Navigating the politics and processes of food systems transformation: guidance from a holistic framework

The call for transforming food systems from their current unsustainable trajectories toward more desirable, healthy, sustainable, resilient, and equitable outcomes has received unprecedented echoes recently—particularly following the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. But lack of guidance on how to do so in a comprehensive and integrated manner has left many actors uncertain, skeptical, or even low-spirited about the prospects of delivering such an ambitious task. Through this work, we argue that food systems transformation is not an impossible goal to aspire for; however, whether we achieve any form of transformation is essentially down to how food systems politics are enacted. Politics, we posit, is at the center of creating and maintaining current unsustainable food system trajectories and will also be crucial in guiding change processes toward sustainable goals. In this paper, we explore this argument through a conceptual framework. The framework, which is relevant for both high and lower-income countries, integrates multiple perspectives and practical experiences on transition, transformation and politics to propose a holistic diagnostic and prescriptive tool for food systems transformation. Three critical lessons emerge from this: first, the transformation (of food systems) must be normative, deliberate and goal-oriented—as opposed to driven by technological innovations; second, the process must account for, integrate, and build on the multi-dimensional and multi-procedural nature of the politics that drive (or resist) changes; and third, the transformation needs to build on a strong driving environment, one that transforms not just food systems but also their governance.

1 Introduction

Food systems transformation—increasingly understood as purposive and normative changes that improve food systems processes and outcomes (Béné, 2022; Eliasson et al., 2022)—has become a buzzword in food literature and the global development community. From earlier expert reports (IPES-Food, 2016; HLPE, 2017) to the official 2021 UN Food System Summit (UNFSS) (Kalibata, 2021), the urgent and global need to redirect what scholars have described as a broken, dysfunctional and unsustainable system (Lartey et al., 2018; Baker et al., 2021; Fanzo et al., 2021) toward alternatives that deliver resilience, equity, health, and sustainable outcomes is now commonly stressed (Webb et al., 2020; Fanzo et al., 2021; Béné and Devereux, 2023).

Arguably, a positive consequence of the drive for transformations is the enhanced visibility of the issue, which is partly evident in actors’ contemplation on how to guide the process purposively. From specific actions (Elechi et al., 2022), to policy bundles (Barrett et al., 2022), search for pathways (Dentoni et al., 2017), or even paradigm shifts (Ruben et al., 2021; Sandhu, 2021), scholars are scrabbling with many propositions. From reducing meat intake (Rust et al., 2020) to the structural reconstitution of governance arrangements (Garnett, 2013; Fraser et al., 2016), there are many proposed “solutions” to redirect food systems toward more sustainable outcomes. We do not intend to produce an exhaustive review of these here. Instead, we observe that these propositions, although wide and diverse, collectively express the need for restructuring how actions, decision-making, and relationships in the current food systems are constituted and performed (De Schutter, 2017; Ruben et al., 2021). The breadth and diversity of these propositions also foreshadow the inevitable necessity for negotiating competing and potentially conflicting “means to the desired end” (Oliver et al., 2018; Duncan et al., 2022).

In parallel to the calls for food system transformations, discussions around “the politics of food system transformation” are gaining attention (Swinburn, 2019; Leach et al., 2020; Sodano and Gorgitano, 2022). The crust of this scholarship is that disagreements and competitions –over ideas, facts, interests, values, and desired outcomes– are inherent to the process of food systems transformation. As Pelling (2010) and others put it, true transformation cannot occur without contention of the underlying social, political, and economic arrangements that had created and maintained the existing status quo. These scholars urged us, therefore, to embrace politics to unpack how transformations may occur or not (De Schutter, 2017; Béné et al., 2020; Leach et al., 2020). This nascent literature remains, however, fragmented and underdeveloped (Oliver et al., 2018), or even sometimes, ignored, hindering the potential to offer clear guidance on how politics can be leveraged for food system transformation. In essence, despite the calls to improve political processes for the prospects of positive outcomes (Gillespie et al., 2013; De Schutter, 2017; Oliver et al., 2018), there is little guidance on what steps to follow. Aware of this critical gap, this paper proposes a holistic framework that aims to structure the literature on the politics of food systems transformation to provide coherent direction on delivering the preferred transformation.

To build this framework, we propose to draw on two well-established frames—the Multi-level Perspectives of transition (MLP) (Geels, 2002; Geels and Schot, 2007) and the framework for the creation of an Enabling Environment for Accelerated Undernutrition Reduction (henceforth FEEU) (Gillespie et al., 2013). We supplement those with an in-depth thematic review of political actions and practices that have been or are being used to transform food systems. We approach this review from a holistic perspective, drawing on transformation-relevant processes rooted in the traditional political economy analysis of structural issues and power dynamics (IPES-Food, 2017; Leach et al., 2020), complemented by more sociological locations of politics/power as embedded in discursive practices (Hinton, 2022), technological innovations (Hutter and Lawrence, 2021), knowledge (Szanton, 2004), and consumption choices (Boström and Micheletti, 2019). As such, the review is non-exhaustive but thorough (1,011 documents identified through Web of Science and Google Scholar were initially reviewed after searching with keywords corresponding to the Framework’s themes). After further review of their abstracts, 586 of these documents were considered relevant and thus included in a full-text review. Nvivo^® for MAC (Release 1.7.8) was then used to code and categorize these 586 documents according to generic (broad) academic theories (post-structuralism, power, discursive practices, political knowledge, etc.). The papers cited in this review were eventually those considered the most relevant and/or illustrative (either conceptually or pragmatically) of these different fields and the themes of the Framework. We acknowledge the interpretive nature of the exercise (Bhattacherjee, 2012).

The outcome of the review is a two-dimension framework combining domains of politics with processes of transformation, which, together, outline how temporal configurations of political actions could be leveraged to overcome persistent unsustainable regime trajectories and drive food systems toward more normative transformative goals.

As such, the framework is mainly conceptual, fulfilling two distinct but related functions: a prescriptive function and, ensuing from it, a diagnosis function. As a prescriptive tool, the framework outlines the practices and political choices that should be considered across the domains and processes to effectively transform food systems toward normative, desirable outcomes. The diagnosis element results from the fact that the political domains and processes that structure the framework also provide benchmarks against which changes (or lack thereof) in countries’ policies and interventions can be assessed. As such, the framework can be used to understand past transformation processes and explain why new ideas, institutions, innovations, and narratives fail to emerge or be scaled up.

Three critical lessons emerge from this work. First, the framework demonstrates the need for stronger normativity and goal orientation in the process of food system transformation to guide food systems toward more sustainable outcomes. Second, the framework makes evident the multi-dimensionality of food system transformation, arguing for actions to move beyond technological solutions and account for more political processes, including political economy around actors and knowledge, issues of capacities and resources, and the critical role of cultural norms and consumer behaviors. Third, through the different roles played by various actors at different stages of the process, the framework also highlights how the politics of food systems could create the driving environment needed for a “great food transformation to happen” (Béné, 2022).

2 The foundational frameworks

The first framework we draw from is the MLP, a hybrid analytical framework between evolutionary approaches and interpretivism that theorizes and explains patterns of long-term change in socio-technical systems (Rip and Kemp, 1998; Geels, 2002). The MLP, which aims to explain how (technological) transitions come about, takes a systems-based approach to understanding and analyzing large-scale, socio-technical transitions (El Bilali, 2020). It conceptualizes those transitions as “result[ing] from the interplay of developments at three analytical levels: niches (the locus for radical innovations and alternatives), dominant regimes (the locus of established practices and associated rules that stabilize existing systems), and an exogenous landscape” (Geels, 2011, p. 27).

