Eating Outside the Box: FoodShare’s Good Food Box and the Challenge of Scale

Abstract

The concept of scale is useful in analyzing both the strengths and limitations of community food security programs that attempt to link issues of ecological sustainability with social justice. One scalar issue that is particularly important but under-theorized is the scale of social reproduction, which is often neglected in production-focused studies of globalization. FoodShare Toronto's good food box (GFB) program, engages people in the politics of their everyday lives, empowering them to make connections between consumption patterns and broader political-economic, cultural, and political-ecological issues. Community food security (CFS) projects such as the GFB are currently limited in their scope and reach and have been criticized for their inability to deliver food to a larger segment of marginalized, hungry people. A central dilemma for CFS projects is how to engage the majority of urban consumers who still eat ''inside the box'' of the industrial food system. We argue that the concept of scale helps clarify how CFS projects must ''scale out'' to other localities, as well as ''scale up'' to address structural concerns like state capacity, industrial agriculture, and unequal distribution of wealth. This requires the state and the third sector to recognize the importance of multi-scaled food politics as well as a long-term pedagogical project promoting ecological sustainability, social responsibility, and the pleasures of eating locally.

An Overview of the Constitutional Right to Food under the South African Constitution

“…In other words, the food that people need must not be too expensive for ordinary people to afford (Johnston and Baker, 2005). The government must also help people who cannot afford to feed themselves by providing food for them (Andrews, 2000).…”

Community Food Systems: Strengthening the Research-to-Practice Continuum

“…At least potentially, some of these efforts might also benefit small to medium-scale farmers looking for alternative marketing outlets. Marshall's paper on community food security concludes: "The literature reviewed shows the difficulty of both supporting food security and small scale local farmers" (2011, p. 22; see also Allen, 1999;Baker, 2003;Guthman, Morris, & Allen, 2006;Johnston & Baker, 2005). Even organizations whose leaders deeply believe in both these goals have a hard time achieving them simultaneously (Johnston & Baker, 2005).…”

“…Marshall's paper on community food security concludes: "The literature reviewed shows the difficulty of both supporting food security and small scale local farmers" (2011, p. 22; see also Allen, 1999;Baker, 2003;Guthman, Morris, & Allen, 2006;Johnston & Baker, 2005). Even organizations whose leaders deeply believe in both these goals have a hard time achieving them simultaneously (Johnston & Baker, 2005). McEntee (2010) describes the uneasy relationship between the needs of food producers to have better income and the needs of food "consumers" to have affordable and equitable access to healthy food.…”

Including the Voices of Communities in Food Insecurity Research: An Empowerment-based Agenda for Food Scholarship

“…A recently emerging trend grounded in the work of activists has examined the radical potential as well as problems inherent in "alternative" solutions to the problem of food insecurity, such as urban gardening, mobile markets, and novel ways in which food banks can operate (Allen, 1999;Johnston & Baker, 2005;Phoenix & Walter, 2009;Slocum, 2006). We believe that this body of work can be strengthened by incorporating the voices of people experiencing food insecurity in the design and implementation of research projects, such that solutions do not continue to favor the interests of White, Western, and middle-class Americans.…”