Multiple meanings of “equitable food systems”: food systems and discursive politics of change

Abstract

Calls to change or transform food systems have come to be widespread in recent years. With the recognition that current food systems are not only unsustainable but widely inequitable, these calls are increasingly articulated in terms of the need to craft “equitable food systems.” The purpose of this study is to question how “equitable food systems” are given meaning in ongoing discourses that shape the direction of food systems change. Finding the best strategies for food systems change is a subject of intense debate, making it an inherently political affair. In this study, our strategy for knowing about these politics is the analysis of discourses through which they are expressed. Through a literature review, this article identifies four discourses driving food systems change: (a) productionism, (b) redistributionism, (c) anti-capitalism, and (d) AID: donor rescue. Drawing on insights from existing literature, the study explores these discourses in relation to equity concerns. The analysis reveals that multiple meanings of “equitable food systems” exist, hinging on varied ideas about inequity, change, and the essence of human wellbeing. Materializing into practical strategies to progress food systems change, the multiplicity of meanings implies inevitable trade-offs when one is prioritized over the other. As such, through our analysis, we contend the need for more democracy when negotiating policy directions forward. All four discourses might have some merit that could become advantageous in finding contextually appropriate pathways toward more equitable food systems. However, corporate voices and perspectives tend to be louder than those of producers, workers, and consumers, reflecting and reproducing power imbalance within policy negotiations and the global society more broadly. Bridging such a power divide is thus essential to balance out food systems change discourses to allow for conductive combinations of elements from each to be created to anchor pursuits in food systems change that truly foster more equitable ways going forward.

The Food Systems, One Health, and Resilience (FOR) Approach—Led by the FOR-Runners

“…Different views exist on the needed actions to transform the current food systems and make them equitable, resilient, and sustainable. Juskaite and Haung summarize four such approaches: the first advocates for the increased production of food; the second emphasizes redistribution of current wealth and authority; the third group focuses on demolishing capitalism; and the fourth focuses on financial and food aid [40]. They argue that democracy is a prerequisite to bridging the power divide that is standing in the way of transforming the food system and making it equitable.…”

“…With democracy, the voice and power of the consumers and workers will overcome corporate power, wealth, and influence. The availability of technologies has not paved the way for more resilient food systems during the COVID-19 pandemic [40].…”

Ten new insights in climate science 2023

“…They must be diverse and embedded in regional heterogeneity. Dietary preferences (Ambikapathi et al, 2022), the needs of small-scale producers (Juskaite & Haug, 2023;Tschersich & Kok, 2022), inequalities in food loss and waste (FAO et al, 2022), regional socioecological contexts (Dengerink et al, 2021), and the governance of innovation (De Boon et al, 2022) are just some of the dimensions that need to be considered. As a result, food system transformations require broader, sometimes politically charged, discussions on a mix of multiple solutions.…”

“…Without significant transformations, current food systems on their own put at risk the 1.5°C target, pushing global warming toward 2°C by 2100 (under 'business as usual trajectories') (Clark et al, 2020). At the same time, over 700 million people are estimated to face hunger while marginalized groups such as women, racial minority groups, Indigenous communities, and small-scale farmers are disproportionately affected by food insecurity and climate change (FAO et al, 2022;Juskaite & Haug, 2023). In the same way as the notion of just transitions has emerged to enable the transformation of energy systems (Heffron & McCauley, 2022), it is also increasingly understood as central for the transformation of food systems (Tribaldos & Kortetmäki, 2022).…”

“…Current agricultural policies show insufficient consideration of social vulnerabilities, regional disparities in geography, culture and socioeconomic conditions (Ambikapathi et al, 2022), technological readiness, vested interests, and power imbalances (Béné, 2022;Zurek et al, 2022). For decades the agrifood industry, subsidized by national governments and aided by global trade agreements, has created a political economy that reinforces unsustainability and injustices worldwide (Juskaite & Haug, 2023;Woodhill et al, 2022). Acknowledging and addressing the injustices (re) produced in contemporary food systems (Tribaldos & Kortetmäki, 2022) and how structures of power shape socioeconomic change (e.g.…”