Editorial: Alternative food networks for sustainable, just, resilient and productive food systems

Editorial on the Research Topic
Alternative food networks for sustainable, just, resilient and productive food systems

The current globalized agri-food system model is increasingly recognized as unsustainable, as it undermines environmental health, social equity, and food security, as well as local food cultures and economies (Lähde et al., 2023). There is growing consensus around the need for a radical transformation of agri-food systems to increase their sustainability and resilience (McGreevy et al., 2022). Alternative food networks (AFNs) can contribute to building sustainable, just, resilient and productive food systems by incorporating local, indigenous and innovative knowledge and bringing together a diversity of actors to connect food production and consumption and create new practices and relationships around food. Despite an increase of AFNs globally, however, they remain a niche, and scientific evidence of their performance is still limited.

To address this gap, this Research Topic features 14 articles (see Table 1) that explore a broad range of AFNs, providing evidence from real-world case studies on their performance, operationalization, challenges, opportunities, and ultimately their potential for food system transformation. The investigated AFNs include local food buying clubs (Benedek), an island-based AFN (Black), alternative wine networks (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.), fresh stop markets (Denton et al.), multi-actor networks connecting food actors with local administration (Martens et al.), student-run campus food systems alternatives (CFSA) (Deskin and Harvey), community-supported agriculture (Egli et al.; Stehrenberger and Schneider; Verfuerth et al.; Middendorf and Rommel), the teikei system in Japan (Kondo et al.), networks representing indigenous and peasant communities (Maysels et al.), charitable AFNs such as food banks and a community food market (Nayak and Hartwell), and a direct food purchasing network (Ušča and Tisenkopfs).

Table 1

Table 1. Overview on the articles included in the Research Topic.

Major findings

The articles in the Research Topic highlight AFNs' contribution to transformation processes that occur on an individual, community and system level. Most articles point to the potential of AFNs for social transformation around food production and consumption, mainly by building social relations. AFNs create connections between producers and consumers (Stehrenberger and Schneider; Verfuerth et al.) that are often long-lasting (Kondo et al.), contribute to community-building (Benedek; Nayak and Hartwell; Stehrenberger and Schneider; Black) and create mutual solidarity and responsibility between the actors involved (Kondo et al.; Ušča and Tisenkopfs).

Furthermore, being involved in AFNs can connect people with traditional culture and knowledge (Black), contributing to its preservation (Maysels et al.). The connection with the region where food is grown is also often emphasized (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.; Verfuerth et al.; Black), implying opportunities for place-based transformation (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.).

AFNs also develop strategies and offer spaces to empower their members, supporting active food citizenship (Stehrenberger and Schneider; Kondo et al.). These strategies include transformative learning experiences (Deskin and Harvey), knowledge-sharing (Nayak and Hartwell), consumers contributing their skills (Nayak and Hartwell), educational programs for farmers (Denton et al.), but also learning that naturally occurs during participation, e.g., increased knowledge about food seasonality (Verfuerth et al.).

Empowerment can also be created through inclusionary measures. Although some initiatives may not reach low-income people (Egli et al.; Kondo et al.), other AFN models are more successful in strengthening food security (Nayak and Hartwell; Verfuerth et al.), food justice (Deskin and Harvey), and solidarity (Stehrenberger and Schneider; Verfuerth et al.). The local food clubs studied by Benedek successfully involved many low-income members, and Nayak and Hartwell show that community food markets can complement food banks and are a dignified way for marginalized people to gain access to food. The participation in CFSA and distributing produce at a local food security initiative increased the awareness of food injustice and motivated participants to increase accessibility to CFSA (Deskin and Harvey). Farmers also increased food security by raising solidarity funds or cooperating with local food charity partners (Verfuerth et al.).

