity between conventional and alternative food systems. Research mostly informs framing and agenda-setting in the policy process and is aimed at all scales of governance, with a slight emphasis on local governance. Finally, we offer suggestions for further research, including evaluative research and comparative analysis with other domains of food policy research.
... Food systems networks, councils, and working groups often encounter a variety of organizational, procedural, and external factors that can support or hinder success. Many of these factors are documented in existing scholarly literature (Clancy, Hammer, & Lippoldt, 2007;Dahlberg, 1994;Dahlberg et al., 1997;Hawe & Stickney, 1997;Lang, Rayner, Rayner, Barling, & Millstone, 2005;Schiff, 2005Schiff, , 2007Webb, Pelletier, Maretzki, & Wilkins, 1998;Yeatman, 1994Yeatman, , 1997 and reports found in the grey literature (Boron, 2003;Harper et al., 2009). These works are mutually reinforcing and have created a theoretical basis for understanding the ways in which local food councils and networks operate. ...
Canada's northern and remote regions experience high rates of food insecurity, exceptionally high food costs, environmental concerns related to contamination and climate change, and a diversity of other uniquely northern challenges related to food production, acquisition, and consumption. As such, there is a need to understand and develop strategies to address food-related concerns in the North. The diversity of communities across the North demands the tailoring of specific, local-level responses to meet diverse needs. Over the past decade, local networks have emerged as a powerful method for developing localized responses, promoting food security and the development of more sustainable food systems across Canada and North America. Despite this, there is a paucity of research examining challenges and effective approaches utilized by these local networks or their potential applicability for building food security in rural, remote, and northern communities. This research utilized participant observation as a method to examine the experiences of a Northern Canadian food security network. The experience of this network points to strategies that can lead to successful collaborative approaches aimed at implementing programs to address food security in northern and remote communities.
... The Association of European Schools of Planning has held an annual 'Sustainable Food Planning' conference since 2008. Planning academics have also engaged in outreach to institutionalize learning in the broader planning community (Pothukuchi 2009) with food policy councils (APA 2007; Clancy et al. 2007; Raja et al. 2008 Schiff 2008 ). Simultaneously, planning practitioners have incorporated food into the urban plans of numerous cities: Belo Horoizonte, Rome, Philadelphia, Toronto, Kampala, and Dar es Salaam. ...
This review summarizes several avenues of planning inquiry into food systems research, revealing gaps in the literature, allied fields of study and mismatches between scholarly disciplines and the food system life cycle. Planners and scholars in associated fields have identified and defined problems in the food system as 'wicked' problems, complex environmental issues that require systemic solutions at the community scale. While food justice scholars have contextualized problem areas, planning scholars have made a broad case for planning involvement in solving these wicked problems while ensuring that the functional and beneficial parts of the food system continue to thrive. This review maps the entry points of scholarly interest in food systems and planning's contributions to its study, charting a research agenda for the future.
Building on Denver, Colorado’s long history of community-led food systems work, the local government has accelerated food-focused policies in the past decade. Such efforts culminated in Denver Food Vision , the first long-term plan about food. One idea championed in the plan was to dedicate 100 acres of land, an area equivalent in size to 25 city blocks, to food production by 2030. The initiative took shape in the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council’s (SFPC) City Food, City Land policy advisory. Despite the input received by the SFPC, one basic concept had been overlooked: there was simply not enough vacant land within Denver (much less appropriate for farming/gardening) to meet the hundred acres goal, city-owned or otherwise. While this policy was never adopted, there are important lessons to be learned about (i) the process of policy ideation to adoption and implementation, (ii) the intersection of land ownership and structural racism in institutions, (iii) equitable representation within decision-making, and (iv) effective government-community collaboration.