In the MLP, transitions involve four critical processes: (1) Innovations that may take the form of new technologies, practices, configurations of actor groups, beliefs and values, networks, or policies, created in the niches (Darnhofer, 2015). (2) These innovations gain momentum through learning and performance, drawing support from influential actor groups. (3) At the landscape level, pressure is exercised on the existing regime, destabilizing its business-as-usual practices to create windows of opportunity for innovations to emerge. (4) The destabilization allows new alignments that facilitate the breakthrough of novelties into the regime (Geels and Schot, 2007). Transitions occur with shifts from one socio-technical regime to another (Hölscher et al., 2018). However, such changes are mostly incremental and path-dependent and subject to lock-in mechanisms seeking to maintain old regimes in place. Those are often driven by power structures and vested interests (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016; Conti et al., 2021).

The MLP has gained significant and mixed interests in several scholarly fields—especially in the energy and transport domains (Bergh and Bruinsma, 2008; Araújo, 2014)– as a heuristic to describe and guide sustainability transitions. Although it also appears to be increasingly prominent among agri-food scholars, several researchers question its real utility in analyzing agri-food sector transformation (e.g., El Bilali, 2019). We do not wish to revisit these discussions (see, e.g., Geels, 2011; Lawhon and Murphy, 2012), but we add our voices to them. First, while we appreciate MLP’s insights for food scholarship and practice (Hinrichs, 2014), we also raise the question of whether a framework developed for other sectors can fully capture the many unique specificities of food systems (HLPE, 2017; Baker et al., 2021). Second, − and perhaps more fundamentally—the random nature that characterizes MLP transitions –as opposed to normativity– may not be the best fit for analyzing the radical and goal-directed change that the unprecedented challenges of food systems require (Béné, 2022). These dynamics in agri-food systems and the need for a normativity of change motivate us to enrich the MLP to cater to food system-specific needs.

Hence, we complemented the MLP analysis with the FEEU framework. The FEEU differs from the MLP in two major ways. First, contrary to the conceptual/theoretical nature of the MLP, the FEEU is a practice-informed framework developed from the experiences of practitioners working on reducing undernutrition worldwide (Gillespie et al., 2013). It stipulates that an enabling environment, that is, “the policy and policy processes that build and sustain momentum for the effective implementation of actions that reduce undernutrition” (Gillespie et al., 2013, p. 553), is critical. This enabling environment, according to FEEU, can be crafted through political actions embedded in three linked domains: (i) knowledge and evidence, (ii) politics and governance, and (iii) capacity and resources, across two stages: the creation and sustaining of momentum; followed by the conversion of the momentum into results. Second, unlike the MLP, the FEEU suggests that calculated political processes at the intersections of broad economic, political, environmental, social, and cultural contexts can deliver the normative goal of reduced undernutrition (Smith and Haddad, 2015). Hence, it posits politics and deliberate actors’ actions (as opposed to random innovation) as the central element to enacting change that meets societal goals –see also Béné et al. (2020). Although the FEEU focuses on undernutrition, it is believed to have applicability for other food systems goals (Gillespie et al., 2013), and researchers have drawn on its framing to foreground undernutrition reduction and other nutrition goals (see Gillespie et al., 2015; Hunter et al., 2016). What is evident in the later engagements with FEEU is that it does hold some prospects to positively influence nutrition outcomes and, possibly, other food system goals if practicalized.

However, the FEEU, like any other framework, is limited in multiple ways. Nisbett et al. (2014) acknowledged that the FEEU’s three domains of politics do not effectively consider how critical issues such as power, social accountability, and the role of political narrative affect enabling environments. Meanwhile, understanding these issues would be critical in exploring the structures and processes of food systems (McNeill, 2019; Swinburn, 2019). Likewise, the FEEU does not explicitly address potential political processes that may resist changes, neither the management of trade-offs nor the need for prioritization, which, as we will show through the proposed framework below, are not just necessary but critical to achieve desired food systems outcomes. Essentially, despite the current practical relevance of the FEEU evidenced by the various applications (Hunter et al., 2016), the framework would benefit from the extension to other aspects of politics and particular attention to specific processes like identifying potential resistance to change. Finally, beyond the need for such extensions, we also argue that a framework with nutrition as the underlying core goal may not be optimal for tackling the transformation of the whole food system(s) and delivering the multiple, sometimes conflicting outcomes that are known to characterize such systems beyond nutrition.

3 A holistic framework of politics and processes for food systems transformation

Building on the strengths and complementarities of the MLP and FEEU frameworks but acknowledging their limitations, we develop a holistic framework. While introducing the framework, we stress that using the word holistic is intentional as we consider food systems transformation achievable only through a systemic approach to change. It is also holistic in that it considers the interactions between the different politics and areas of food systems actions discussed in the literature and combines them into one framework.

Table 1 summarizes the different elements of the framework while the paragraphs below provide a more detailed description. The elements of the framework are structured into two dimensions – later organized into the two main axes of the framework– a vertical axis, distinguishing the different domains of politics, and a horizontal axis, considering the different processes of transformation.

Table 1

Table 1. The different political domains and processes involved in food system transformation.

3.1 Domains of food system politics

The domains of food systems politics describe the different spaces of (a)political activities within which actions of resistance and mechanisms that break barriers/locks-in and propel systematic transformation take place. These different domains are informed by the pluralistic and multi-dimensionality of politics identified across the scholarships (Anderson M. et al., 2019; Leach et al., 2020). We identified four domains where (anti)political processes define food systems dynamics.

3.1.1 First domain: powers, discourses, and knowledge

Politics within this first domain is mainly established within political economy scholarship, where food systems change (or no-change) is conceived to emanate from power dynamics embedded in instrumental, structural, and discursive forces (Clapp and Fuchs, 2009), reinforced by knowledge and science (De Schutter, 2017; Anderson and Leach, 2019; Duncan et al., 2019; Clark et al., 2021). Specifically, whether food systems change or not depends on the political negotiation of more profound struggles between actors (and their interests) (Harris et al., 2019), the interplay of socially and politically positioned knowledge and evidence (Tomlinson, 2013; Sodano and Gorgitano, 2022) and the structurally-determined rules of the game (Clapp, 2020).¹ Being probably the domain with the largest scholarly engagements, it offers valuable insights into how existing deeply embedded unsustainable structures have come to dominate and lock-in the system into its current trajectory but also how to leverage deep-rooted power dynamics to trigger transformations. However, as Duncan et al. (2019) and others (e.g., Béné and Lundy, 2023) have noted, this initial political-economic perspective needs to be complemented by other approaches acknowledging other forms of power and influence.

3.1.2 Second domain: culture, social norms, and behaviors

Food choices and behaviors, influenced by cultures and social norms (Higgs, 2015), can slow down social change. It can, however, also provide leverage for personal and collective reforms. Politics in this domain is understood in the context of socio-cultural struggles around change processes at individual and social/collective scales. Discussions of values and meanings of (food) actions in social practices (e.g., Spaargaren et al., 2011; Shove et al., 2012; Sargant, 2014) and increasingly, in poststructuralist informed political economy (Duncan et al., 2019) through works such as political consumerisms (Goodman and DuPuis, 2002; Lockie, 2002; Jacobsen and Dulsrud, 2007) makes these politics evident. Yet, issues of culture and norms, as Noack and Pouw (2015) argued, are still under-represented in the literature on food systems and, even when considered, are rarely viewed as political. This makes the inclusion of this domain (even more) imperative in order to extend the horizons and levers of food systems transformations.

