Healing Grounds Chapter 1

In the first chapter of Healing Grounds, Liz Carlisle really shows that farming is not just about producing food, it is about relationships between people, land, and power. What stood out to me is how she connects agriculture to larger systems of control and inequality. It made me realize that food justice is not just about access to healthy food, but also about who has control over food systems and whose voices are actually being heard. It also introduced the idea of animals, like bison mentioned in chapter 1, can graze in a way that is helpful for the soil and  agriculture and aren’t fenced in like cattle which tied into systems we have already had but moved away from for large industrial traditional farming practices that are bad for the environment and effect soil health.Carlisle talks about Indigenous practices and regenerative agriculture in a way that shows these methods are not new, they have just been ignored or pushed aside. That connects to what we have been talking about in class about how marginalized communities often already have sustainable solutions, but they are not the ones being listened to or given power.I also considered how this connects to the Rodale Institute and the work being done with organic and regenerative farming. It makes the idea of “healing grounds” feel more real because it shows how improving soil health and farming practices can also support communities. It is not just environmental, it is social too.Overall, this chapter made me think about food justice in a deeper way. It is not just about making sure people have food, but about restoring relationships, acknowledging the importance of history and animals, and giving power back to communities that have been pushed out of the conversation.

Thoughts on Carlisle Chapter 2

 This chapter focuses on the loss of a closed-loop farm. Black farmers who have historically been systematically shut out of government programs and were greatly impacted by Jim Crow have developed some of the most complicated regenerative techniques in recent history. 

“Big Ag” has just recently discovered that planting only one crop, or monocropping, kills the soil, while Black farmers in the South have known this for over a century. Black farmers practiced livestock integration to naturally fertilize the land, polycultures, which are a variety of crops to keep the soil full of nutrients, and resourcefulness by transforming land into productive ecosystems sans the expensive chemical inputs. For these farmers, soil sustainability was a survival strategy rather than a goal. With dead soil comes dead independence. 

The most gut-wrenching part of this chapter is her critique of how we have modernized farming. The transition into industrial agriculture is not just hurting the planet, but it is also being used as a tool for racial dispossession. Farming became more capital-intensive, which forced Black farmers off their land. The deep-rooted communal knowledge was traded for shallow-rooted cornfields. Soil exhaustion goes hand-in-hand with the displacement and exhaustion of black bodies. 

    Books on regenerative agriculture typically feature a checklist for buying cover crop seeds and to stop tilling. However, the social structure within a farm is just as important as the biology of the first. A healthy ecosystem cannot occur when it is built on a foundation of exclusion and theft. We need to change who gets to own the farm rather than just how we farm. We have to look at land trusts and reparative justice in order to heal the land. A high output, high stress, and low diversity environment is hurtful and we should instead go back toward a “Homestead” model that prizes community and resilience. The innovations that we are looking for are not in a laboratory but are in the stories of black farmers pushed off of their land in the 20th century.

Bring Back the Bison

It has been common knowledge for me that colonizers hunted off the bison in North America to cut the supply of sustenance to Native Americans, but I didn't know of the attempts in recent years to bring populations back to their native lands. When Carlisle was painting the picture of what the prairies once looked like, I couldn't help feel sad, as that image will likely not be restored to it's former glory in any of our lifetimes. 

Humans, white ones specifically, have meddled so deeply in the fabric of nature, that we have to meddle our way out of it but now with many more obstacles from other meddling-projects we have done. We can bring back the bison, but must appease ranchers that we forced to ranch, shake hands across borders we invented, work around infrastructure that did not exist two, three, four hundred years ago. It was easy for the colonizers to go about hunting bison down, but to try to reverse those attempts at the same level of ease is impossible. I can't help but wonder what the state of the world would be had the British been less of colonizers and more of cooperators, community builders. By trying to dominant the planet, we have just created endless loops of problems for ourselves. This is evident when looking at the differences between cattle vs bison ranching. The bison dwell much better in the disparate Montana weather than cattle. Of course they do, they have evolved for thousands of years to live in that landscape. Had they simply learned something from the natives, maybe we wouldn't be in such an agricultural mess right now.

Healing Grounds Intro and Chapter 1

The biggest mistake humanity can make, in my opinion, is thinking we know anything. As in, thinking we can “fully understand” anything to the point of being able to have complete control or that we can just “own” anything. Nothing is ours: not the air, the oceans, the animals, the plants, the ecosystems, or the land we live on. More so, what baffles me, is that the productivity indigenous communities obtained was actually acknowledged by the colonists who ripped their land away from them. Despite this, they ignored the equilibrium ecosystem that was extremely successful they were presented with, and just absolutely destroyed it. It’s almost impossible for me to understand how they could’ve so blatantly just proceeded with their atrocities and inefficiencies- and what? Think that there would be no consequences to their destructive and uneducated behavior? It makes me so upset that colonialism ripped away so much from nature, the land, and the Indigenous people who had been living their for generations. 

Healing Grounds Chapter One

     Initially when the book opens up by telling the story of Latrice Tatsey trying to learn about their ancestors and the relationship with the native buffalo herds of the region, it appeared to be a lighthearted tale. It then elaborated into the atrocities the federal government has committed to Native Americans by corralling them into tiny plots of land, and then further dividing them up into subdivisions and forcing white culture onto them by sending off children to boarding schools and forbidding them from talking about their own culture. The shockwaves of these laws forced upon the native population can be seen as Tatsey struggles to find history or culture of their ancestors either through written documents or through word of mouth passed down through generations. The implications this has on the ecology in the region deepen when buffalo are deemed inefficient and cattle replace them. this part is interesting to me since country wide blanket laws are not typical of the United States government, shown through the fact that we primarily operate under state and regional laws rather than allowing the federal government to dictate everything however, the government believed using one or two specific breeds and species across the entire country rather than capitalizing on biodiversity would be considered "efficient". Logically speaking, using native species in regions they would thrive in like buffalo rather than pushing them out and replacing them with cattle, which struggle to thrive in hotter, drier climates seems to be contradictory to how the United States operates. 

Healing Grounds 1

     The first couple parts of this book dive straight into some of the largest core problems this class covers within food justice, sovereignty, climate, and addressing past discrimination tactics in agriculture. Carlisle tells us that none of them alone are enough, and that specifically addressing past discriminations is a part of both sovereignty and even mitigating climate change. 

        Carlisle describes to us the saddening story between settlers and natives, and specifically gets into the bits related to agriculture. She says that indigenous peoples who lived along the prairies were not mere spectators, but maintainers, overseers. They were able to form a relationship with the nonhuman parts of the prairie that enabled them to know exactly when and where to do "x" or "y" like burning, rotating, harvesting, etc. all without the use of modern machines and excess inputs. Instead, they mostly used fire and buffalo. It's described that buffalo show traits that may prove them to be better for agriculture than cattle. They can resist harsh weather better, defend themselves against predators better, and are actually active in maintaining their own environment which in turn aids biodiversity.

    Unfortunately, along came the settlers who apparently saw sustainable well being as a threat and decimated their way of life. Whether or not they saw their way of life as a threat or not, I don't know, but what is true is that they did try to destroy their way of life by literally killing the backbone of it, Buffalo, as well as the people themselves sometimes. When the indigenous peoples were willing to negotiate or surrender, they were boxed into a plot of land and forced to abandoned their ways due to it being almost impossible now. 

    Carlisle mentions now that groups such as Blackfeet have attempted to reintroduce buffalo to restart their way of living. She mentions as well that settler farmers, beginning in the late 1900s, started to see that what they were doing was not sustainable, and that regenerative practices were better for the land. She notes this as good, but also insufficient as it does not address the deep relationship with the land that indigenous peoples had. 

    Nowadays, I do not foresee majority of American farmers and ranchers garnering as deep relationships with the land as indigenous peoples. Some definitely could, and should, but I would assume most farmers are doing it because they need money or the family has been farming for generations, not because they love the land and feeding others. I'm sure many do like the fact that they feed others and many likely love the land, but I would assume most would leave if they had enough of those dollars saved up, and I wouldn't blame them since modern agricultural practices tend to leave farmers with depression at rates wickedly higher than the national average for other working Americans. If we could actually adopt some hybrid agricultural system that involves connections to the land and animals, as well as is on a scale large enough to feed the world, and does not involve degrading inputs, I imagine the depression rate in farmers would not only go down, but it would go negative, leaving more farmers happier than the rest of us. I believe someone in a reading we read earlier this semester, indigenous to somewhere in Central or South America said that their relatives told the settlers that if the settlers did what their people did, they would all live long, happy lives.

