Abstract'Food justice' and 'food sovereignty' have become key words in food movement scholarship and activism. In the case of 'food justice', it seems the word is often substituted for work associated with projects typical of the alternative or local food movement. We argue that it is important for scholars and practitioners to be clear on how food justice differs from other efforts to seek an equitable food system. In the interests of ensuring accountability to socially just research and action, as well as mounting a tenable response to the 'feed the world' paradigm that often sweeps aside concerns with justice as distractions from the 'real' issues, scholars and practitioners need to be more clear on what it means to do food justice. In exploring that question, we identify four nodes around which food justice organizing appears to occur: trauma/inequity, exchange, land, and labor. This article sets the stage for a second one that follows, Notes on the practice of food justice in the U.S., where we discuss attempts to practice food justice. Key words: food justice, food sovereignty, food movement, food security, alternative agri-food systems RésuméLa «Justice alimentaire» et «souveraineté alimentaire» sont devenus des mots clés dans les études universitaires et l'activisme de la nourriture et le système agroalimentaires. Dans le cas de «justice alimentaire», il semble que le mot est souvent substitué au travail associés aux projets typiques du mouvement alimentaire alternative. Nous soutenons qu'il est important pour les chercheurs et les praticiens soient claires sur la façon dont la justice alimentaire diffère des autres efforts pour trouver un système alimentaire équitable. Les chercheurs et praticiens doivent être plus clair sur ce que cela signifie de faire la justice alimentaire. Ils ont besoin pour assurer la responsabilité de la recherche et de l'action qui est socialement juste, ainsi que le montage d'une réponse tenable au paradigme « nourrir le monde » qui balaie souvent de côté la justice comme une distraction de problèmes «réels». En explorant cette question, nous identifions quatre noeuds autour desquels la justice alimentaire semble se produire: un traumatisme / inégalité, les échanges, la terre, et du travail. Cet article ouvre la voie à une seconde qui suit, Notes sur la pratique de la justice alimentaire aux États-Unis, où nous discutons de la pratique de la justice alimentaire. Mots clés: justice alimentaire, la souveraineté alimentaire, le mouvement de la nourriture, la sécurité alimentaire, les systèmes agro-alimentaires alternatifs Resumen "Justicia alimentaria" y "soberanía alimentaria" se han convertido en términos clave en el discurso académico y el activismo sobre el mundo alimentario. En al caso de la "justicia alimentaria" parece que la palabra a menudo se sustituye por el trabajo el trabajo asociado con proyectos típicos del movimiento alternativo o de alimentos locales. Arguimos que es importante que los académicos y activistas diferencien claramente la justicia alimentaria y los m...

No abstract

This paper explores different ways that the category of nature is used in addressing landscape changes associated with exurbia and exurbanization. Nature is an important category in the practices and representations that residents and planners use to construct and maintain exurban landscapes. However, common ways of mobilizing nature in exurban planning discourses often obstruct better discussion, rather than facilitate it. Invoking nature can make planning processes more difficult by providing a means for naturalizing planning decisions and also by exacerbating struggles over whose nature will be managed in what ways. More explicitly framing what is meant by nature in exurban planning may improve discussion of landscape problems associated with sprawl.

No abstract

No abstract

Increasingly, total maximum daily load (TMDL) limits are being defined for agricultural watersheds. Reductions in non-point source pollution are often needed to meet TMDL limits, and improvements in management of annual crops appear insufficient to achieve the necessary reductions. Increased adoption of perennial crops and other changes in agricultural land use also appear necessary, but face major barriers. We outline a novel strategy that aims to create new economic opportunities for land-owners and other stakeholders and thereby to attract their voluntary participation in land-use change needed to meet TMDLs. Our strategy has two key elements. First, focused efforts are needed to create new economic enterprises that capitalize on the productive potential of multifunctional agriculture (MFA). MFA seeks to produce a wide range of goods and ecosystem services by well-designed deployment of annual and perennial crops across agricultural landscapes and watersheds; new revenue from MFA may substantially finance land-use change needed to meet TMDLs. Second, efforts to capitalize on MFA should use a novel methodology, the Communicative/Systemic Approach (C/SA). C/SA uses an integrative GIS-based spatial modeling framework for systematically assessing tradeoffs and synergies in design and evaluation of multifunctional agricultural landscapes, closely linked to deliberation and design processes by which multiple stakeholders can collaboratively create appropriate and acceptable MFA landscape designs. We anticipate that application of C/SA will strongly accelerate TMDL implementation, by aligning the interests of multiple stakeholders whose active support is needed to change agricultural land use and thereby meet TMDL goals.

The lexicon of the U.S. food movement has expanded to include the term 'food justice.' Emerging after approximately two decades of food advocacy, this term frames structural critiques of agri-food systems and calls for radical change. Over those twenty years, practitioners and scholars have argued that the food movement was in danger of creating an 'alternative' food system for the white middle class. Alternative food networks drew on white imaginaries of an idyllic communal past, promoted consumer-oriented, market-driven change, and left yawning silences in the areas of gendered work, migrant labor, and racial inequality. Justice was often beside the point. Now, among practitioners and scholars we see an enthusiastic surge in the use of the term food justice but a vagueness on the particulars. In scholarship and practice, that vagueness manifests in overly general statements about ending oppression, or morphs into outright conflation of the dominant food movement's work with food justice (see What does it mean to do food justice? Cadieux and Slocum (2015), in this Issue). In this article, we focus on one of the four nodes (trauma/inequity, exchange, land and labor) around which food justice organizing appears to occur: acknowledging and confronting historical, collective trauma and persistent race, gender, and class inequality. We apply what we have learned from our research in U.S. and Canadian agri-food systems to suggest working methods that might guide practitioners as they work toward food justice, and scholars as they seek to study it. In the interests of ensuring accountability to socially just research and action, we suggest that scholars and practitioners need to be more clear on what it means to practice food justice. Towards such clarity and accountability, we urge scholars and practitioners to collaboratively document how groups move toward food justice, what thwarts and what enables them.Key words: food justice, trauma, food movement, alternative food networks, antiracism

What to eat is of great concern to the U.S. public; it is the subject of social organizing at many scales and the focus of significant academic discussion. This article analyzes Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution (JOFR), a much-discussed reality show that aired in 2010 in the United States, in which English celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, well known in the United Kingdom for directing government and public attention to school lunch, brought his campaign to promote fresh-cooked food to Huntington, West Virginia. We recognize the capacity of JOFR to encourage people to act on behalf of their and their loved ones' health, as well as to become engaged politically to change the food system, and in this article, we provide a sympathetic critique of themes and methods emphasized by Oliver in his efforts to spark a food revolution. Specifically, our critique points to JOFR's similarity to past food reform efforts; the shaming of the overweight; the focus on a particular form of whiteness that masks the work of race, food, and health; the show's arbitrary designation of authentic food; and JOFR's promotion of heroic, antagonistic change. A food revolution, we argue, needs to engage with structural aspects of the food system through collective action.