3.1.3 Third domain: capacity and financial resources (of the public sector)

Several scholars in development, public administration and governance (Wu et al., 2015; Yee and Liu, 2021), and political economy (Gillespie et al., 2019) have emphasized the political elements of this domain; for example, the discussions of capacities and resources inadequacies, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)’ public administrations, have often been identified as a source of competition between public needs and priorities (e.g., food vs. energy) or between levels of public policy (national vs. sub-national), as well as between food systems sectors (e.g., health vs. education vs. agriculture) (Hampshire et al., 2004; Gillespie et al., 2013; Pereira and Drimie, 2016). The political dynamics in this domain, thus, essentially translate into how the different mixes of competencies (analytical, operational, and political) and capabilities, as well as resources, at individual, organizational, and systemic levels, enable or hinder the initiation of changes in practices and in mental models, to counter resistance and deliver desired food systems outcomes (Gillespie et al., 2013; Holt-Giménez, 2019).

3.1.4 Fourth domain: technological innovations

Technological innovations, described in varied literature as engine of (systems) change (Bear and Holloway, 2015; Khan et al., 2021), imbue competition and tensions between the new and the old, as well as between the multiple novelties vying for attention (Herrero et al., 2020). Some argue that “technologies” cannot be detached from what they do (Carolan, 2020, p. 209) and how they come into being (Béné, 2022; de Boon et al., 2022)—which is mainly political, propelling specific values at the expense of others, and ultimately resulting in the reshaping of power relations in food systems (Carolan, 2018; ETC Group, 2022). Through these and other mechanisms (e.g., lobbying), technological innovations are said to be ambiguous (Mialon et al., 2015): on the one hand, they have the potential to catalyze transformations (e.g., hybrid seeds and green revolution), but on the other hand, they are more often than not source of inertia (e.g., farmer capital investment in machinery limiting diversified production or defensive research and development) (ERF, 2008; Hendrickson and James, 2016). In this context, technological innovations emerge through diverse politics—making this space critical in navigating how to deliver transformations.

3.2 The processes of transformation (and political actions)

In addition to these four domains of politics, we posit that the trajectory of transformations in food systems must materialize over time through four distinct processes (or stages), as follows.

3.2.1 Process 1—identifying resistance to change in the current regime

The first process necessary in transforming food systems is identifying the resistance to change in the current food regime. Scholarships in political economy (De Schutter, 2017; Béné, 2022), socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2014; Anderson C. R. et al., 2019), and innovation theories (Friedman and Ormiston, 2022) have all highlighted resistance—the processes through which newness and change are restrained— as an integral element of food systems and their dynamics (Conti et al., 2021, see also Goldstein et al., 2023 for an extensive review across disciplines). The argument is that dominant incumbents and established institutions may have interests in maintaining and protecting the structures on which their current position and benefits depend (IPES-Food, 2017; Harris et al., 2019; IPES-Food, 2023). The inevitability of resistance and the challenges they pose to food systems sustainability efforts make their identification, understanding, and eventual unlocking, a critical step in the transformation process. In effect, challenging the status quo to overcome change-resisting biases of all forms is a prerequisite for transformation (Pelling et al., 2015; Carriedo et al., 2022; Duncan et al., 2022).

Given the critical position of resistance in transformation processes (Béné, 2022), food scholars have identified and discussed many specific examples relative to the global food systems (see Oliver et al., 2018; Conti et al., 2021; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022; Goldstein et al., 2023) and/or about specific topics within the system, such as the reduction in red meat consumption (Sievert et al., 2021; Béné and Lundy, 2023). Later in this paper, we will enrich these discussions by emphasizing some of these resistances as they emerge within the four political domains introduced above, showing in particular that these resistances can take many different forms of political (in)actions, and that those (in)actions are not confined to the political economy of corporations and governments but are, instead, widespread across the activities of diverse actors, including consumers and civil society.

3.2.2 Process 2— creating and maintaining a new momentum

After identifying and challenging resistances, the second process that needs to take place is creating and maintaining new momentum. Our use of the term momentum is deliberate, as the term is commonly used to describe a force or movement. So, we view momentum as the emergence of a force, power of new and alternative political actions, with the potential to challenge and impact existing regimes in ways that sow the seeds for transformation. Hence, drawing from socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2002; Bremmer and Bos, 2017) and alternative foods networks (Tregear, 2011), we describe new momentums as alternative narratives, innovations, changes in norms, behaviors, and/or institutional arrangements that bear politically different visions from the established regime/model/paradigm. Particularly, this stage is motivated by well-established concepts and processes of transitions/transformation, such as niches in the MLP (Schot and Geels, 2007; Bremmer and Bos, 2017) and the preparation phase of change described by Olsson et al. (2014) and Pereira et al. (2020). However, unlike niches that are novelties from lower levels and sheltered from the rigors of regime competition (Schot and Geels, 2007), new momentums take a systematic and fluid approach as we envision them to manifest across all domains and scales of food systems.

Critical in this process is visioning for alternatives and setting out a different direction for the system (Lam et al., 2022). At this stage, alternative visions, directions, and expectations that drive the trajectory of the food systems transformation are articulated and deliberately crafted into change actions (Lartey et al., 2018; Jia, 2021; Kugelberg et al., 2021). This sets the foundation for the explicit normativity that actors must pursue to deliver transformation. This is where the actual goals of transformation (for example, sustainable healthy diets) are fused into the emerging food systems by employing such visions as the indices for negotiating political actions.

3.2.3 Process 3—converting the new momentum into sustainable options

The third process is Converting the new momentum into sustainable options. We take inspiration from niche-regime linkages in MLP (Ingram, 2015; Bui et al., 2016; Lam et al., 2022), diffusion/adoption of innovations under transition dynamics (Silvestri G. et al., 2022), and the recruitment of practitioners in social practices (Shove and Pantzar, 2005; Shove et al., 2012) to describe this stage where the emerging alternative momentum becomes mainstream and replaces the unsustainable dominant practices and structures. It is thus at this stage that the alternative framings, technologies, behaviors and norms, and capacity arrangements created in the prior stage are institutionalized as sustainable options from which potential takers can choose. Converting new momentum into these diffusible and followable prospects involves enlarging, replicating, and moving alternatives into available political opportunities in the broader system for others to follow (Prost, 2019).

However, as Aramyan et al. (2021) argue, motivation alone is not enough to make niches become the norm, in our case, to turn alternatives into sustainable regime options. For this to happen, several conditions need to be fulfilled. In particular, translating framings and agendas into implementable policies is considered central (Kanter et al., 2016; Milat and Li, 2017; Ajates Gonzalez et al., 2018). This involves using policy and policy instruments to institutionalize sustainable alternatives (Tummers, 2019). It also entails turning those alternative narratives into actionable activities (Ajates Gonzalez et al., 2018; European Commission, 2021) and drawing the right external partners and followers to ensure these alternatives become the new standard (Aramyan et al., 2021). In the end, new visions and outcomes must be acceptable to potential takers (Shove and Pantzar, 2005; Shove and Walker, 2014) to draw transformation-worthy engagements.