Connections to Chapter 1

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8793816

The first chapter really made me want to look into where our agriculture was in the past vs how we view it today. The points mad on how agriculture isn’t just this neutral system that naturally improved over time but was shaped by colonization, displacement, and inequality led to me finding research done by Emma Layman. The article pretty much sums up how all the damage and inequality in the current system isn't random, just as we've mentioned in class.

Modern agriculture is usually talked about like it’s just the result of progress and better technology, but honestly, it’s a lot more complicated than that. According to Emma Layman and her co-authors, agriculture in the U.S. is deeply connected to colonization and slavery, which means it didn’t develop in a fair or equal way. Instead, it was shaped by systems that took land from Indigenous people and relied on forced labor, setting up patterns that still exist today.

Colonization basically turned land into something to be owned and exploited for profit. Indigenous farming practices, which were often more sustainable and connected to the environment, were ignored or pushed aside. At the same time, enslaved people were forced to work the land, and that became a major part of how agriculture functioned. Even though things have changed over time, a lot of those same ideas, like prioritizing large-scale production and profit, are still part of modern agriculture.

Chapter 1

Healing Grounds Chapter 1 focuses on the work of Latrice Tatsey and her efforts to bring bison back to their natural grazing lands. Instead of raising animals in fenced areas like cattle, bison move across the land in a way that naturally improves the soil. Their grazing helps increase nutrients and store more carbon in the ground, which can help reduce the effects of climate change. Tatsey also shows how restoring bison is not just about the environment but also about reconnecting Indigenous communities with their traditions and land.

The chapter explains that the removal of bison in the past was done on purpose as a way to control Indigenous people by taking away an important food source. It also points out that many communities of color have long used farming methods that work with nature instead of against it. These practices existed long before modern industrial agriculture.

Overall, the chapter connects environmental health with social and cultural healing. Bringing back bison supports stronger communities, restores traditional knowledge, and helps create a more sustainable and independent food system.

Healing Grounds: Introduction and Chapter 1

  The introduction of this book touches on how there were debates about agriculture. Even though regenerative agriculture was a promising idea, it was still debated even by people who seemed like they would support it. No matter how good something sounds, there are still issues that exist within it. It’s important to figure out what methods are best in order to truly reach success.

It also brings up how a lot of people who helped out with figuring out how to create a more sustainable agricultural system are indigineous people or immigrants. In general they were people who did not have titles, meaning they may have been previously overlooked or ignored. I agree that it’s important to look at the history of agriculture in the U.S. because before colonization, the land was treated much differently by indigeneous people and groups. “Reversing the clock” may be able to efficiently aid agriculture currently. 

I found it facsinating the positive impact that buffalo have on plants and how the relationship between them and the land is mutual. The connection of buffalo grazing to assisting with climate change is a concept unheard of to me until now. They are the keystone species for Native American praries. This makes me wonder why they aren’t more common in our current agricultural system, they have so many benefits. How did we come to the conclusion of using cows? Is it just adopted from European farming practices? But this also makes me wonder if differnet species are better off in different biomes, surely buffalo can’t be the keystone species all over the country because of the differences in climate and such. 

The first chapter does a lot of comparing European farming to indingenous farming, it highlights the issues with our current system that has been “broken from the start”. The importance of having a connection to the land and working with it instead of against it is crucial for regenerative agriculture. Instead of continuing with the colonizer’s method of farming, we need to adopt and return to what previously has worked. 

Healing Grounds - Chapter 1

 Liz Carlisle posts Latrice Tatsey work of reintroducing bison back to grazing the land, as opposed to fenced in pastures with cows. Tatsey an ecologist and a member of the Blackfeet nation supports this showing that bison grazing increases organic soil matter and increase carbon soil content This increases soil quality and fights against climate change.  She relates ecological restoration with cultural restoration by reengaging indigenous peoples back to their ancestral land and better soil restorative practices.  Highlighting Blackfoot community in reclaiming their right to manage and define their own food systems, guided by cultural and ecological labor.

