What does it mean to do food justice?

\u27Food justice\u27 and \u27food sovereignty\u27 have become key words in food movement scholarship and activism. In the case of \u27food justice\u27, it seems the word is often substituted for work associated with projects typical of the alternative or local food movement. We argue that it is important for scholars and practitioners to be clear on how food justice differs from other efforts to seek an equitable food system. In the interests of ensuring accountability to socially just research and action, as well as mounting a tenable response to the \u27feed the world\u27 paradigm that often sweeps aside concerns with justice as distractions from the \u27real\u27 issues, scholars and practitioners need to be more clear on what it means to do food justice. In exploring that question, we identify four nodes around which food justice organizing appears to occur: trauma/inequity, exchange, land, and labor. This article sets the stage for a second one that follows, Notes on the practice of food justice in the U.S., where we discuss attempts to practice food justice

Notes on the practice of food justice in the U.S.: Understanding and confronting trauma and inequity

In this article, we focus on one of the four nodes (trauma/inequity, exchange, land and labor) around which food justice organizing appears to occur: acknowledging and confronting historical, collective trauma and persistent race, gender, and class inequality. We apply what we have learned from our research in U.S. and Canadian agri-food systems to suggest working methods that might guide practitioners as they work toward food justice, and scholars as they seek to study it. In the interests of ensuring accountability to socially just research and action, we suggest that scholars and practitioners need to be more clear on what it means to practice food justice. Towards such clarity and accountability, we urge scholars and practitioners to collaboratively document how groups move toward food justice, what thwarts and what enables them

Landscape ideology in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt Plan: Negotiating material landscapes and abstract ideals in the city\u27s countryside

We analyze the role of landscape ideology in the recent Ontario Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) Greenbelt Plan. Focusing on the “Protected Countryside,” the major land-use designation in the Plan that structures the Greenbelt framework, we explore tensions between abstract ideals of countryside used by policy makers to elicit support for the Plan and people\u27s lived experience of material landscapes of the peri-urban fringe. Approaching “countryside” from the combined perspectives of landscape studies and political ecology, we show how the abstract ideals used to build support for the protection of countryside in the high-level political arena are in tension with existing material landscapes as people experience them. When implementing the Greenbelt Plan, the abstract ideals have to be applied at the landscape level through negotiation with municipalities, property owners, and other interests. In addition to drawing upon more conventionally legitimate explanations for landscape protection based on environmental science and land-use planning principles, the designation of Protected Countryside and the strategies used to implement the Protected Countryside designation at the local level suggest a tentative commitment to recognizing landscape values and collaborative environmental management processes in policy-making. As with any such normative land-use plan, the success of the Greenbelt Plan hinges on the long-term agreement between planning agencies and diverse publics. We demonstrate the usefulness of approaching environmental management challenges at the urban–rural interface by bringing the perspectives of landscape studies and political ecology into implementation processes for land-use management strategies like the Greenbelt. We argue that public participants deserve legitimate collaborative roles in negotiating just and desirable land uses based on their experiences, and provide observations on ways to bring contested goals and tools for achieving them into reflexive negotiations about how landscapes are and should be produced

Facilitating Spaces of Urban Agroecology: A Learning Framework for Community-University Partnerships