3.2.4 Process 4—managing trade-offs, reducing incoherence, and prioritizing actions

Finally, cross-cutting the three already outlined processes is managing trade-offs, reducing incoherence, and prioritizing actions. Trade-offs refer here to situations where improvement in one aspect/dimension of the food system or the implementation of one action/policy is associated with decline, losses or limitation in a different aspect/dimension (cf. IPES-Food, 2017). Thus, we draw from (food) systems perspectives (Horton et al., 2017; Mausch et al., 2020) to describe this stage as systematically assessing actions and policies to minimize contradictions and maximize co-benefits in processes and outcomes (HLPE, 2017; Vågsholm et al., 2020; Jagustovic et al., 2021). This stage also involves temporal choices to ensure enhanced long-term actions and outcomes while minimizing unavoidable negative short-term consequences (Gillespie et al., 2013; Ssebunya et al., 2017).

Empirical data indicate that the many complexities of food systems –including competing issues, objectives, goals, and potential outcomes– make those trade-offs and prioritization critical to transformation processes. In this context, some scholars have argued that trade-offs need to be intentionally addressed for true sustainability to occur because diversity in complex systems inherently creates competition (Horton et al., 2017; Herrero et al., 2020; Barrett et al., 2022) or even conflicts (Galli et al., 2018; Bojić et al., 2022). Ultimately, every (in)action results in winners and losers, which must be managed to ensure the least resistance possible in change processes.

In sum, whether in relation to the resistance to change or in establishing alternative(s) leading to new outcomes, trade-offs occur in every food system (in)action and at every stage of the transformation process.

4 A comprehensive view of the political economy of food system transformation

In this section, the literature discussing different aspects of food system transformation is reviewed. While a substantial number of papers were considered, we limit the review to the most relevant ones that speak to the themes of the Framework. In completing the exercise, we intend to show how the framework provides a comprehensive and cohesive overview of the politics and processes to be considered when engaging in food system transformation. The framework and the key findings emerging from the review are synthesized in Tables 2 and 3. Italics phrases in the text refer to specific elements of the framework.

Table 2

Table 2. Holistic framework of food system transformation with detailed elements populating the four domains and first three processes.

Table 3

Table 3. Detailed elements of the fourth process of the framework: managing trade-offs, reducing incoherence, and prioritizing actions.

4.1 Identifying resistance to change in the current regime

4.1.1 Resistance in the domain of powers, discourses, and knowledge

Several sources of resistance to food system transformation related to Powers, discourses and knowledge (top-left part in the framework) can be found in the literature.

Concentration and domination by the “big corporate”—Widely discussed by political economy scholars, the influence of powerful corporate actors is at the heart of the opposition to food system reforms. “Big Food” and “Big Ag,” as they are commonly called, are influential actors who wield enormous powers in their respective segments of the food system (Stuckler and Nestle, 2012; Bronson and Sengers, 2022). Along with new-comers such as technology companies (Microsoft, Google, etc.), they exert tremendous control over the food systems through digital innovations (Abdulai, 2022; ETC Group, 2022), financialization, and capitalization (Clapp, 2014) – often at the detriment of local/indigenous communities (Lugo-Morin, 2020). Meanwhile, recent analyses reveal that the level of concentration in the agro-industry has reached some unprecedented levels: four firms controlled half of global commercial seeds, six companies controlled 58% of seed markets, four firms controlled 68% of the agrochemical market, and three companies controlled about 100% of commercial poultry genetics worldwide (ETC Group, 2022). While classical economists consider concentration positively as it is (theoretically) expected to facilitate economies of scale (Bain, 1954; Gale and Branch, 1982), empirical evidence demonstrate that, on the contrary, high concentration in a sector tends to be associated with lower levels of innovation and competition (US Federal Trade Commission, 2003; ERF, 2008).

Current/dominant regime coalitions’ discourses—Closely linked to this concentration of resources and reinforcing it are specific discourses and narratives adopted by incumbent actors to legitimize their strategies and/or deny outsiders’ entrance into the sector (IPES-Food, 2023). For instance, in addition to various forms of discourses aiming at compartmentalizing food system problems into simplistic or reductionist approaches encouraging quick fixes and technological solutions (Anderson C. R. et al., 2019; ETC Group, 2022), other strategies include alarmist discourses framed around population growth, hunger, and climate change. These powerful stories around the imperative need to “feed the world” solidify a singular emphasis on productivity in favor of corporate-led, intensive systems (Tomlinson, 2013). More generally, through the promotion of concepts such as ecological modernization, climate-smart agriculture, or sustainable intensification, those discourses deflect attention away from indigenous knowledge and local communities’ roles in the future of food system (Lugo-Morin, 2020; Kuhnlein and Chotiboriboon, 2022), toward technocratic solutions where the broader social, cultural, political, and spatial dimensions of food and agriculture are removed or ignored (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Canfield et al., 2021a). Whether these are intentional or otherwise is still being debated, as some still view these approaches as good faith efforts to support change (Garnett and Godfray, 2012), while evidence, including lobbying practices (see below), suggests on the contrary that these discourses are more likely to be intentional than coincidental (Baker et al., 2020; Moodie et al., 2021; Schoneveld, 2022).

Lobbying, power of influence of incumbents—The third key source of resistance to change in the food system is the influence exercised by incumbents through their lobbying power—for instance, the fact that, between 2015 and 2016, US food corporations have spent at least $192.8 million to influence GMO labeling legislation, state-based referenda on GMO labeling laws, and other issues relating to consumer access to information (IPES-Food, 2017). Even though lobbying in itself is neither illegal nor necessarily leads to negative public policy (e.g., the Community Food Coalition in the US has successfully lobbied for food reforms on many occasions), in documenting the growing influence and profits of food corporations, Moodie et al. (2021) observe that more often than not corporate lobbying puts profits over public health, thus entrenching current unsustainable trajectories and preventing the emergence of disruptive, more sustainable or healthier alternatives.

Other key-elements contributing to resistance to change in the domain of power, discourses and knowledge are mentioned in Table 2. The first is the economic and political interests of governments. Even though some large food system actors are known to have huge negative externalities on the environment and/or human health, national or local governments may still support these actors simply because their activities contribute substantially to GDP, tax revenues, exports, or employment (Schneider, 2017; Winders and Ransom, 2019; Béné and Lundy, 2023). In the US, for example, agriculture, food, and related industries contributed roughly $1.264 trillion to the country’s GDP in 2021 (USDA, 2023).

Another source of resistance acknowledged in the literature is the influence of scientific paradigms and mainstream science often used to maintain or reinforce particular framing and agenda through what is referred to as instrumentalization of evidence, weak science and other forms of discursive practices (Mandrioli et al., 2016; Parkhurst, 2017; Béné and Lundy, 2023). In this regards, omission or exclusion of indigenous and local knowledge (Antonelli, 2023) or disregard of the role of informal actors such as street vendors (Kawarazuka et al., 2018), is frequent. In parallel, several recent analyses also discuss the dysfunctional policy-science interfaces (Sibanda and Mwamakamba, 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Hainzelin et al., 2023). Sievert et al. (2021) show, for instance, how, in Australia, evidence of the impact of red meat on the environment is continuously challenged as financial interests at the heart of decision-making take precedence over data from challenging science. In Vietnam, Béné et al. (2021) show how evidence and policy agenda are “distorted” toward particular issues (food safety) to the detriment of other longer-term structural trends, such as the rapid emergence of obesity in the urban population.