The removal of bison, a primary food source was a core colonial strategy to control the indigenous populations, Black, Latino, and Asian American communities have a long history of regenerative agriculture.  Their more natural soil regenerative ideas have been established long before industrial activities disrupted them. These original concepts have a more holistic way of managing our environment demands to increase a natural production.

Racial violence inflicted on the indigenous people by land dispossession, labor exploitation, loss of food sovereignty suppressed these proven traditional ecological ways.

Bison restoration encompasses restoring tribal decision making, developing a community involvement, with the use of cultural protocols, providing a goal of long-term stewardship.  Her thoughts on rebuilding bison herds leads us to ecological healing that leads up political healing. Producing cleaner indigenous knowledge uses, combating climate effects.  Focus on not just sustainable but providing food sovereignty.

Carlisle Introduction and Chapter One

  Regenerative Agriculture is a very common buzzword in the "eco-conscious" areas of the internet. This is often pitched as a way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and return it to the Earth. However, Liz Carlisle calls for caution with this. By treating regenerative agriculture as a “new” modern invention, we are being colonizers as well as ignorant. 

The carbon farming hype is confronted at the very beginning. The innovations being used by current white, midwestern farmers are rooted in Asian-American, Indigenous, and Black agricultural traditions. The word “healing” within the title isn’t about fixing just the Nitrogen cycle; it is about healing the rift between people and the land they live upon. We are unable to fix the problem without looking at the extractive logic that causes it to break in the first place. This logic is tied to slavery and settler colonialism.

Previously, the North American prairies were one of the most effective carbon-sequestering machines on the planet. It was carefully managed through indigenous practices, which included the stewardship of buffalo and the use of fire. The indigenous model was reciprocal, while the colonial model is extractive.

The nice thing about this perspective is the idea that Regenerative Agriculture is not a technical fix. This narrow focus of how many tons of Carbon dioxide we can sink into an acre of land is just another form of extraction. We are still using the Earth as a tool rather than a companion.

Real healing occurs when we realize that the people who are most harmed by our current food systems are minorities. These minorities are the ones who hold the solutions to our problems. This first section of the book can serve as a deprogramming for those who feel we can just buy our way out of climate change with some organic labels. We need to acknowledge the grounds they were to begin with and whose labor was used in order to exhaust them.

Healthy Dialogue Yields Better Results!

     The food planning systems being addressed seem to be of interest due to publicity and their focus on equity. With the goal in mind of better understanding how the municipal government steward's food justice. I will only be using two examples I believe are relevant to the overall picture of food justice, specifically pertaining to a healthy dialogue between big organizations. Having been a part of the Rotary Club for a number of years, one gets to see firsthand how a healthy dialogue can make or break the good an organization can promote in an area.  

 

The PSRFPC is mainly comprised of stakeholders that have a mutually beneficial relationship with the metropolitan planning organization, aiding them in making decisions. These are the guys influencing decisions behind closed doors. Interestingly enough, for managing four counties, everyone seems to be stuck on the same issue. Specifically balancing out inequity through addressing the multifaceted factors that come into play. When the Muckleshoot tribe member raised her hand to speak out about the sheer and utter misuse of what, I would argue not only accessibility to education but also the land. Stating that over 300 kinds of food were harvested prior to white contact!  

On that same token, the rancher that spoke out blatantly stated that experts in the field, literally, hate being told what to do and how to do it. Even if the land is owned by the county, going back to the issue of sovereignty, the government shouldn’t overextend its welcome on every personal choice. I appreciated the fact that they acknowledged, land protection does not equal accessibility, nor just stewardship. Using the example of the rich person buying the home as a luxury countryside property, does indeed not make it accessible. Personally, I wasn’t expecting to hear such things, I figured that the structure of a vertical bureaucracy was at play, however, it seems that the PSRFPC is speaking on necessary concerns. Even with these two minuet examples in the vast array of decisions being made, if this is what the discussions are typically like, count me in to have an organization as such here in PA!  

Municipal Food Justice Efforts

After reading the food justice efforts enacted by PSRFPC and the City of Seattle, it felt to me that, while progress is yet to be made, the City had more success in implementing and maintaining policies than PSRFPC. The interviews from those associated with PSRFPC seemed to lean slightly in the negative and pertaining to the pitfalls and gaps in progress made by the PSRFPC. There seemed to be a bit more gripe with the practices, or lack thereof, performed by the organization, whereas the City, with its own pitfalls and gaps, seemed to be attempting a lot of good, but are stuck behind bureaucratic nonsense and red tape. I felt the PSRFPC is making a lot of promises and not really even attempting to live up to them. I wondered why this was, as they are both municipal entities, they must struggle with the same obstacles and hurdles from larger governments; so why a seemingly smaller effort from the larger of the two? Well, I believe that is exactly why, because it is a municipal body covering a larger area of land. I wonder if as you move up in size of governmental bodies, does their effectiveness decrease? Are smaller, localized governments be more effective in implementing sustainable food security/sovereignty programs? I think a big driver in many of the issues we face in the 21st century is the amount of bureaucracy we face when doing something as simple as gardening or selling your own food. If people and communities are given the ability to create systems that work best for them, whether it be food, economic, or social sovereignty, I believe that long term viability of said system is achievable. 

Food justice and municipal government in the USA

Horst’s article on food justice and municipal governments shows how local governments can play a big role in shaping who has access to healthy food. One thing that stood out to me is how cities often say they support food justice, but their policies don’t always match that goal. For example, the farmers markets we previously discussed, favoring privileged white people but created with the intention to serving minority, under resourced communities. It made me think about how “access” isn’t just about having food nearby, but also about affordability, cultural relevance, and whether people feel welcome in those spaces. I also thought it was interesting how Horst highlights the limits of relying on local governments alone. Even when cities try to make changes, they’re often working within larger systems like capitalism and federal policy that make real change harder. This made me wonder if food justice efforts need to be more community-led rather than government-led, or at least a stronger mix of both. Overall, the reading made me realize that solving food injustice isn’t just about adding more resources, but about changing who has power in the food system and how decisions are made.  

Food justice in bigger levels than municipalities

 So the article I found, “Planning for Regional Food Equity,” is about how not everyone has the same access to healthy food, and a lot of it has to do with how regions (not just cities) are planned. Like, it’s not just random, there are actual systems and policies that make it easier for some people to get fresh food while others are stuck with like convenience stores or nothing nearby.

The main point is that planners (the people who decide how cities and regions are organized) can help fix this. They can improve transportation so people can actually get to grocery stores, support local farms, and make policies that spread food resources more fairly. The article keeps stressing that you have to look at the regional level, not just one city, because everything is connected.

This connects to the Horst article because that one talks about food justice too, but more at the city level. Horst is basically saying local governments try to fix food problems, but they run into limits. The “Planning for Regional Food Equity” article kind of builds on that by saying yeah, cities alone aren’t enough, you need bigger, regional cooperation to actually make a difference.

So overall, both articles are saying the food system isn’t fair, and fixing it is complicated. Cities can try, but if the whole region isn’t involved, it only helps so much. Which is kind of frustrating, but also makes sense.

Anyway, the main takeaway is that where you live really affects what food you can get, and fixing that takes more than just one city trying its best.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2020.1845781#abstract

- you have full access to the article using the KU library institute ^-^

Municipal Government and Food Justice

     This article highlights two different bodies of change in a similar area, both advocating for food justice, and compares their effectiveness in inequity/trauma, land, labor, exchange, and democratic process. The highlighting of these two groups is meant to bring light to both opportunities and challenges faced by municipal governments.

    While both organizations had pros and cons, it stood out to me that they each had a lack of effort put into deeper systemic causes. It is mentioned the organizations tends to shy away from controversial/politically challenging topics, why? Is it due mostly to a lack of resources, so they choose the safest paths of change? The author wants the reader to know that municipal governments tend to be limited to more smaller, gradual changes rather than deep systemic issues like labor conditions and poverty. 

    From this, I gather once more that many of the systemic issues discussed in this course in the context of food justice can not be helped only by local governments and organizations that can influence local policy and legislation, but will require changes in higher governments to incentivize actors towards social good over individual profit. It is a challenge itself that these organizations and governments are constrained by the same economic systems as those they wish to help. 

