Democratizing food systems: A scoping review of deliberative mini-publics in the context of food policy

Abstract

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.