At the local scale in Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP), MN, urban farms, community gardens, and home gardens support diverse individual and community goals, including food access and sovereignty, recreation and outdoor activity, youth education, and racial, economic, and environmental justice. Collaborations between urban growers, policymakers, scholars, and communities that leverage urban farms and gardens as sites of ecological, social, and political transformation represent spaces of urban agroecology. Participatory research can play a vital role in urban agroecology by facilitating integration of science, movement, and practice, but frameworks to accomplish this are still emerging. This paper, therefore, proposes a “learning framework” for urban agroecology research that has emerged from our community-university partnership. We—a group of growers, community partners, and researchers—have worked with each other for 5 years through multiple projects that broadly focused on the socio-ecological drivers and impacts of urban farms and gardens in MSP. In fall 2019, we conducted our first formal evaluation of the participatory processes implemented in our current project with the objectives to (1) identify processes that facilitated or were barriers to authentic collaboration and (2) understand the role of relationships in the participatory processes. Qualitative surveys and interviews were developed and conducted with researchers, partners, and students. Analysis revealed that urban agroecology research provided a space for shared learning, which was facilitated through co-creation of research, embodied processes, and relationships with people, cohorts, and place. As part of our partnership agreements, we as researchers wrote this article—in close consultation with partners—to share this framework in the hopes that it will serve as a model for other research collaborations working within complex urban agroecological systems

Multiple Roles of Component Proteins in Bacterial Multicomponent Monooxygenases: Phenol Hydroxylase and Toluene/ o

Phenol hydroxylase (PH) and toluene/o-xylene monooxygenase (ToMO) from Pseudomonas sp. OX1 require three or four protein components to activate dioxygen for the oxidation of aromatic substrates at a carboxylate-bridged diiron center. In this study, we investigated the influence of the hydroxylases, regulatory proteins, and electron-transfer components of these systems on substrate (phenol; NADH) consumption and product (catechol; H2O2) generation. Single-turnover experiments revealed that only complete systems containing all three or four protein components are capable of oxidizing phenol, a major substrate for both enzymes. Under ideal conditions, the hydroxylated product yield was 50% of the diiron centers for both systems, suggesting that these enzymes operate by half-sites reactivity mechanisms. Single-turnover studies indicated that the PH and ToMO electron-transfer components exert regulatory effects on substrate oxidation processes taking place at the hydroxylase actives sites, most likely through allostery. Steady state NADH consumption assays showed that the regulatory proteins facilitate the electron-transfer step in the hydrocarbon oxidation cycle in the absence of phenol. Under these conditions, electron consumption is coupled to H2O2 formation in a hydroxylase-dependent manner. Mechanistic implications of these results are discussed.National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U.S.) (grant GM032134)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Interdepartmental Biotechnology Training Grant T32 GM08334)CEINGE - Biotecnologie Avanzate (Italy

A Syst-OMICS Approach to Ensuring Food Safety and Reducing the Economic Burden of Salmonellosis.

The Salmonella Syst-OMICS consortium is sequencing 4,500 Salmonella genomes and building an analysis pipeline for the study of Salmonella genome evolution, antibiotic resistance and virulence genes. Metadata, including phenotypic as well as genomic data, for isolates of the collection are provided through the Salmonella Foodborne Syst-OMICS database (SalFoS), at https://salfos.ibis.ulaval.ca/. Here, we present our strategy and the analysis of the first 3,377 genomes. Our data will be used to draw potential links between strains found in fresh produce, humans, animals and the environment. The ultimate goals are to understand how Salmonella evolves over time, improve the accuracy of diagnostic methods, develop control methods in the field, and identify prognostic markers for evidence-based decisions in epidemiology and surveillance

A Syst-OMICS Approach to Ensuring Food Safety and Reducing the Economic Burden of Salmonellosis.

The Salmonella Syst-OMICS consortium is sequencing 4,500 Salmonella genomes and building an analysis pipeline for the study of Salmonella genome evolution, antibiotic resistance and virulence genes. Metadata, including phenotypic as well as genomic data, for isolates of the collection are provided through the Salmonella Foodborne Syst-OMICS database (SalFoS), at https://salfos.ibis.ulaval.ca/. Here, we present our strategy and the analysis of the first 3,377 genomes. Our data will be used to draw potential links between strains found in fresh produce, humans, animals and the environment. The ultimate goals are to understand how Salmonella evolves over time, improve the accuracy of diagnostic methods, develop control methods in the field, and identify prognostic markers for evidence-based decisions in epidemiology and surveillance