Understanding food democracy through practitioner viewpoints: a Q-method study of local US food policy councils

For several decades, food policy councils (FPCs) have led the effort to place food on local govern­ment policy agendas. While FPCs are making pro­gress in supporting local food systems, they also face institutional and organizational challenges. In recent years, a handful of cities and counties have endeavored to further food system reform with the establishment of full-time government staff posi­tions focused on food policy. As of spring 2020, there were 19 confirmed food policy positions housed in local governments across the United States. While there is considerable literature on FPCs, little research has been published regarding food policy staffing in local governments. Accordingly, this study uses original in-depth inter­views with 11 individuals in municipal or county food policy positions to understand the purpose and function of governmental food policy staff positions and their impact on local food systems. Our findings suggest that these positions help to coordinate and nurture local food programs and policies and have the potential to facilitate mean­ingful participation of individuals and groups in the community in food system reform. We discuss the potential benefits and challenges for governmental food policy positions to support food democracy, and provide the following recom­mendations for communities interested in estab­lishing or strengthening similar positions: (1) iden­tify and coordinate existing opportunities and assets, (2) foster and maintain leadership support, (3) root the work in community, (4) connect with other food policy professionals, and (5) develop a food system vision.

Food policy councils (FPCs) are an embodiment of food democracy, providing a space for community members, professionals, and government to learn together, deliberate, and collectively devise place-based strategies to address complex food systems issues. These collaborative governance networks can be considered a transitional stage in the democratic process, an intermediary institution that coordinates interests not typically present in food policymaking. In practice, FPCs are complex and varied. Due to this variety, it is not entirely clear how the structure, membership, and relationship to government of an FPC influence its policy priorities. This article will examine the relationship between an FPC’s organizational structure, relationship to government, and membership and its policy priorities. Using data from a 2018 survey of FPCs in the United States by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future paired with illustrative cases, we find that an FPC’s relationship to government and membership have more bearing on its policy priorities than the organizational structure. Further, the cases illustrate how membership is determined and deliberation occurs, highlighting the difficulty of including underrepresented voices in the process.

Conventional food systems continue to jeopardize the health and well-being of people and the environment, with a number of related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) still far from being reached. Food Policy Councils (FPCs)—since several decades in North America, and more recently in Europe—have begun to facilitate sustainable food system governance activities among various stakeholders as an explicit alternative to the shaping of food systems by multinational food corporations and their governmental allies. In contrast to the former, FPCs pursue the goals of food system sustainability through broad democratic processes. Yet, at least in Europe, the agenda of FPCs is more an open promise than a firm reality (yet); and thus, it is widely unknown to what extent FPCs actually contribute to food system sustainability and do so with democratic processes. At this early stage, we offer a comparative case study across four FPCs from the Upper-Rhine Region (Freiburg, Basel, Mulhouse, Strasbourg)—all formed and founded within the past 5 years—to explore how successful different types of FPCs are in terms of contributing to food system sustainability and adhering to democratic and good governance principles. Our findings indicate mixed results, with the FPCs mostly preparing the ground for more significant efforts at later stages and struggling with a number of challenges in adhering to principles of democracy and good governance. Our study contributes to the theory of sustainable food systems and food democracy with the focus on the role of FPCs, and offers procedural insights on how to evaluate them regarding sustainable outcomes and democratic processes. The study also offers practical insights relevant to these four and other FPCs in Europe, supporting their efforts to achieve food system sustainability with democratic processes.

In the highly concentrated and consolidated 21st century food systems, a broad range of stakeholders are rarely involved in food-related decision-making processes. One innovative institutional response is the establishment of food policy councils (FPCs). These institutions are often initiated by civil society actors and seek to transform prevailing agro-industrial food systems. They aim to raise awareness for alternative practises of food consumption and production, and they try to shape food policies at different governance levels. FPCs have been acclaimed for their democratic potential in the past. This study uses the five key dimensions of food democracy identified by Hassanein (2008) to assess the ways in which FPCs might represent loci for practising food democracy. This is achieved by taking one of the first FPCs in Germany as an example. During a two-year study period (2016–2018), the emergence of the FPC Oldenburg was studied through participant observations, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis. Data analysis reveals examples of, as well as challenges related to, all five dimensions of food democracy. In addition, the in-depth analysis of the case also illustrates the importance of taking additional aspects into account, i.e., openness and transparency. Looking at an additional dimension of food democracy, which covers the “How?” of the deliberative process, might allow for a more nuanced analysis of the democratic potential of food initiatives in the future.

Across the country, local and regional food policy councils are collaborating to make healthy, afford­able food more available to everyone. What ingre­dients are needed for a true collaboration that changes social and racial equity dynamics? How can these collaborations influence systems, policy, and awareness in school food environments, specifically? This reflective case study describes some of the accomplishments and challenges faced by the multistakeholder Holyoke Food and Fitness Policy Council (HFFPC) for nearly a decade. Using a mixed-method participatory evaluation approach to lift up diverse partners’ insights, we conducted key informant interviews with people who were engaged with the project during its eight operating years; focus groups and participatory asset mapping with stakeholders; and reviewed meeting notes from the eight years of the HFFPC. We identify several crucial ingredients that sustain equitable community-based collaboration: changing the dominant narrative, community and youth leader­ship and advocacy, and aligned multistakeholder partnerships. We also discuss critical structural and values-based challenges to multistakeholder organizing, including issues of trust, transparency, resources, leadership development, and differences in perceptions of racial equity in an under­resourced, predominantly Latino community. As such, this case study investigates community engagement and effectiveness. It provides insights for those food policy councils and local coalitions endeavoring to build from within the community while accomplishing policy goals, and will help to further the practice of equity, community food policy and systems change, and governance.

Food Policy Councils (FPC) help to identify and address the priorities of local, state, and regional food systems with the goal of improving food systems through policy. There is limited research describing FPCs’ strategies for accomplishing this goal. As part of a larger study examining FPC policy efforts, this paper investigates the role of partnerships in food systems policy change. We conducted interviews with representatives from 12 purposefully selected FPCs in the United States and 6 policy experts identified by the selected FPC representatives to document and describe their policy work. One theme that emerged from those interviews was the role of partners. Interviewees described a range of partners (e.g., stakeholders from government, business, and education) and credited FPC partnerships with advancing their policy goals by increasing the visibility and credibility of FPCs, focusing their policy agenda, connecting FPCs to key policy inputs (e.g., local food community knowledge and priorities), and obtaining stakeholder buy-in for policy initiatives. Partnerships were also described as barriers to policy progress when partners were less engaged or had either disproportionate or little influence in a given food sector. Despite these challenges, partnerships were found to be valuable for FPCs efforts to effectively engage in the food policy arena.

Food policy councils (FPCs) have become a popular way to organize various food system stakeholders at the local, municipal, and state levels. FPCs typically build partnerships with stakeholders; examine current policies, regulations, and ordinances related to food; and support or create programs that address food system issues. While FPCs have the potential to affect policy change and often include policy-related goals in their missions, the literature on how FPCs engage in the policy process, what policies FPCs address, and the policy impacts of their work are very limited. We conducted an electronic survey of FPC leaders to describe FPCs, their level of engagement in policy processes, and the scope of their policy activities. We invited all U.S. FPCs that were included in an FPC database (N =92) to participate. Of the 56 FPCs that completed the survey (64 percent response rate), 52 percent had been in existence for at least 3 years and 85 percent were engaged in policy activities at the time of the survey. Most FPCs engage in policy work in multiple venues (88 percent) and on multiple topics (79 percent). Many FPCs reported participating in the policy process through problem identification (95 percent) and education (78 percent); few mentioned evaluating their policy work. Those not engaged in policy most often cited lack of resources and technical expertise as barriers. These results suggest that while most FPCs are engaging in policy, why and how they engage varies greatly. Since FPCs are frequently cited as an effective way to address local and state food system issues, there is a need for more rigorous evaluation of the processes, outcomes, and impacts of their work.