4.1.2 Resistance related to culture, social norms, and behavior

The second domain of the framework –Cultural norms, expectations, and individual values– widen the consideration beyond the “usual suspects” discussed above (governments, private sector and science) and redirects the attention to a fourth, less often considered in traditional political economy analysis, but equally important group of actors: the consumers. Through this Cultural norms, expectations, and individual values domain, the framework reminds us that consumer lifestyle, habitus, norms, and societal expectations can also create serious resistance to change and maintain production and consumption in unsustainable trajectories (Spaargaren et al., 2011; Shove et al., 2012; Sargant, 2014). These inertias generally result from people preferring to adhere to and follow accepted norms (DuPuis and Goodman, 2005; Berger, 2019), reproducing them even when they are deemed undesirable or harmful (Nyborg et al., 2016). The consumption of red meat is a case in point. Social, personal, and cultural values around eating meat, as shown in the case of Germany (Hübel and Schaltegger, 2022) and Scotland (Macdiarmid et al., 2016) and much of the Western world, continue to reproduce and support the perpetuation of red meat consumption. Amidst these cultural attachments, even the emergence of alternative proteins has not managed to slow down red meat consumption (Gravely and Fraser, 2018), which is projected to grow at least 14% by 2030 (compared to the 2018–2020 level) (OECD and FAO, 2021).

4.1.3 Resistance related to Capacity and financial resources

Next, in the list of barriers to change is the Capacity and financial resources domain, including the lack of public capacities and resources. The issues considered here are about how resource inadequacies can undermine the initation and execution of transformational changes, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Pereira and Drimie, 2016; Yee and Liu, 2021). Unsurprisingly, of the many capacity limitations discussed in these examples, financial constraints appear to receive considerable attention (HLPE, 2021). But, while the lack of financial resources is well acknowledged (Millan et al., 2019), poor and ineffective prioritization of actions is where another large part of the challenge lies. The amount of money channeled into harmful subsidies (OECD, 2021; Politico, 2022) demonstrates that resources are often available, but governments are not always effective in deciding the right actions to use them wisely.

The lack of capacities is not limited, however, to financial resources and the way they are allocated between and within ministries. Also challenging is the Lack of know-how in government institutions leading to a poor knowledge and conceptual understanding of what, when, and how to deliver transformation (Yee and Liu, 2021; Zerbian et al., 2022). From their experience in nutrition transition in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, Gillespie et al. (2019) noted, for instance, that the lack of understanding and knowledge of nutrition (as a multi-sectoral issue) is usually a crucial barrier to the prioritization of nutrition in LMICs.

4.1.4 Resistance related to technological innovations

Technological innovations domain refers to two important sources of resistance that are discussed in the literature. The first, and arguably one of the most debated sources of resistance, is the Technological path-dependencies and lock-ins (Oliver et al., 2018; Conti et al., 2021; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022; Goldstein et al., 2023). Drawing largely from dominant traditions in the socio-technical transitions, it is argued that, once established, technologies become entrenched, leading to the exclusion of competing views and practices, thus making the system “blind” to possible alternatives and keeping it moving on the established trajectory (Geels, 2014; Conti et al., 2021; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022). Path-dependency is often used to express that “history matters,” highlighting how “initial moves in one direction elicit further moves in that same direction,” thus elucidating why and how certain technologies manage to dominate markets despite being inefficient, harmful or unsustainable (IPES-Food, 2016; Friedman and Ormiston, 2022).

Absence of alternative technological solutions is the second element discussed in the literature in relation to the resistance of technological innovation to change. The explanation here is that the dominant regime, by using its power to suppress the creation or dissemination of alternative technologies, binds actors to existing options (Conti et al., 2021; Goldstein et al., 2023). Once a dominant technology is established, actors are compelled to use it –as Hübel and Schaltegger (2022) demonstrate in the case of Germany’s meat processing. We note, however, that while the absence of alternative technologies appears a legitimate claim in perpetuating unsustainable practices, resistance may lie in the lack of access to alternatives rather than their actual absence (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Holt-Giménez, 2019).

4.2 Creating and maintaining a new momentum

4.2.1 Creating a new momentum through powers, discourses, and knowledge

Central to the second stage of transformation (Creating a new momentum), are the Framing of the problem and the associated narratives of change (by and for the policymakers). These framings and narratives are what gives currency to the visions and actions that will have to be adopted to move us toward food systems sustainability (Garnett, 2013; Fraser et al., 2016). While it is important to embrace the plurality of pathways that may drive food systems toward broader sustainability goals (Leach et al., 2020; Duncan et al., 2022), this quest should not ignore the fact that choices will still have to be made on what root problem(s) to focus on and what narratives to amplify (Béné et al., 2019a). There is, therefore, a need for discussion and negotiation between these multiple framings, and policymakers have a critical role to play in the process along with other actors (Fanzo et al., 2021; Duncan et al., 2022). In that context, academic institutions, public bodies, civil society organizations, or independent entities can contribute to challenge dominant regimes by offering alternative framings and narratives (Klerkx and Begemann, 2020; IPES-Food, 2023).

Enabling and incentivizing positive contributions from the private sector—The second element in this process relates to the claim sometimes made that a successful transformation would not be possible without the active involvement of the private sector (see, e.g., FAO, 2019b; Folke et al., 2019; Kennedy et al., 2021). If this was the case, then, powerful steering and guarding mechanisms would still have to be institutionalized to keep these actors aligned with the vision of sustainability, as history has demonstrated that private sector’s self-regulation is more an ideology-driven myth than an actual, efficient, selfguarding tool (Sharma et al., 2010; Stuckler and Nestle, 2012; Ronit and Jensen, 2014; Kelly et al., 2019; Yates et al., 2021). Many would argue instead that more positive outcomes are to be expected through mandatory tools such as strict food environment regulations, food marketing controls, and the strict enforcement of food labeling and taxation of unsustainable foods and practices (Giner and Brooks, 2019; Ngqangashe and Friel, 2022). Sugar-sweetened beverages and nonessential energy-dense food taxes in Mexico, food labeling in Chile and Ecuador, and transfatty acids in Argentina are examples of such mandatory tools (Boza et al., 2017; Corvalán Aguilar et al., 2019; Carriedo et al., 2021), even if the ultimate effectiveness of those interventions remains to be demonstrated, as no evidence of obesity reduction and other targeted metrics have yet been firmly established (Haines, 2017) albeit changes in individual behavior are observed.

Generation of demand for evidence of effectiveness—Another integral element in the process of creating new momentum is to support (or to respond to) the demand for evidence of effectiveness. Evidence of effectiveness is derived from evidence-based policymaking, described as “the use of the best available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of programs, practices, and policies to guide the decision-making process” (Gies et al., 2020, p. 157). Demand for such evidence thus justifies sustainable alternatives by supporting them and ensuring that only actions and interventions that have the potential to lead to sustainability goals are pursued. In that context, the numerous demands expressed by governments and other key-actors in many countries for more food system data, dashboards and monitoring systems (Fanzo et al., 2020, 2021; HLPE, 2022; Béné et al., 2023) and for better understanding of what could constitute appropriate investments and interventions supporting the post-UNFSS process (e.g., Eliasson et al., 2022; Havemann et al., 2022; Herens et al., 2022) is an encouraging example of this dynamics.

Finally, the last two elements mentioned in this part of the framework are The need for horizontal coherence, and a clear Advocacy strategy to change agenda. The need (and the implementation) of horizontal coherence will be discussed in “Delivery of horizontal coherence” below. As for advocacy, the literature suggests that CSOs are often regarded as the most vocal detractors of the dominant paradigm (MacRae and Abergel, 2012), arguing for the democratization of the food systems (Hassanein, 2003; Andrée et al., 2019). Articulation of these alternative visions and associated framings are instrumental in challenging the neoliberal model underlying the current system (Dorninger et al., 2020; Friel, 2021; Duncan et al., 2022). For example, sustained civil society campaigns have led to a crackdown on junk food in countries like Chile, Mexico, or the UK (Carriedo et al., 2021); municipalities around the world are increasingly introducing local/sustainable procurement schemes; and local and national governments (most recently Canada) have established food councils and food policies (Mattioni et al., 2022). Deliberative dialogues, traditional crop and local seed management, and opposition to life patenting also got their start locally or nationally before migrating into regional and global campaigns (Mudigere Sannegowda and Garkoti, 2022).