While most transformation processes occur on an individual or community level, which can in itself be a leverage point for change (Deskin and Harvey), several authors reported beginnings of broader systemic change. Some AFNs can be considered grassroots movements actively challenging hegemonic structures (Maysels et al.). In some cases, farmers were motivated to invest necessary resources to redesign local food supply chains despite varying capacities (Martens et al.). Using organic and biodynamic production approaches also contributes to the sustainability and resilience of agri-food systems (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.), and from an ecological perspective such approaches often outperform reference systems (Egli et al.). AFNs also proved their resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, being able to quickly adapt to disruptions and changing consumer needs (Ušča and Tisenkopfs). Results on the economic performance of AFNs such as CSA are still limited, but existing evidence indicates a high economic viability supporting a spread of these models and their transformative impact (Egli et al.). Unlike the existing system, AFNs distribute capital instead of concentrating it, benefiting farmers instead of multinational companies (Benedek) and fostering local economic development (Nayak and Hartwell).

At the same time, even within one AFN model, such as CSA, there is a broad spectrum of typologies attracting consumers with different needs. This shows that AFNs are not homogeneous and still have potential to scale out and up and reach consumers with different needs (Middendorf and Rommel). The impact of AFNs is strengthened by coordinated action and networking (Benedek; Verfuerth et al.; Kondo et al.), e.g., with institutional actors: Martens et al. highlight the positive impact of local politicians promoting and legitimizing AFNs in their municipalities.

To drive food system transformation, however, AFNs must overcome several barriers. A common challenge is a lack of resources (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.), including limited access to funding programs (Egli et al.), educational opportunities for farmers (Denton et al.), and shortages of time, labor, and capital (Maysels et al.). Different obstacles also prevent farmers transitioning from conventional to alternative farming approaches, for example because they do not see sufficient potential in alternative ways of farming (Benedek) or feel unable to change their marketing strategies for reasons of age (Denton et al.). New entrant farmers and agricultural successors are often discouraged to (keep) working in agriculture because of the negative image of farming (Black). Furthermore, AFN actors often cannot fully escape market dynamics (Martens et al.; Maysels et al.), which forces them to act against their values to survive economically (Maysels et al.).

Finally, a lack of community engagement can prevent the success of AFNs (Benedek). If members do not actively participate, they are less likely to develop a sense of responsibility toward their AFN and more likely to leave (Stehrenberger and Schneider). The high dependence on volunteer labor, especially of women, can also lead to burnout (Benedek; Kondo et al.). Overall, there seems to be a trade-off between adjusting AFN practices to consumers' needs and maintaining AFNs original values. While a high effort to participate and a lack of convenience causes members to drop out (Verfuerth et al.), putting more emphasis on consumers' convenience may dilute the social movement orientation of some AFNs (Kondo et al.).

Conclusions

This Research Topic illustrates the broad variety of AFN models and their different approaches to fostering sustainable, resilient, and equitable food systems through local, indigenous, and innovative practices that build strong connections between producers and consumers. Taken together, these efforts highlight an array of strategies that can be mobilized to scale AFNs out and up and, ultimately, build more sustainable and resilient alternative food systems. When scaling, however, AFNs face various challenges within the dominant food system. Overcoming these barriers requires coordinated efforts among diverse stakeholders, better access to resources, and community and institutional support. Even more importantly, however, it requires a shift in discourse from achieving sustainability through incremental change and techno-centric solutions toward a transformational paradigm that centers principles such as sufficiency, regeneration, fair distribution, commoning, and care (McGreevy et al., 2022). The AFNs described in this Research Topic offer a promising starting point. Key priorities for future research will be to assess their effectiveness according to these principles, and to identify successful strategies for expanding these models and transferring them between different contexts.

Author contributions

FZ: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. SZ: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. LE: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. JV-V: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 21K20068 (SZ) and co-financed with tax funds on the basis of the budget passed by the Saxon State Parliament Grant Number 100595134 (LE).

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to all reviewers for their expertise and thoughtful feedback, which greatly contributed to the quality of this Research Topic. We thank María-José Ibarrola-Rivas for her support in the preparation of this Research Topic.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Lähde, V., Vadén, T., Toivanen, T., Järvensivu, P., and Eronen, J. (2023). The crises inherent in the success of the global food system. Ecol. Soc. 28:art16. doi: 10.5751/ES-14624-280416

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McGreevy, S. R., Rupprecht, C. D. D., Niles, D., Wiek, A., Carolan, M., Kallis, G., et al. (2022). Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nat. Sustain. 5, 1011–1017. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar