In this article I develop a political economic understanding of community‐supported agriculture (CSA). I first develop the relevance of three concepts—economic rents, self‐exploitation, and social embeddedness—to CSA and then introduce a framework that relates CSA farmers’ earnings to the average rate of profit, economic rents, and self‐exploitation. I then examine qualitative and quantitative data from a study of 54 CSAs in California's Central Valley and surrounding foothills to explain the wide range of farmers’ earnings in relation to the characteristics of production of CSAs, the social embeddedness of CSAs, and the farmers’ motivations and rationalities. Qualitative data from interviews are used to interpret the results of an ordinary least squares regression analysis showing that (1) farmers’ age, number of employees, and type of CSA strongly shape farmers' earnings; (2) the moral economy of CSA cuts both ways economically, allowing for the capture of economic rents but more often resulting in self‐exploitation because of farmers’ strong sense of obligation to their members; and (3) farmers’ motivations are diverse, but tend toward low and moderate instrumentalism, meaning that earning an income is often not a high priority relative to other values. The conclusion recommends the need to recognize alternative rationalities but also to discuss and confront strong self‐exploitation in alternative food networks because of the broader political economic context in which they exist.

This review by a multidisciplinary team maps key components and emerging connections within the intellectual landscape of agroecology. We attempt to extend and preview agroecology as a discipline in which agriculture can be conceptualized within the context of global change and studied as a coupled system involving a wide range of social and natural processes. This intrinsic coupling, combined with powerful emerging drivers of change, presents challenges for the practice of agroecology and agriculture itself, as well as providing the framework for some of the most innovative research areas and the greatest potential for innovation for a sustainable future in agriculture. The objective of this review is to identify forward-looking scientific questions to enhance the relevance of agroecology for the key challenges of mitigating environmental impacts of agriculture while dramatically increasing global food production, improving livelihoods, and thereby reducing chronic hunger and malnutrition over the coming decades.

Concerns are growing over the ability of the modern food system to simultaneously achieve food security and environmental sustainability in the face of global change. Yet, the dominant tendency within university settings to conceptualize and address diverse food system challenges as separate, disconnected issues is a key barrier to food system transformation. To address this fragmented approach, educators in North American institutes of higher education have begun new degree programs, specializations and certificates related to food systems. These programs, which we term sustainable food system education (SFSE) programs, have a common goal: to support post-secondary students across a range of disciplines in developing the knowledge, skills and dispositions to effectively address complex challenges in the food system. Graduates of these programs will be able to engage in collective action towards transforming the food system. As educators participating in flagship SFSE programs, we identify common pedagogical themes evident in SFSE programs, including our own. We then propose a signature pedagogy (SP) for sustainable food systems education. Signature pedagogies are conceptual models that identify the primary elements by which professional education in a specific field is designed, structured and implemented. On the basis of our analysis of SFSE programs, we identified systems thinking, multi-, inter-and trans-disciplinarity, use of experiential learning approaches and participation in collective action projects as central themes within a SFSE SP. By making these themes and their function explicit within a pedagogical framework, we seek to spur critical and creative thought regarding challenges of professional education in the field of sustainable food systems. Scholars and practitioners are encouraged to review, critique and implement our framework to advance the dialogue on SFSE theory and practice.

In the U.S. there has been considerable interest in connecting low-income households to alternative food networks (AFNs) like Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). To learn more about this possibility we conducted a statewide survey of CSA members in California. A total of 1,149 members from 41 CSAs responded. Here we answer the research question: How do CSA members' (1) socioeconomic and demographic backgrounds, (2) household conditions potentially interfering with membership, and (3) CSA membership experiences vary between lower-income households (LIHHs) and higher-income households (HIHHs)? We divided members into LIHHs (making under $50,000 annually) and HIHHs (making over $50,000 annually). We present comparisons of LIHHs' and HIHHs' (1) employment, race/ethnicity, household composition and education, use of food support, and enjoyment of food-related activities; (2) conditions interfering with membership and major life events; and (3) sources of information influencing decision to join, reasons for joining, ratings of importance of and satisfaction with various CSA attributes, gaps between importance of and satisfaction with various CSA attributes, valuing of the share and willingness to pay more, and impacts of membership. We find that LIHHs are committed CSA members, often more so than HIHHs, and that CSA members in California are disproportionately White, but that racial disproportionality decreases as incomes increase. We conclude by considering: (1) the economic risks that LIHHs face in CSA membership, (2) the intersection of economic 2 risks with race/ethnicity and cultural coding in CSA; and (3) the possibilities of increasing participation of LIHH in CSA.

No abstract