4.2.2 Creating a new momentum through culture, social norms, and behavior

Raising consumer awareness through communication (see Lizie, 2012) is absolutely crucial in affecting behaviors and norms and in supporting newly created momentums (Freeland-Graves and Nitzke, 2002; Rowe, 2002). Diverse communication approaches can facilitate this (Parsons and Barling, 2021), including public information/campaigns, interpretive tools providing information in accessible ways (e.g., dietary guidelines), and labeling, such as front-of-pack traffic light labels (Vermeulen et al., 2020). Other available mediums include education provision and professional education interventions beyond schools (see Parsons and Barling, 2021). Communication through traditional channels (TV, radio, etc.), social media, inter-personal communication (home, school, peer, etc.), social support networks, and social mobilization through special events and community engagements have all been tested, especially within the nutrition field, with various degrees of success (Gillespie et al., 2013; White et al., 2016; Brouwer et al., 2021). In parallel, the engagement of consumers in alternative food systems, such as increased demand for agroecology practices or organic products in both high and lower-income countries, is attributed to impacts of awareness of critical food issues, such as environmental impacts and animal welfare (Bui et al., 2016; Schiller et al., 2020).

Building counter-narratives—There is no absence of counter-narratives to the neoliberal-driven productivist ideals (Leeuwis et al., 2021; Elechi et al., 2022). Food sovereignty, regenerative agriculture, and rights-based approach, which have been championed by organizations such as Via Campesina and other civil society entities or even the UN, are testaments of these emerging counter-narratives (Claeys, 2013; Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Anderson and Rivera-Ferre, 2021). These have certainly crept into food policy circles. More efforts are still needed, however, to create successful counter-narratives that can genuinely compete and, if possible, replace the dominant discourse in the long run (Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Anderson C.R. et al., 2019; Anderson M. et al., 2019). Some possible ways of achieving this are through continuous (evidence-based) advocacy around alternative narratives (see above) and consumer actions that demand transparency and accountability in the food systems (see below).

4.2.3 Creating a new momentum through capacity and financial resources

Leadership and championing—Multiple practical experiences have shown how leaderships across food systems can contribute to, or can be leveraged, for actions. In the case of maternal and child nutrition transition for instance, Gillespie et al. (2013) noted that all success stories of making visible progress toward desirable goals in countries such as Vietnam and Thailand had leadership at their cores. Similar national leadership and championing efforts were reported in several Latin American countries, including Brazil, Peru, or Chile, where one “campeón” was said to have contributed to healthy diets through the enactment of warning labels on healthy foods, restrictions on marketing to children, healthy school food policies and taxes on sugary drink (Swinburn, 2019; see also Corvalán Aguilar et al., 2019). Yet, despite the demonstrated role of championing and leadership, this aspect is one of the most overlooked pieces in food systems (Kang et al., 2022), and more research is needed, especially at the local level, where the outcomes of transformations become visible.

Systemic and strategic capacity building. Systemic capacities are the diverse skills, instincts, abilities, processes, and resources needed by (public sector) organizations to enhance the creation and maintenance of alternative food system actions, while strategic capacities are decision-making forums or multistakeholder platforms in which food systems discussions occur (Gillespie et al., 2013). The objective of capacity building is inherent in most development interventions in the developing world, where this challenge is more pressing (Morkel and Ramasobama, 2017; Masters et al., 2018; Babu, 2020). Although initiatives in these areas of systemic and strategic capacity building are encouraging, the persistent challenges, especially at local level in LMICs, means government activities are often entangled within competition for scarce resources (Wu et al., 2015; Qiao et al., 2019). Overall, existing gaps and failures indicate a need to redirect (food system) capacity building toward more sustainable alternatives created around (local) governments. These (local) governments, which are at the heart of where everyday changes in the food system occur, could indeed safeguard long-term sustainability while reducing external dependence on other parties to drive change efforts.

4.2.4 Creating momentum through technological innovations

New sustainable innovations are expected to be instrumental in creating the required momentum (Herrero et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2021; Barrett et al., 2022). Past food systems transformations, including the Green Revolution (Evenson, 2003), the biotechnology revolution (Herring and Paarlberg, 2016), and the ongoing digital revolution (Barrett and Rose, 2020; Birner et al., 2021) have all taken off on the back of technological innovations. The issue, however, is not innovation per se but rather their contribution (or failure thereof to contribute) to sustainable outcomes. While some scholars insist that the current innovation pipeline is healthy with the creation and diffusion of wide-ranging, potentially transformative technologies (e.g., Herrero et al., 2020; Barrett et al., 2022), others remark that the underlying driver of these innovations, ultimately, remains profits, raising doubt about the ability of innovations to guide transformation toward sustainable outcomes (Carolan, 2020; Béné, 2022; ETC Group, 2022). In line with this argument, some other scholars call for more creative financial schemes and a re-orientation (re-alignment) of innovation motives and metrics to encourage sustainable alternatives, including local/indigenous and community-level ones (IPES, 2016; Mazzucato, 2016; Miles et al., 2017; Schiller et al., 2020). Among others, social financing, community investments, ethical banking, alternative currencies, social impact bonds, and impact investing are beginning to gain traction (Stephens, 2021; Feng et al., 2022).

In parallel, the need for creating supporting infrastructures is being emphasized by scholars who argue that food systems will likely be trapped within unsustainable trajectories if the required infrastructures to support local and alternative innovations are not created (Popkin and Reardon, 2018; Ruben et al., 2021). While these calls are legitimate, we argue that more infrastructure does not necessarily equate to sustainable change. The support for alternative sustainable food systems would, therefore, require not only addressing the broader local and regional infrastructural needs that most current calls do acknowledge (Bloom and Hinrichs, 2011) but would also require doing so within the realms of normative goals of sustainability.

4.3 Converting new momentum into sustainable options

4.3.1 Converting momentum through powers, discourses, and knowledge

Several entry points are highlighted in the framework under this Converting momentum process. Translation of new framing and agenda into concrete policies is the first of them. National food policies, food guides, and sector-specific policy documents are potential avenues to translate framing into concrete and actionable policies. Food systems literature offers successful experiences, such as new policy instruments used to translate agroecology approach into existing agro-environmental measures (Miles et al., 2017), or instruments such as sugar taxes or labeling supporting fair trade or environmental considerations (Grunert et al., 2014). These actions are necessary because, without policy backing, most promises for sustainability would remain abstract statements of good intentions without clear, practical action plans for implementation (Oliver et al., 2018).

Create political coalitions to support change—While translating new framings and agendas into concrete policies is important, creating political coalitions to support changes is also critical (IPES-Food and ETC Group, 2021; Yates et al., 2021). In this domain, combining entities with common alternative visions is recognized to have a higher chance of positive change than working in isolation (Swinburn, 2019; Aramyan et al., 2021; Yates et al., 2021). Many successful examples of coalition wins have been documented in the food systems literature, even though there is no single vision of sustainable food systems (Béné et al., 2019a; Duncan et al., 2022). When well-managed, these coalitions certainly have the potential to provide the impetus to drive sustainable change across diverse issues and contribute to systemic transformation (Blay-Palmer et al., 2016; Prost, 2019).

