Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj
<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>Thomas A. Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems, a project of the Center for Transformative Actionen-USJournal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development2152-0801<p>The copyright to all content published in JAFSCD belongs to the author(s). It is licensed as <a title="Creative Commons BY 4.0 license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CC BY 4.0</a>. This license determines how you may reprint, copy, distribute, or otherwise share JAFSCD content.</p>Contending food sovereignty with cultivating kinship through community gardens
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1240
<p><em>First paragraph:</em></p> <p>Gabriel R. Valle’s <em>G</em><em>ardening on the Margins</em> underscores the importance of engaging in anthropological research through community building in a way that resonates with my entry into food systems research. In embedding himself in Santa Clara Valley, he had the chance to meet with members of the La Mesa Verde community, many of whom are community gardeners who entered community gardening not just out of necessity to meet their needs but also through an “ethic of care,” which the author defines as “caring for others and the relationships that caring creates … make us human” (p. 8).</p>Max Sano
Copyright (c) 2024 Max Sano
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-282024-03-281321–31–310.5304/jafscd.2024.132.020Public assistance, living environments, and food insecurity
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1239
<p>Food insecurity continues to affect certain segments of the U.S. population at the household and individual levels even when the economy is experiencing growth. This recognition has led to the design and implementation of food assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, targeting food hardship in low-income families. This is in addition to other types of government assistance, such as housing subsidies and public housing, as low-income households and individuals face similar challenges in housing security. Concern over “concentrated poverty” in traditional public housing environment has contributed to a shift toward mixed-income developments, envisaged to improve the living conditions and economic opportunities of public-housing residents. This paper provides a comparative assessment of food insecurity in traditional and mixed-income public housing communities. It also examines the effect of nonhousing public assistance on food insecurity and the temporal relationship between the timing of food hardship and the receipt of assistance. Administering a modified version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Household Food Security Module to the majority of residents in the two communities, the researchers found negligible differences in food insecurity between recipients and nonrecipients of government assistance. Nevertheless, government assistance appeared to improve the probability of being food secure as it interacted with living environments, suggestive of greater beneficial effect in the environment of mixed-income housing. The results show that the number of households experiencing reduced food intake was lowest in the first two weeks and highest during the fourth week of the month.</p>Mesfin BezunehZelealem Yiheyis
Copyright (c) 2024 Mesfin Bezuneh, Zelealem Yiheyis
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-232024-03-231321–201–2010.5304/jafscd.2024.132.013Understanding the emerging phenomenon of food forestry in the Netherlands
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1237
<p>In the Netherlands, food forests have been appearing by the dozens since 2017, resulting in calls by Dutch national and local governments, as well as civil society organizations, for evidence of their parameters and profitability. This paper focuses on the former, mapping and analyzing food forestry (FF) in the Netherlands by drawing on assemblage theory. A survey, and unstructured interviews with five FF experts from the field, resulted in descriptive FF data as well as a map of 231 food forests. The main conclusion from the survey data from 109 participants is that food forests are incredibly diverse and versatile in terms of goal or orientation, although few initiatives focus on profitability. Some similarities include age, as most food forests were planted after 2017, and size, as most are between 0.5 and 2.5 hectares (ha), or between 1.2 and 6.2 acres. The demographics of practitioners, however, are rather homogeneous: university-educated individuals between 40 and 60 years old are the norm. Many practitioners state that the FF community at large has contributed to their access to knowledge and network, as well as their enthusiasm, sense of pride, and hope for the future regarding FF. Moreover, a shared ontological position, the distribution and exchange of knowledge, the institutionalization of FF, and infrastructural conditions both foster cohesion within the FF assemblage and embody exclusionary and disruptive processes. These complex relations confirm the importance of descriptive and contextualized evidence to support FF.</p>Anna Roodhof
Copyright (c) 2024 Anna M. Roodhof
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-222024-03-221321–151–1510.5304/jafscd.2024.132.018Democratizing food systems
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1236
