https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/issue/feedJournal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development2024-03-15T15:54:48-07:00Publisher and Editor in Chief: Duncan Hilcheyduncan@LysonCenter.orgOpen Journal Systems<p>The <strong><em>Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development</em><em> </em>(JAFSCD),</strong> ISSN 2152-0801, is published 4 times per year by the Thomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems, a project of the Center for Transformative Action, a nonprofit 501 c3 tax-exempt organization affiliated with Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.</p> <p>JAFSCD is an <strong>open access, international, peer-reviewed</strong> <strong>journal</strong> focused on the practice and applied research interests of agriculture and food systems development professionals. JAFSCD emphasizes best practices and tools related to the planning, community economic development, and ecological protection of local and regional agriculture and food systems, and works to bridge the interests of practitioners and academics. Articles are published online as they are approved, and are gathered into quarterly issues for indexing purposes. JAFSCD is an open access, online-only journal; all readers may download, share, or print any articles as long as proper attribution is given, in accordance with the Creative Commons <a title="CC BY 4.0" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CC BY 4.0</a> license.</p>https://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1233Strengthening nutrition incentive and produce prescription projects2024-03-15T15:54:48-07:00Sarah StotzSarah.stotz@colostate.eduHollyanne Frickehfricke@centerfornutrition.orgCarmen Byker Shankscbshanks@centerfornutrition.orgMegan Reynoldsmreynolds@centerfornutrition.orgTessa Lasswelltlasswell@centerfornutrition.orgLaurel Sanvillelsanville@centerfornutrition.orgRachel Hohrhoh@fairfoodnetwork.orgCourtney Parkscparks@centerfornutrition.org<p>The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), is a federal program designed to address financial barriers to fruit and vegetable (FV) purchases among consumers with a low income by using financial incentives. To further strengthen both nutrition incentive (NI) and produce prescription (PPR) GusNIP projects, the GusNIP Nutrition Incentive Training, Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Information Center (NTAE) and its Nutrition Incentive Hub offer Capacity Building and Innovation Fund (CBIF) awards to GusNIP grantees and their partner organizations. The present study applies multiple methods to systematically understand the types of resources requested by CBIF applicants to expand the capacity and impact of their NI and PPR projects by rigorously analyzing the CBIF proposals submitted from 2020 to 2022. Applicants (<em>N</em> = 130) requested funds to build capacity and innovation around one or more domains: leadership and staffing (<em>n</em> = 72); communications (<em>n</em> = 67); diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI; <em>n</em> = 57); and technology (<em>n</em> = 42). Three significant qualitative themes emerged around future needs: (1) staffing and technology to streamline applicants’ projects; (2) training, resources, and funding to enhance DEI in their projects; and (3) improved NTAE support, including improvements to the CBIF funding mechanism. Findings from this study can increase awareness about the capacity building and innovation needs of NI and PPR projects for the NTAE, policymakers, and funders to consider when supporting healthy food financial incentive projects.</p>2024-03-15T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2024 Sarah A Stotz, Hollyanne Fricke, Carmen Byker Shanks, Megan Reynolds, Tessa Lasswell, Laurel Sanville, Rachel Hoh, Courtney A. Parkshttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1232Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake, attitudes, and experiences between food system and non–food system essential workers2024-03-15T15:13:07-07:00Brianna SmarshPpl2@cdc.govDavid Yankeyhhq6@cdc.govMei-Chuan Hunghcb3@cdc.govHeidi Blanckyfy9@cdc.govJennifer Krisswoe1@cdc.govMichael Flynndse4@cdc.govPeng-Jun Lulhp8@cdc.govSherri McGarrynmc6@cdc.govAdrienne Eastlakevpq0@cdc.govAlfonso Lainzjqi3@cdc.govJames Singletonxzs8@cdc.govJennifer Lincolnjxw7@cdc.gov<p>The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected the health of food system (FS) essential workers compared with other essential and non-essential workers. Even greater disparity exists for workers in certain FS work settings and for certain FS worker subpopulations. We analyzed essential worker respondents (<em>n</em> = 151,789) in May–November 2021 data from the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) to assess and characterize COVID-19 vaccination uptake (≥1 dose) and intent (reachable, reluctant), attitudes about COVID-19 and the vaccine, and experiences and difficulties getting the vaccine. We compared rates, overall and by certain characteristics, between workers of the same group, and between FS (n = 17,414) and non–food system (NFS) worker groups (n = 134,375), to determine if differences exist. FS worker groups were classified as “agriculture, forestry, fishing, or hunting” (AFFH; <em>n</em> = 