Public food procurement, involving public sector entities purchasing and distributing food for government-run programs or facilities, is gaining traction as a strategy to counter the dominance of global corporations in food systems. This paper examines the potential and challenges of a place-based procurement model that links urban and rural areas through direct supply chains to promote local, environmentally sustainable food production and consumption, drawing on an in-depth analysis of South Korea’s Urban-rural Coexistence Public Meal Program. The findings of this study highlight that program agendas focused on locality and sustainability may misalign, limiting transformative potential, especially when ‘place’ is narrowly defined within territorial or administrative boundaries. The paper advocates for a comprehensive understanding of ‘place’ that transcends spatial limits, as a key to rebuild regional supply chains, acknowledging its multi-scalar nature and socio-ecological connections between urban and rural spheres. Evidence from South Korea informs the design of place-based food systems, emphasizing the importance of aligning local realities, coordinating different food systems agendas, and exchanging context-specific knowledge. This study contributes to the theoretical elaboration of place-based approaches and the envisioning of urban policies that support food system sustainability and localization.
To foster more sustainable food systems, collaboration between local governments for knowledge exchange and cooperation is essential. Trans‐local food policy networks potentially serve this purpose but their functioning and outcomes remain largely unexplored. We address this gap by analyzing collaboration and its outcomes for one of the first trans‐local food policy networks in the Netherlands: City Deal: Food on the Urban Agenda. We use Ansell and Gash's collaborative governance model as an ideal type to analyze the City Deal drawing on two rounds of semi‐structured interviews with civil servants and politicians in 2016 and 2019 resulting in a total of 37 interviews with 49 unique respondents. The collaborative process was a continuous searching and negotiating for roles, goals, and activities, on the one hand, combined with great eagerness among participants to collaborate and improve local food systems on the other. Although this process led to collective identity building and learning, it resulted in limited collaborative action between participants or tangible results on the ground. The main outcomes were the active network itself, which fostered the strengthening of connections, exchanging knowledge, learning, and agenda setting. Based on our findings, we identify five key points of attention for successful food policy collaboration: ensuring stakeholder commitment, striking a balance between a sectoral and holistic focus, avoiding too abstract ambitions, fostering interdependence, and investing in political commitment.
In North America, we can find various attempts to change local food systems by considering the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders. In particular, the concepts of food policy (Tim Lang) and citizen's engagement are key. In this paper, I will describe how these ideas have been discussed in North America by referring to various practical attempts to solve issues of local food systems, such as food policy councils, urban food policy, food charters, and so on. After describing the details of these activities and implications to food access issues, I argue that we need to consider the multi-functionality of food in urban society, and that this idea encourages us to develop a more coordinated relationship between food systems and urban planning in local contexts. Understanding the multi-functionality of food leads us to reconsider the nature of food from the viewpoint of “food as commons” rather than food as commodity.
This chapter addresses an important gap in the Alternative Food Movement (also referred to as the Good Food Movement) literature by peering into the black box of food policy council organization and process and by asking critical questions about how these organizations square their structures and agenda-setting processes with the social justice values of the larger movement of which they are a part.
From social emergency to health utopia
Is obesity an “urban disease”? Taking note that the lower middle class neighborhoods with the highest obesity rates in the U.S. offer a very limited range of fresh groceries, philanthropists, entrepreneurs and activists have recently launched a campaign against these “nutritional deserts” in order to open supermarkets and farmers markets under the sponsorship of Michelle Obama. This article is based upon the archives of a local institution specialized in issues of supply logistics, the Food Policy Council. It focuses on the conditions that fostered the emergence of an official epidemiology framing obesity as a question of access to “healthy products.” Hastily established in Knoxville in 1982 as a municipal commission tasked with addressing the retreat of the state and the recrudescence of hunger in the wake of the Republicans victory, the first Food Policy Council soon reoriented its mission towards the prevention of obesity. It thus became a precursor of today’s food reform by concealing the alternative diagnosis of a “hunger epidemics,” even though the latter would shed light on the obesity problem affecting the poorest populations.
The promise of democracy rests on the practice of active citizenship. Historically, local government has been a key incubator of civic leadership. In recent decades, however, community fortunes have grown increasingly dependent on economic and policy decisions made elsewhere. Has the concentration of power in corporations and the state undermined the practice of local citizenship? Using data from two decades of field research in California communities, I argue that citizenship is alive if not entirely well in California communities, often taking unconventional or less heralded forms. The paper draws on democratic theory to articulate three essential attributes of democratic citizenship: metis (prudent knowledge), craft (skilled practice), and civic mindedness (sociable sensibility). It then provides examples of these attributes as they shape citizenship practices within welfare-to-work and local food systems networks. Finally, it suggests lessons for community developers interested in deepening the practice of democratic citizenship in contemporary communities.