Food Justice and Municipal Governments

         There are many issues with our current food system that range from environmental to economic issues. I definetly agree that historical injustices as well as current ones need to be examined in order to improve the future of our food system. We must look at what groups of people are the one’s who usually struggle to gain access to sufficient food. Are the lower class? What race are they? What are some factors that differ between people who have access to fresh produce compared to people who don’t? Looking into this aspect of food justice may seem “unnessecary” to some, but if patterns are repeated, they may have similar causes and lead to similar solutions. 

Having a higher profit being more important than the public’s needs shows just how corrupted the system is. This concept of neoliberalism and the support of it by governments somewhat blocks the food justice movement. It instead continues to intensify many of the issues within our food system. Something that really stuck with me from this reading was that the BFPI uses community gardens and access to healthy foods as a tactic to draw in more people and “improve the city's image”. In my eyes, this is very manipulative. Carrying this narrative that they care about their residents, when at the root they just want more money.

This specific situation reminds me of greenwashing, which happens when companies want to appeal to consumers that try to live more sustainably. They trick consumers into believing that their product is sustainable, meanwhile it has no actual benefit to the environment. Sometimes these products will be labeled as “natural” or “organic”, when it’s not authentically either of those things. It’s another way to “improve the image” of these companies. It’s very disappointing to learn about topics like this because it just continues to show how companies and governments (at least in the U.S.) continue to value money over their own people.

Municipal Governments - Thoughts

  When talking about food justice, we often picture non-profits distributing boxes of food or community gardens. However, Megan Horst challenges readers to look past this idea. Should municipal governments actually want to achieve food justice, they should stop treating food as a health initiative or a hobby and begin treating it as a battlefield for civil rights. 

    The central argument in the article is that many cities in the United States often default to what is easy to obtain rather than what is just. Urban food projects often benefit the propertied class either accidentally or intentionally. This occurs when a high-end grocery store is subsidized in a food desert which prices out many minority residents that the project was supposed to help. Without a radical orientation, municipal planning ends up being just another tool for displacement. 

The article highlights the five contours of food justice. In order for a city to have reached an appropriate level they must address inequity/trauma, exchange, land, labor, and democratic process. Hort’s analysis demonstrated that many cities are getting good at demonstrating equity but often fail when they get to the land and labor parts. It is easy for a council to pass an action plan but much more difficult to pass laws that will take valuable real estate off of the private market or protect farmworker’s rights. This causes the municipal government to become stuck. They are often operating within a capitalist framework that prioritizes economic growth over human dignity. We are given tons of alternatives, such as farmers markets that are just the status quo dressed up. 

A lot of food plans are just fancy gardening clubs without the land reparations of minimum wage conversations. The municipal governments need to pull it together and begin planning a food system that doesn’t just focus on profit but serves the people.

Food justice and municipal government in the USA

Horst’s article looks at how local governments in the United States work to improve food justice, focusing on two examples in Washington State: the Puget Sound Regional Food Policy Council and the City of Seattle. The main point is that food justice is more than just making food available—it also deals with deeper issues like inequality, power, and how the food system is set up.

The article explains that food injustice is closely linked to race, class, and money. People with low incomes and communities of color often have less access to healthy food. At the same time, workers in the food industry face low pay and tough working conditions. To explain these problems, Horst looks at five key areas: inequity and trauma, land, labor, exchange, and democratic participation. These areas show that food systems are connected to bigger social and economic issues.

Both examples show that local governments are trying to make a difference. Seattle, for instance, has taken action by funding food programs, supporting community gardens, and helping people access healthier foods. The regional council focuses more on creating policies and encouraging collaboration. These efforts show that cities can play a role in improving food systems, especially by making food more available and involving communities in decision-making.

However, the article also points out big challenges. Local governments often do not have enough money, staff, or authority to fully fix food injustice. Many programs only focus on giving people food instead of solving bigger problems like poverty or systemic racism. Political issues also make it hard to push for major changes, such as better labor conditions or alternatives to profit-focused food systems. Sometimes, programs even end up supporting existing inequalities, like favoring corporate food businesses over local communities.

Overall, Horst argues that local governments are important in fighting for food justice, but they cannot fix everything by themselves. Larger changes from state and national governments, as well as changes in the economic system, are needed for real progress.