2,730); “food manufacturing facility” (FMF; <em>n</em> = 3,495); and “food and beverage store” (FBS; <em>n</em> = 11,189). Compared with NFS workers, significantly lower percentages of FS workers reported <u>></u>1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine requirements at work or school, but overall vaccine experiences and difficulties among vaccinated FS workers were statistically similar to NFS workers. When we examined intent regarding COVID-19 vaccination among unvaccinated FS workers compared with NFS counterparts, we found a higher percentage of FMF and FBS workers were reachable whereas a higher percentage of AFFH workers were reluctant about vaccination, with differences by sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, results showed differences in uptake, intent, and attitudes between worker groups and by some sociodemographic characteristics. The findings reflect the diversity of FS workers and underscore the importance of collecting occupational data to assess health inequalities and of tailoring efforts to worker groups to improve confidence and uptake of vaccinations for infectious diseases such as COVID-19. The findings can inform future research, adult infectious disease interventions, and emergency management planning.</p>2024-03-15T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2024 Brianna L. Smarsh, David Yankey, Mei-Chuan Hung, Heidi M. Blanck, Jennifer L. Kriss, Michael A. Flynn, Peng-Jun Lu, Sherri McGarry, Adrienne C. Eastlake, Alfonso Rodriguez Lainz, James A. Singleton, Jennifer M. Lincolnhttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1231A recipe for advocacy2024-03-15T13:38:08-07:00Bob Perryrrperr2@uky.edu<p><em>First paragraphs:</em></p> <p class="JBodyText">Before turning her attention to food and becoming a vice president of the James Beard Foundation, Katherine Miller advised left-leaning political campaigns and foundations on strategy and advocacy. We can be thankful she focused her attention on food and, while the title of the book suggests that it is a guide for chefs, anyone in the good food space can learn her methods of advocacy.</p> <p class="JBodyText">Miller begins by explaining how chefs sometimes do not realize that they have influence and access that most people do not because of the nature of their work. Everyone eats and influential people usually like to eat well. Using your access in an intimate setting to highlight the issues you care about is powerful. A chef’s platform can also garner publicity against those you disagree with—remember in the last presidential administration when members of the cabinet were refused service at several high-end restaurants. . . .</p>2024-03-15T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2024 Bob Perryhttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1230Celebrity chef humanitarianism and the possibility of a “giftless” future for the New Orleans foodscape2024-03-15T13:29:27-07:00Natasha Bunzlnb3335@nyu.edu<p><em>First paragraph:</em></p> <p>A searing and classic anthropological question about the meaning of a “gift” undergirds Jeanne K. Firth’s fantastic ethnography, <em>Feeding New Orleans: Celebrity Chefs and Reimagining Food Justice</em>: “Does a gift require inequality or unequal power relations?” (pp. 21, 169). Firth joins a vibrant scholarly conversation that goes back to the 1925 release of Marcel Mauss’s <em>The Gift. </em>She traces how anthropologists, feminist scholars, philosophers, and critical theorist have developed theory around gift giving and exchange for decades, and then applies and builds on that theory in a unique ethnographic setting: charities run by celebrity chef philanthropists in New Orleans. She interprets her fieldnotes from charity events and her interviews with scholarship recipients and donors using this theory, illuminating how chef philanthropy has played an integral role in shaping “post–Hurricane Katrina” New Orleans. Firth reveals the way racism, classism, and sexism inform celebrity chef foundations. That said, the book does not only decry how inequality seeps into and is reproduced by chef foundations; it also explores how actors across the system both resist and reinforce these dynamics. Additionally, it explores how a focus on the land instead of individualized “heroes,” social movements instead of corporations, and even cooks instead of chefs can create more space and opportunities for justice and liberation. . . .</p>2024-03-15T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2024 Natasha Bunzlhttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1229Climate resilient food systems and community reconnection through radical seed diversity2024-03-12T15:49:46-07:00Chris Smithchris@utopianseed.org<p>Diversity is essential to climate resilience in food and farming. Traditionally, agrobiodiversity has been cultivated and sustained through communities’ relationships with seeds. A fluid process of saving, preserving, and exchanging seeds allows for regional adaptation and transformation. This process results in seed diversity at the crop, variety, and genetic level. Over the last century, agrobiodiversity has declined at an alarming rate, and simultaneously there has been an erosion of community seed-keeping practices. A reaction to these interrelated crises has been an increased push to