Finding Our Way to Food Democracy: Lessons from US Food Policy Council Governance

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

Developing a food system indicators database to facilitate local food systems assessments

Many food policy councils, food and agriculture-oriented groups, coalitions, organizations, funders, nonprofits, decision-makers, government depart­ments, and other entities work to address local food system issues and inequities that negatively affect human, animal, and planetary wellbeing. In this article, we summarize and reflect on the pro­cess of creating an open-access food system indica­tors database. Our goal has been to create a library of indicators from which groups can draw when assessing their local food system, identifying improvement opportunities, and evaluating their efforts. The indicators were extracted from seven sources selected to cover a wide range of food sys­tem elements and pertinent topics, including nutri­tion, agricultural production, racial equity, health outcomes, environmental impacts, and economics. Our work can contribute to needed research on monitoring and evaluating food system attributes and changes, developing a common set of indica­tors that groups can use to track food systems across places and over time and to assess racial equity, justice, and fairness in the food system

Nutrients, Environmental Sustainability, and Cost of the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program in the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011-2018

Background United States (U.S.) school meal programs serve billions of meals annually; however, little is known about their environmental impacts. Objective This study estimated the daily greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), water scarcity footprint (WSF), and food cost associated with the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) Programs and modeled the association of food substitutions and food waste reduction. Design A cross-sectional analysis of day-1 dietary intake in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2011-2018. Participants/Setting Participants included 796 children and adolescents from pre-Kindergarten to grade 12 who consumed breakfast or lunch on a weekday from a school cafeteria that met the minimum standard for an eligible meal. Main outcome measures The main outcomes were per capita nutrient intake, GHGE, WSF, and food cost. Statistical analyses performed Differences in mean impacts and between baseline and two modeled scenarios (food substitutions, food waste reductions) were evaluated using paired Wald tests. Results Daily per capita GHGE, WSF, and food cost for school food programs (NSLP + SBP) was 1.69 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) (95% CI: 1.55-1.84 kg CO2eq), 10.23 L eq×102 (9.20-11.27 L eq×102), and USD $3.70 ($3.39-4.00), respectively. Dairy (mainly cow’s milk) and protein foods (mainly beef) were the largest contributors to GHGE. Fruit was the largest contributor to the WSF. Modeled food substitutions significantly reduced GHGE by 14-25% and WSF by 11-14% for the school meal programs. There were mixed effects on food cost (-2% to 6% change) and nutrient intake. Modeled food waste reductions of 5% were associated with a 1% decrease in GHGE, WSF, and food costs. Conclusions The NSLP and SBP are critical to child nutrition, and food substitution and food waste reduction strategies can lower their environmental footprint with manageable impacts on nutrition quality