In my view, the article does a good job showing both what cities can do and what they cannot. I agree that programs in Seattle can really help communities. But focusing only on local solutions is not enough. Problems like low wages, inequality, and land access are too big for cities alone. I also think educating people about food justice is important, because understanding the issues could lead to stronger support for lasting change.

Food Justice & Municipal Government in the US

 Horst promotes ideas for addressing food justice through municipal governments in the United States. Sighting two examples in Washington State. These highlighted government agencies are the Puget Sound Regional Policy Council (PSRFPC) and the city of Seattle.

Findings show that food justice and food insecurity contains inherit issues related to race, low wages, undesirable working conditions. These are compounded race and class inequities in food distribution and consumption. The need for municipal government involvement creating democratic participation in our food system planning, Strategic processes to promote non-capitalism alternatives, that exclude current neoliberalism practices.  Observations hit five key points, Trauma & Inequity, Land, Labor, Exchange & Democratic Process.

Combating for food justice are the need for fair labor practices for the food industry (better wages and working conditions). Expanding food exchanges for better and open markets with better procurement opportunities. A better government supported for the under privileged voices to be heard. 

Horst presents flaws in the municipal efforts that hinder progress.  Municipal authority is limited in its ability to address all food justice episodes. Limited resources such as staff. Political views that prioritize progress over equity.  Attention to rooted racial & economic inequities.  Committing to real change and not just rhetoric.

The article correctly stated the need for municipal planning as pinion for addressing food justice. Though we cannot place all our expectations in government municipal as the sole solution for food injustice. I would like to see more public education on solving food injustice and advertise like we would a quality money producing product.

Whiteness and Farmers Markets

 One idea that stood out to me in the article by Alison Hope Alkon and Christie Grace McCullen is that farmers markets can unintentionally feel like white spaces. The authors explain that this is not only about who attends the markets, but also about the values and cultures represented. Many farmers markets focus on organic food and supporting small local farmers. While this is often seen as positive, this tends to reflect white middle class culture and is also seen in the language used when talking about “buying locally from farmers” which romaticizes the white middle class life of being able to decide what you spend your money on and affording a couple dollars extra per item from a framers market. Because of this, the foods being sold and the conversations happening at the markets may not reflect the food traditions or priorities of many communities of color. This can make some people feel out of place even if the market is technically open to everyone. Another important point the article raises is the role of cost and access. Farmers market products are often more expensive than food at grocery stores, which means they tend to attract shoppers who have the time and money to prioritize local or organic food. This can limit who is able to participate in these spaces. This article made me realize things that are thought to be good for the environment in regenerative practices can hurt communities and marginalized groups as a result of racism. 

 

Pervasive Whiteness in Farmers Markets

 Allison Alkon and Christie McCullen's paper "Whiteness and Farmer's Markets: Performance, Perpetuations... Contestations?" goes to explore the whiteness that perforates farmers markets in the united States, particularly using two farmers markets in California as their means of gathering data and seeing how similar/different these markets can be and how consciously or unconsciously racist they are. The first market being examined is called "The Davis Farmer's Market" and initial descriptions seem to allude that the market focuses on organic and conventional products with political and activist groups on one end and food vendors at the other. It is also noted that the surrounding demographic is majority white and Asian while minority groups make up less than nine percent of the demographic. North Berkely, the other market being examined seems to operate in a similar manner with the overwhelming majority of the demographic in the are being upper middle-class whites. These markets exhibit subtle racial tendencies with white farm owners operating the market stalls, claiming to be the sole growers of the food. The truth however seems to be far from that statement as minority groups typically work the farms that these white farmers own. This dynamic creates a strict racial divide and keeps minorities down. 

    I'm sure this isn't only applicable to California and many farmers markets all over the country operate in a similar manner, however I don't believe all operate in this fashion. From what I can gather, the white takeover of the culture of farmers markets seems to mostly infect affluent or well off urban or suburban areas that support a farmer's market. Rural areas (at least from what I've experienced) that are more economically blended tend to exhibit a mixed culture in their farmer's markets and aren't necessarily dominated by white people and culture, granted, this is based on personal experiences with farmer's markets that I've been to and worked at. This may just seem to be the case on the surface and there may be racial division in a more subtle manner that requires more scrutiny to unearth.