Next, Evidence-based documentation of coverage, scale, and quality is critical to show how alternatives progress, what works or not, and what areas can be improved (Schwarz et al., 2021; McDermid et al., 2023). In their work on the politics of undernutrition reduction, Gillespie et al. (2013) discussed knowledge and evidence in converting new momentum into results. They note that numerous efforts already exist in several areas, including the growing attention to feasibility studies and formative research, costing studies, monitoring research, and evaluations conducted in relation to food systems. Within these spaces, governments, researchers, and civil society organizations played a critical role in providing evidence in support of interventions (Bhutta et al., 2013; HLPE, 2022). Yet, more targeted and intentional documentation of evidence is still needed (Singh et al., 2021). This is where the research community can be instrumental by providing independent evidence. The monitoring framework proposed by Fanzo et al. (2021) is an example of how consolidated documentation of evidence could be shaped.

Research for alternative food system configurations and “preferred solutions” is the last element under this part of the framework. Roggio and Evans (2022) argue that while there is extensive published research on food insecurity, there is far less consideration of what an effective local food system might look like. This calls for more focused research aiming to uncover the best arrangements and combinations of food systems’ actions that meet the visions of sustainability set out in stage two of the Framework (Creating and maintaining new momentum). However, as already established, there is no single pathway or solution to food systems sustainability and what constitutes sustainable food systems and their attributes vary extensively by scholarship (Fraser et al., 2016; Eakin et al., 2017; Béné et al., 2019a). Hence, it makes sense to have deliberate research portfolios clarifying what configurations attract potential followers. In this regard, the presentation of evidence-based alternatives would likely increase the chance of acceptance and diffusion into the broader regime, thereby moving sustainable configurations beyond niches to becoming the norm (Maye, 2013; Aramyan et al., 2021) in a way that resonates closely with the idea of “bright spots” (Bennett et al., 2016) as advocated in the environmental literature.

4.3.2 Converting momentum via culture, social norms, and behavior

Encouraging the role of individuals and civil society is one of the ways changes in societal values can be aligned with desired visions. The innovation diffusion theory shows that a critical mass of people adopting a different (sustainable) behavior can initiate a new norm through social network (Shove et al., 2012; Maye, 2013). Meanwhile, changing social values around food habits can be difficult (cf. Resistance related to culture, social norms, and behavior above). Remaining to be discussed in this context is the importance of consumer engagement that emanates from advocacies. Scholars have often viewed civil society advocacies as important to creating alternatives to the dominant food systems, at least in the eyes of consumers, allowing them to move from being passive consumers to becoming active citizens (Jacobsen and Dulsrud, 2007; De Schutter, 2014). The idea of consumer’ engagement as a form of political consumerism involves mechanisms through which consumers use purchasing and sometimes protest power to shape food system actions (Boström and Micheletti, 2019; Hossain and Scott-Villiers, 2019; O’Brien and Macoun, 2022). Through actions such as ethical food labeling (e.g., organic, fair trade, or halal), consumers can demand accountability from other actors and decision-makers and shape broader societal values regarding food system activities (Evans and Miele, 2017; Keller et al., 2017).

Alignment of consumer demand with food systems sustainability objectives—The rise of terms like sustainable and ethical consumption (Friel et al., 2014; Sargant, 2014; van Gameren et al., 2015) and environmental sustainable consumption in particular (Vermeir et al., 2020) opens conversations around the question of the alignment of consumer demands to sustainable consumption (Reisch et al., 2013; Verain et al., 2015). Within these discussions, information-based instruments (e.g., food labels), market-based initiatives (e.g., taxes), direct regulations (e.g., control of unhealthy foods and drinks advertising), and “nudges” (e.g., “buy-local” campaigns) are commonly proposed (Reisch et al., 2013; Vermeir et al., 2020; Vermeulen et al., 2020). While these diverse mechanisms could facilitate the alignment of consumer demands to sustainability objectives, such changes may not happen, however, unless the right socio-economic conditions and the capacities of public sector entities to support such initiatives are in place (Green et al., 2013; Cornelsen et al., 2015) -see next point.

4.3.3 Converting momentum through capacity and financial resources

Delivery and operational capacity around compliance and enforcement—In addition to supporting the critical role of consumers, the ability of the public sector to ensure compliance and enforcement around food systems is pivotal (Wilkinson et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015; Pudjiastuti, 2021). New public programs can help minimize the greenwashing that voluntary standard settings have created amid the voids (Fulponi, 2006; Guo et al., 2019). However, the ability to strengthen these capabilities may partly hinge on reinforcing the public resources base (Verbruggen, 2013). In that context, there is recognition that a diverse mix of capabilities is needed to stimulate transformative practices (Den Boer et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021). In their proposal for processes needed for nutrition transition, Gillespie et al. (2013) outlined three key capacities required for the implementation and enforcement of nutrition actions: (i) individual capacity by way of methods and skills, (ii) organizational capacity by way of staff and infrastructure, and (iii) systemic capacity by way of structure, systems, and roles. Such capacities would also be required for food systems transformation -see also Systemic and strategic capacity building above.

Identifying new forms of resource mobilization—It is not enough to reinforce the capacities of the public sector. New forms of resource mobilization to scale sustainable alternatives are also needed (Bhatia and Ghanem, 2019; FAO, 2019a). Financial resources are critical in those mobilizations (Hasnain and Chaudhury, 2021; Díaz-Bonilla, 2023). At least $80 billion in annual investments throughout food value chains are estimated to be required to meet the expected 70% rise in food demand by 2050 (World Bank, 2020). Alternative and sustainable finance schemes, such as social finance (Stephens, 2021) or blended finance that mobilizes commercial banks, non-bank financial institutions, and their clients, are being tested, with varied degrees of success (Apampa et al., 2021; Convergence, 2021). These schemes de-risk the financing of food systems activities by drawing from diverse sources in an otherwise limited pool of support (Havemann et al., 2022). Some scholars, however, are still skeptical of these alternative resource mobilizations, pointing out that they depend on capital from the private sector, where incentives to address social and environmental concerns are rarely the priority (Barrett et al., 2022).

4.3.4 Converting momentum through technological innovations

Alignment of innovations with sustainability indicators is needed to ensure technologies and novel ideas contribute to supporting sustainable alternative visions of food systems. By aligning innovations to sustainability indicators, we mean to ensure that novelties have sustainability as an explicit goal (Matthews et al., 2019; Béné, 2022) and that there are readily verifiable indicator systems/frameworks to guide innovation processes. Laudable efforts to develop frameworks for sustainability indicators are already available (Béné et al., 2019b, 2023; Aznar-Sánchez et al., 2020; Silvestri C. et al., 2022). But also important is curating and presenting these indicators in accessible ways and as a means for accountability. Here, dashboards and other visualization mechanisms are used to turn indicators into guides from which the innovation processes can be assessed (Poponi et al., 2022) or as decision-support tools that can be used to support the alignment of efforts toward sustainability (Fanzo et al., 2020; Béné et al., 2023). Though understandable, the focus on monitoring progress rather than on process limits the suitability of these tools for aiding decisions and for using them as accountability tools. Similar initiatives focusing on normative goals could serve as a springboard for aligning innovations with sustainability.