This paper explores county/city food policy councils in the United States through the lens of deliberative democracy. Food policy councils are emergent institutions operating in an advisory capacity to city/county government. Scholars claim that food policy councils are a primary means by which to allow input from citizens who have been marginalized by our current global industrial food system. The question remains as to whether or not food policy councils do in fact democratize the food system. The question of who participates on food policy councils is examined through case studies of five food policy councils in the United States. Findings indicate that a small number of lay stakeholders are represented on food policy councils but they are not inclusive of the diversity of people who are affected daily by the food system. The paper concludes with a preliminary framework for food policy councils.
Over the past four decades, inequality of income, wealth, and power have become increasingly extreme in the United States. The triumph of a neoliberal agenda to reduce taxes, deregulate the economy, and promote international trade has undermined the economic status of the middle class, increased poverty, and led to a concentration of wealth. This nation has gone through such periods before, followed by progressive movements that have realigned economic and political forces. I argue that we may be at a point where a new progressive social movement is about to emerge and I point out several areas where rural sociologists are working, such as local food systems, that reflect a reorientation of social values supporting such a movement. Promoting local food systems and similar locality-based enterprises can foster economic relationships embedded in multistranded social relationships and contribute to progressive change through reducing the central role of large corporations in our daily lives. Building on Busch's (1999) concept of Leviathan, I identify the roles of researchers and community activists in which rural sociologists can work to democratize social, economic, and political relationships in society.
The United States has set a national goal to eliminate health disparities. This article emphasizes the importance of food systems in generating and exacerbating health disparities in the United States and suggests avenues for reducing them. It presents a conceptual model showing how broad food system conditions interplay with community food environments-and how these relationships are filtered and refracted through prisms of social disparities to generate and exacerbate health disparities. Interactions with demand factors in the social environment are described. The article also highlights the separate food systems pathway to health disparities via environmental and occupational health effects of agriculture.
Food system advocates have made attempts for over a decade to overcome the resistance of planners to the inclusion of food issues in their portfolios. Two recent surveys illuminate the reasons for this neglect: they range from turf problems, to a lack of perception that any problem exists, to a lack of funds. Given these barriers, the author suggests that food system advocates engage planners on specific, well-targeted issues at the local or regional level and join forces with other organizations that have common concerns, such as “sustainable communities,” to approach planners for their collaboration and assistance.
Several different evaluation issuesare perceived as important by people involved withinnovative projects intended to improve local food andnutrition systems; particularly the establishment oflocal food policy coalitions. Several such coalitionshave been formed in North America, Europe, andAustralia with the goal of improving community foodsecurity and promoting sustainable local food systems.Pioneer coalitions have served as models, yet therehas been little systematic evaluation of thesemodels. A qualitative study was conducted to identifyfactors that may hinder evaluation efforts. In grouptelephone interviews, we sought the views ofacademics, project organizers, and funders, a total of24 key informants. Pressures to evaluate were assessed differently bythe three groups of key informants. Academics felt thefocus of evaluation should be on the effectiveness ofthe process used to discuss issues and formulatepolicies and plans. Project organizers and fundersperceived a need to assess project impact andoutcomes. A lack of suitable evaluation models andmethods was viewed as a formidable barrier. The use ofinappropriate methods and premature impact evaluationwere noted as potential threats to projectsustainability. External constraints and resourcelimitations were also said to inhibit evaluationefforts. It appears that several other factors may also beimpeding progress in conducting more (and more useful)evaluations including: (1) the apparent negativeconnotation of evaluation and the limited benefitsexpected from evaluation by stakeholders, (2) a lackof consensus about important evaluation questions,(3) insufficient evaluation expertise among projectorganizers, and (4) inadequate appreciation ofincreasing accountability pressures.