<p>Deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) have attracted growing attention from both researchers and practitioners in recent years. Their purpose is to assemble random groups of citizens, representing a cross section of society, in order to engage in discussions about policy issues and formulate recommendations. During these sessions, participants are exposed to contrasting perspectives from experts and engage in respectful internal deliberations, facilitated by organizers, before arriving at a carefully considered joint policy position on the topic at hand. DMPs are grounded in the belief that citizen involvement and input are essential if policy reforms are to be perceived as legitimate by the public. In the agri-food domain, they represent an innovative way to rebuild public trust in the food system, allowing citizens to reshape food policy in alignment with their values and concerns. In this study, we conducted a scoping review of the literature to assess the contexts in which food-related DMPs emerge, as well as their organizational characteristics, procedural qualities, and results. We identified a total of 24 case studies, revealing significant diversity between DMPs in terms of their policy themes, formats, and recruitment and decision-making procedures. In terms of results, participants reported that attending the DMP had been a positive experience and had increased their awareness of, and ability to engage in, food policy debates. However, only a handful of DMPs led to documented policy reforms. We argue that greater emphasis should be placed on post-deliberation activities and dialogues if DMPs are to make a meaningful impact and contribute to the democratization of food systems.</p>Simone UbertinoRomain DureauMarie-Ève Gaboury-BonhommeLaure Saulais
Copyright (c) 2024 Simone Ubertino, Romain Dureau, Marie-Ève Gaboury-Bonhomme, Laure Saulais
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-212024-03-211321–211–2110.5304/jafscd.2024.132.019First you need the farmers: The microfarm system as a critical intervention in the alternative food movement
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1235
<p>After more than three decades, the alternative food movement has developed multiple strategies, most of which are still struggling. This essay surveys the literature on six key alternative food movement (AFM) strategies, assessing their strengths and weaknesses before describing a novel strategy, the microfarm system, which is being implemented in north central Ohio. It argues that key omissions from most AFM scholarship and practices include sustained attention to training and supporting successful farmers, concerted efforts to help facilitate needed social networks or communities of practices around alternative food developments, and forwarding a set of ambitions that do not appreciate the scale of existing food systems nor the limits of alternative food systems’ impact. It offers the microfarm system as an emerging approach to address these omissions.</p>Kent CurtisGrace Cornell
Copyright (c) 2024 Kent Curtis, Grace Cornell
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-212024-03-211321–181–1810.5304/jafscd.2024.132.017Enhancing public health through modern agronomy
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1234
<p><em>Introduction</em></p> <p>This commentary explores modern agronomy concepts aimed at enhancing public health through sustainable and nutrient-rich agricultural practices. We explore various innovative approaches, including precision agriculture, sustainable farming, efficient nutrient management, crop diversity, biofortification, climate-resilient farming, vertical farming and urban agriculture, digital agriculture, and agroecology (see Figure 1). Our commentary delves into each of these modern agronomy practices, unveiling their intricate web and profound implications for public health. We aim to demonstrate the potential of modern agronomy as a catalyst for improving public health and the quality of life for individuals and communities worldwide. These concepts collectively strive to elevate public health by improving food quality, enhancing nutrition, and safeguarding the well-being of individuals and communities. By harnessing these cutting-edge agronomic concepts, we aspire to transform agriculture into a powerful force for improving public health and enhancing overall quality of life. . . .</p>AmanullahUrooj Khan
Copyright (c) 2024 Amanullah, Urooj Khan
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-192024-03-191321–81–810.5304/jafscd.2024.132.014Strengthening nutrition incentive and produce prescription projects
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1233
<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>Sarah StotzHollyanne FrickeCarmen Byker ShanksMegan ReynoldsTessa LasswellLaurel SanvilleRachel HohCourtney Parks
Copyright (c) 2024 Sarah A Stotz, Hollyanne Fricke, Carmen Byker Shanks, Megan Reynolds, Tessa Lasswell, Laurel Sanville, Rachel Hoh, Courtney A. Parks
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-152024-03-151321–141–1410.5304/jafscd.2024.132.016Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake, attitudes, and experiences between food system and non–food system essential workers
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1232
<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>Brianna SmarshDavid YankeyMei-Chuan HungHeidi BlanckJennifer KrissMichael FlynnPeng-Jun LuSherri McGarryAdrienne EastlakeAlfonso LainzJames SingletonJennifer Lincoln
Copyright (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. Lincoln
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-152024-03-151321–271–2710.5304/jafscd.2024.132.012A recipe for advocacy
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1231
<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>Bob Perry
Copyright (c) 2024 Bob Perry
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-152024-03-151321–21–210.5304/jafscd.2024.132.015Celebrity chef humanitarianism and the possibility of a “giftless” future for the New Orleans foodscape
https://foodsystemsjournal.org/index.php/fsj/article/view/1230
<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>Natasha Bunzl
Copyright (c) 2024 Natasha Bunzl
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2024-03-152024-03-151321–31–310.5304/jafscd.2024.132.011