Food policy councils (FPCs) are a useful way for interested groups to work together to create mutually beneficial change within the food system. Often formed through grassroots organizing or commissioned by governmental entities, FPCs have been successful at tackling challenges within food systems by creating forums to address issues whose roots ordinarily are in disparate parts of these systems. Little peer-reviewed research exists, however, examining the formation of state-level FPCs, particularly among states known for their conventional production practices. In this case study, we explored the process of forming a statewide FPC in North Carolina from 2007 to 2009. The objectives were to (a) qualitatively exam­ine the two-year process of forming a statewide FPC in a traditional agriculture state, and (b) iden­tify the factors that led to its formation. To do so, we developed an in-depth interview guide for inter­viewing eight individuals, including government stakeholders, conventional agricultural producers, sustainable agricultural producers, philanthropists, and legal representatives. We used qualitative analy­sis methods to analyze the transcripts, drawing on John Kingdon’s agenda-setting and policy-formation theory to guide analysis. Results indi­cated that four factors drove the formation of the North Carolina state-level FPC: (1) stakeholder involvement, (2) diverse partnerships, (3) stake­holder ability to compromise, and (4) a conducive political setting. While the small sample size pre­vents us from causally interpreting our results and generalizing our findings, this preliminary research may provide insight for other states, especially those with a predominately traditional agriculture system, that are interested in forming state-level FPCs.

Food policy councils (FPCs) aim to foster more just, healthy, and sustainable food systems by discussing, shaping, and assessing food system policies and programmes in their communities. Many struggle, however, to understand how to effectively engage in advocacy work. Recognizing this common challenge, we created a comprehensive online assessment toolkit that helps to build the capacity of stakeholder groups like FPCs to influence local and state level food policy. The toolkit will be most useful for groups working along the continuum of advocacy – those that aspire to do more advocacy in the food system arena, those that are struggling with their advocacy work, and those that are heavily involved in advocacy and want to evaluate and improve their efforts. The toolkit is a self-assessment tool that provides a sequence of activities to help FPCs better understand the advocacy and policy process, evaluate their current advocacy capacity, or use the results to guide discussions about how to get started. This chapter explores the goals, development, and content of the toolkit, with specific attention to equity and systems-thinking metrics. It also reflects on how the toolkit has been used in practice by one FPC.

At least 282 Food Policy Councils (FPCs) are currently working to improve access to healthy foods in their communities by connecting food system sectors, gathering community input, and advising food policy. Empirical research on FPCs is limited. This study empirically evaluates FPCs to better understand the relationships between Organizational Capacity, Social Capital, and Council Effectiveness by testing a FPC Framework adapted from Allen and colleagues (2012). Members of all FPCs inthe U.S., Canada, and Native American Tribes and FirstNations were invited to complete the Food Policy Council Self-Assessment Tool (FPC-SAT). Structural equationmodeling was used to test the FPC Framework. Three hundred and fifty-four FPC members from 95 councils completed the FPC-SAT. After slight modification, a revised FPC Framework was a good fit with the data (χ2 =40.085, df=24, p-value=.021, comparative fit index=0.988, Tucker Lewis index= 0.982, root mean squared error of approximation=0.044, p-close=.650). A moderation analysis revealed that community context influences the relationship between Social Capital and Council Effectiveness within the FPC Framework. The FPC Framework can guide capacity building interventions and FPC evaluations. The empirically tested framework can help FPCs efficiently work toward achieving their missions and improving their local food system.

Local food system governance increasingly occurs in collaborative venues at the local, state, and regional levels. Prominent examples of such are food policy councils (FPCs). FPCs take a systemic approach to improve local food systems by including diverse stakeholders to advise on policy development. The authors study public FPCs to understand how policies structure the stakeholder composition and goals of FPCs and how FPCs’ stakeholder composition facilitates and/or impedes performance. Data come from a content analysis of policies that mandate the structure and functions of public FPCs and interviews with FPC representatives. Findings indicate that FPCs connected to a broader array of food policy actors in their communities produce more diverse policy outputs, but this outcome is tempered by whether council members represent personal or organizational interests.