preserve biodiversity through institutional seed preservation efforts (also called ex situ preservation), which focus on genetic preservation of seeds in controlled environments. The seeds are genetic resources that are made available to plant breeders, who solve agronomic problems by creating improved cultivars for farmers. This is very different from community seed-keeping (also called in situ preservation), which values seed-people relationships and fosters natural agrobiodiversity and regional adaptation. Seeds are seen in direct connection to food, and saved for immediate and practical reasons like yield, flavor, and resistance to biotic stressors. In traditional communities, seeds are often perceived as kin, as ancestors or living beings with both histories and futures. For institutional seed preservation, collecting and maintaining seed diversity is an imperative insurance policy against future challenges. Ironically, this model erodes community-based seed-keeping efforts and increases dependence on institutional seed preservation to maintain genetic diversity. In this paper, we explore declining agrobiodiversity and community seed-keeping and share our experiences working with a diverse range of varieties from The Heirloom Collard Project (HCP). We propose that radical seed diversity can jump-start autonomous, community-based seed-keeping efforts, increasing agrobiodiversity and, ultimately, the climate resilience of food systems.</p>2024-03-12T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2024 Chris Smithhttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1228Participatory breeding in organic systems2024-03-06T11:17:33-08:00Christopher Mujjabimujjabi2@illinois.eduMartin Bohnmbohn@illinois.eduMichelle Wandermwander@illinois.eduCarmen Ugartecugarte@illinois.edu<p>Participatory breeding and crop selection can satisfy the needs of underserved groups of farmers (e.g., organic producers, farmers producing specialty grain for niche markets) neglected by the modern global seed industry. Participatory research methods that value local knowledge and facilitate the active involvement of producers, researchers, and other actors involved in the agri-food system are tactics that can help us achieve sustainable agriculture. Interest in the use of participatory methods to increase the value of U.S. land-grant universities to society has grown rapidly during the last decade. Interest includes re-engagement in the development of maize hybrids that perform well in a diverse range of heterogeneous growing environments and that are better suited for sustainability-minded producers, buyers, and consumers. Systems-based breeding aimed at protecting the environment and providing food, fiber, and energy while considering equity issues, has been proposed as a way to overcome the shortcomings of privatized approaches. In this article, we consider recent projects that use collaborative methods for hybrid maize breeding, cultivar testing, and genetic research to develop, identify, and deliver traits associated with crop performance, quality, and sustainability. Three case studies consider the efforts focused on developing non-GMO varieties for organic and specialty markets. We find that, unlike many successful efforts focused on the improvement of other crops, there are few promising models for participatory breeding of hybrid maize. Even though many projects have sought to involve stakeholders with a variety of methods, all have struggled to meaningfully engage farmers in maize hybrid improvement. Still, our reflection of case studies calls for systems-based breeding and suggests a path forward. This route would seek to address the needs, perspectives, and values of a broader range of actors participating in the food system by leveraging technologies and infrastructure in service of the public. Land-grant universities are well positioned to play a crucial role in coordinating efforts, facilitating partnerships, and supporting breeding programs that satisfy societal wants that include health, equity, and care. </p>2024-03-06T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2024 Christopher Mujjabi, Martin O. Bohn, Michelle M. Wander, Carmen M. Ugartehttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1227Gender, sexuality, and food access2024-03-03T15:34:11-08:00Eli Lumenselilumens@gmail.comMary Beckiembeckie@ualberta.caFay Fletcherfay@ualberta.ca<p>Although research has been limited to date, food insecurity in the United States has been shown to be more pervasive among the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, agender, asexual, and Two-Spirit (LGBTQIA2S+) community, affecting millions annually. College and university students also experience statistically significantly higher rates of food insecurity than nonstudents. This research examines food insecurity at the intersection of the LGBTQIA2S+ community and the university and college student population, as told by the community itself. A qualitative, participatory approach and methods of Photovoice and semi-structured interviews with eight self-identified LGBTQIA2S+ university students studying at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) were used to explore the factors influencing participants’ food access. Data were analyzed using thematic decomposition analysis guided by intersectionality and queer theories. LGBTQIA2S+ identities were found to significantly impact food access, which was further influenced by physical, socio-cultural, and political environments. Barriers to food access include experiences with discrimination on and off campus, poor support systems, a lack of full-selection grocery stores on or near campus, religious influences, the stigma associated with needing food assistance, mental and physical health conditions, financial constraints, time limitations, and lacking transportation options. Understanding the intersectionality of LGBTQIA2S+ students’ experiences and providing relevant and effective support is needed to improve equitable access to nutritious and affordable foods. The findings of this research provide novel insights into food insecurity, an issue that is increasingly influencing the health and well-being of LGBTQIA2S+ university students.</p>2024-03-04T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2024 Eli Lumens, Mary Beckie, Fay Fletcherhttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1226Challenging power relations in food systems governance2024-02-29T10:28:19-08:00Session on Participatory Food Systems Governance at the 2021 Global Food Governance Conferenceinfo@lysoncenter.orgRenzo Guintorenzo.guinto@gmail.comKip Holleykip.holley.direct@gmail.comSherry PictouSherry.Pictou@dal.caRāwiri Tiniraurawiri@teatawhai.maori.nzFiona WiremuFiona.Wiremu@wananga.ac.nzPeter AndreéPeterAndree@cunet.carleton.caJill Clarkclark.1099@osu.eduCharles Levkoeclevkoe@lakeheadu.caBelinda Reevebelinda.reeve@sydney.edu.au<p>This reflective essay explores power relations, with a particular focus on racialization, that flow through dominant forms of food systems governance, with an aim to create more participatory governance models. Four of the authors asked a group of five scholars, activists, and practitioners (also authors) who identify as Black, Indigenous or People of Color (BIPOC) to discuss during a conference session issues of Indigenous food sovereignty, decolonization, Whiteness, and inclusivity in food systems governance. This paper presents and analyzes the content of the session, part of the 2021 Global Food Governance Conference. We reflect on common themes from the session and put forth recommendations: encouraging greater inclusion in existing forms of food systems governance, achieving decolonization through creating diverse new governance models, and addressing the deeper power structures that underpin the dominant food system itself. We also suggest a research agenda, with the “what” of the agenda unfolding from a process of agenda development that centers BIPOC scholarship. The frameworks offered by the panelists are a starting point, as more work is needed to move towards decolonizing food systems governance research. Finally, a collaborative agenda must attend to the inextricable links of food systems governance to other fundamental issues, such as the emerging field of planetary health.</p>2024-02-29T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2024 Session on Participatory Food Systems Governance at the 2021 Global Food Governance Conference, Renzo Guinto, Kip Holley, Sherry Pictou, Rāwiri Tinirau, Fiona Wiremu, Peter Andreé, Jill K. Clark, Charles Z. Levkoe, Belinda Reevehttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1225An evaluation of the federal Transition Incentives Program on land access for next-generation farmers2024-02-20T12:50:19-08:00Megan Horstmhorst@pdx.eduJulia Valliantjdv@indiana.eduJulia Freedgoodjfreedgood@farmland.org<p>Next-generation farmers face immense challenges in securing land. In recent years, some state- and federal-level land access policy incentives (LAPIs) have been implemented to address these challenges. In this paper, we assess the Transition Incentives Program (TIP), an initiative of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program that is funded by Congressional farm bills. TIP offers landowners two years of financial incentives for leasing or selling to a beginning or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher (categories of farmers defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture). In our study, we characterize TIP participants to understand where and how TIP assists beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Our findings demonstrate that TIP serves some landowners and next-generation farmers, primarily in the Midwest and Mountain West. We demonstrate a spatial mismatch between where next-generation farmers live and high rates of TIP participation. Variable participation may be due to inconsistent outreach and limits to the program design. We identify key barriers and provide insights to improve TIP and other land access programs for next-generation farmers.</p>2024-02-20T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2024 Megan Horst, Julia Valliant, Julia Freedgoodhttps://www.foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1224Social enterprise, food justice, and food sovereignty2024-02-15T15:25:50-08:00Katherine Merrittkfm27@case.eduJill Clarkclark.1099@osu.eduDarcy Freedmandaf96@case.edu<p>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.</p>2024-02-15T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2024 Katherine Merritt, Jill K. Clark, Darcy A. Freedman