Association Between Municipal Food Policy Councils and Local Policies that Support Healthy Eating: A National Survey of Community Policy Supports

Food policy councils (FPCs) are an increasingly common mechanism to improve participation in food system decision-making. Including individuals from under-represented groups can foster greater understanding of their needs and experiences with food system barriers and is an important part of food justice. However, engaging under-represented groups in food systems decision-making remains challenging for FPCs. This paper presents the results from a survey of FPCs and networks in New England to: (1) identify FPC policy priorities, (2) characterize FPCs engaged in policy initiatives based on attributes which, based on the literature, may impact effective public participation: geographic scale, organization type, capacity, policy priorities, and membership, and (3) analyze methods for engaging the public in FPC policy initiatives and demographic groups and sectors engaged. Findings indicate only half of New England FPCs work on policy efforts. Many surveyed FPCs engage multiple food system sectors and under-represented groups through a combination of different public participation opportunities. However, results indicate that New England FPCs could benefit from a greater focus on engaging under-represented audiences. FPCs interested in engaging more diverse participants should commit to a focus on food justice, strive for representative membership through intentional recruitment, and offer multiple methods to engage the public throughout policy initiatives.

A large number of food policy councils (FPCs) exist in the United States, Canada, and Tribal Nations (N = 278), yet there are no tools designed to measure their members’ perceptions of organizational capacity, social capital, and council effectiveness. Without such tools, it is challenging to determine best practices for FPCs and to measure change within and across councils over time. This study describes the development, testing, and findings from the Food Policy Council Self-Assessment Tool (FPC-SAT). The assessment measures council practices and council members’ perceptions of the following concepts: leadership, breadth of active membership, council climate, formality of council structure, knowledge sharing, relationships, member empowerment, community context, synergy, and impacts on the food system. All 278 FPCs listed on the Food Policy Network’s Online Directory were recruited to complete the FPC-SAT. Internal reliability (Cronbach’s α) and inter-rater reliability (AD, rWG(J), ICC [intraclass correlations][1], ICC[2]) were calculated, and exploratory and a confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. Responses from 354 FPC members from 94 councils were used to test the assessment. Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.79 to 0.93 for the scales. FPC members reported the lowest mean scores on the breadth of active membership scale (2.49; standard deviation [SD], 0.62), indicating room for improvement, and highest on the leadership scale (3.45; SD, 0.45). The valid FPC-SAT can be used to identify FPC strengths and areas for improvement, measure differences across FPCs, and measure change in FPCs over time.

This paper presents a conceptualization of radical food democracy (RFD) which links the diverse economies approach of Gibson-Graham with Tully’s notion of diverse citizenship. Despite its invaluable contribution to theorizing the role of alternative food networks (AFNs) in transforming unsustainable industrial food systems, the diverse economies scholarship has been criticized for essentializing the autonomy of alternative economic practices—hence risking to confound emancipatory social change with punctuated forms of “local,” “quality,” “organic certified” products, which nevertheless remain embedded in market-mediated capitalist relations, and displacement and/or deferral of negative impacts. This paper aims to address such critiques, contending that the realization of RFD requires both (1) the experimentation with new economic practices that carve out food economies alternative to the working logic of capital accumulation, and (2) the cultivation of new political subjects capable of universalizing these particular struggles. After situating various existing practices associated with food democracy in a framework of various modes of democratic citizenship, we underpin our understanding of RFD with a theory of change informed by Bob Jessop’s strategic-relational approach to social structures, agents’ reflexive actions, and their contingency. Following a critical scientific approach to the social role of academics, this theoretical framework is illustrated using a case study from Germany. The empirical work draws on participant observation and semi-structured interviews with leaders of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) cooperatives and Food Policy Council (FPC) networks conducted in Cologne, Berlin, and Frankfurt in 2018–2020. To conclude, this paper argues that the emancipatory potential of food democracy should cultivate both lighthouse alternative economic practices that are connected with people’s everyday lives, and political imagination that dares to critically engage with existing institutions. Likewise, RFD praxis requires a constant back and forth between the ideational and the practical, the abstract and the concrete, the actionable and the analytical, to challenge both the symbolic-discursive and the material dimensions of capitalist agri-food systems.