Creating a business case for innovation using financial instruments—Even with the right alignment, sustainable alternatives still need to make business sense for actors to use them. Undoubtedly, thus far only innovations that yield profits make it to the market (Whitfield, 2017; ETC Group, 2022). Turning this phenomenon toward sustainability would require attention to true cost accounting to cater to social and environmental costs (Gemmill-Herren et al., 2021; Michalke et al., 2023). Financial instruments could open the door for sustainable alternative innovations: once an innovation shows promising ecological and/or social properties, regulations and financial instruments such as green bonds, green banks, and green investment funds could be used to support their successful emergence (Horbach, 2005; Gyura, 2020; Maltais and Nykvist, 2020). This is not to ignore of course that currently financial instruments such as derivatives, hedge funds, futures markets, and private equity companies are often reorganizing the power structures in the agro-food systems in ways that are detrimental to the sustainability of food systems (Burch and Lawrence, 2009; Clapp, 2014).

4.4 Managing trade-offs, reducing incoherence, and prioritizing actions

4.4.1 Managing trade-off through powers, discourses, and knowledge

Documenting and quantifying trade-offs - The inherent nature of trade-offs and their implications for food systems’ decision-making makes it necessary to document them at every stage of the transformation process (as represented in Table 3). Though fragmented, efforts to develop systematic frameworks for food systems analysis are being proposed (Zurek et al., 2018; Gaitan-Cremaschi et al., 2019; Amiri et al., 2020), with the ambition to improve the general understanding about trade-offs and synergies. Within different system contexts, there exist specific strategies and approaches for quantifying trade-offs, including trade-off analysis, visioning and backcasting, modeling tools, foresight processes, trend analysis or scenario planning (Lentz, 2021; Wiebe and Prager, 2021; Zurek et al., 2021; Béné et al., 2022). These different tools have been used to inform national governments and stakeholders (Knight et al., 2022). The experience of these cases shows that a participatory process bringing together scientists and stakeholders (i.e., public and private sector actors, as well as local population representatives and civil society organizations) is crucial for trade-off identification and prioritization (Antle and Valdivia, 2021; Tui et al., 2021; Béné et al., 2024). As part of this process, the visualization of the results is key and should include outcomes, pathways, and decisions and how these affect the various components. Dashboards, scorecards, indices, and profiles are common visualization techniques (HLPE, 2022) and successful examples abound to learn from, especially in the nutrition field (Manorat et al., 2019). Equally important is the need for high-quality data (Béné et al., 2019b; Fanzo et al., 2021; HLPE, 2022).

Strengthening delivery of vertical coherence—Vertical coherence—where the different levels of government (international, national, regional, and local) follow common policy objectives and align food systems’ actions toward agreed normative goals (OECD, 2015, 2016)—is critical to managing trade-offs and ensuring synergies at different levels. To strengthen coherence in food systems transformations, multi-level governance initiatives are often suggested (OECD, 2010, 2016; Marzeda-Mlynarska, 2011) to (i) encourage participatory governance and strategic planning at all relevant scale(s), (ii) provide an analytical foundation for short and long-term planning, (iii) support experimentation and innovation, and (iv) establish a long-term planning horizon (OECD, 2010). The institution of governance arrangements around these principles could enhance the coherence of food systems policies while minimizing potential trade-offs. But, while vertical coherence is instrumental to managing trade-offs, it certainly is not enough to ensure holistic food systems transformation; catering for inconsistencies between different sectors at the same level through multi-sectoral (horizontal) coordination is indispensable -see below.

The use of multi-stakeholder platforms to establish collaborative or pluralist governance is the next element in the framework. Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs), that is, “governed spaces for multistakeholder interaction, bringing together multiple actors (from different sectors), involving a certain level of institutionalization” (Herens et al., 2022), have emerged as potential mechanisms for actions in the sphere of food system transformation. According to Thorpe et al. (2021, p. 3), the interest in MSPs is driven by “a recognition that transformation in complex systems cannot be achieved through simple or technical fixes, (…). Instead, change requires new forms of governance which bring stakeholders together to plan and act in new ways.” The potential governance-shaping roles of MSPs have led to their proliferation with hopes of stimulating alternative food systems governance (Termeer et al., 2018; Bedeau et al., 2021; Kugelberg et al., 2021). Yet, their impacts on food systems transformation have been mixed so far. While some MSPs, such as the Scaling-up Nutrition Platform (SUN), are arguably successful in their causes, they appear less effective in driving shifts to systems-based narratives (Herens et al., 2022). One key challenge is cited as the “stakeholder’ paradigm”— grounded in a largely undifferentiated categorization of actors (“stakeholders”)—allowing powerful corporations to dominate governance processes (IPES-Food, 2023). The hijacking of the UNFSS processes and duologues to further corporate interest is a case in point on how platforms can be turned against the true ideals of transformation (Canfield et al., 2021b; Clapp et al., 2021; Yates et al., 2021). This means that despite their potential to facilitate positive change, MSPs may still have limited capacity to deliver radical food systems transformations, unless critical issues, including leadership, motivations, capacities, and clear guidance, are addressed (De schutter et al., 2021; Herens et al., 2022).

Delivery of horizontal coherence (multisectoral coordination)—Because the complexity of food system processes and outcomes cannot be overcome through siloed interventions (Torres-Salcido and Sanz-Canada, 2018; Augustin et al., 2021; Mattioni et al., 2022), conventional governance mechanisms are generally inadequate (Termeer et al., 2018; Bedeau et al., 2021). Instead, evidence shows that multi-sectoral coordination to food systems can positively influence development and practices. For example, Brazil’s award-winning social protection program, the Bolsa Familia, is said to have been successful because of the multisectoral governance of its implementation (see Kushitor et al., 2022). Likewise, as Fanzo et al. (2020) argued, the alignment of nutrition and agricultural development and environmental sustainability, which are at an all-time high today, are consequences of multi-sectoral coordination. There is still massive room for improvement, however, and establishing cross-sectoral platforms that can be used to develop and share food systems information, knowledge, and coordination expertise are an important step in that direction.

4.4.2 Managing trade-offs and prioritization through cultural dynamics, norms, and behavior

Establishing accountability of and to citizens and CSO is integral to managing trade-offs and ensuring synergies. Mechanisms to hold food systems decision-makers, especially private actors and governments, accountable have been extensively discussed by alternative food systems and governance scholars (Renting and Wiskerke, 2010; Kraak et al., 2014; Andrée et al., 2019). In their work on strengthening accountability for healthy diets, Swinburn et al. (2015) outlined several accountability mechanisms to be leveraged by consumers and CSOs to hold private companies accountable: legal (constitutional rights to food), quasi-regulatory (codes of conduct and ethics guidelines), political (shareholder activism), market-based (consumer demand and boycotts), and communication (media, advocacy campaigns, social media, public forums, petitions, and demonstrations). Overall, CSOs continue to progress in holding businesses and governments accountable. Yet, Swinburn et al. (2015) and others note that current measures to increase the transparency of government processes are confined to public communications depending on media, formal channels through government committees, and advocacy mechanisms. These measures, though encouraging, are deemed insufficient because they are voluntary rather than mandatory (Swinburn et al., 2015). Even for mandatory ones, CSOs may still lack enforcement power, legal accountability mechanisms or access to effective justice (IPES-Food, 2023). Civil society advocates have, therefore, underlined the essence of legally binding instruments, with baseline examples drawn from successful mechanisms such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the WHO Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors, and the WHO Financial Regulations and Financial Rules (IPES-Food, 2023).

4.4.3 Managing trade-offs and prioritization through capacity and financial resources

Prioritization and sequencing of financing—All actions that remove barriers, create alternative visions, and convert them into sustainable options should ideally be implemented simultaneously. However, among many challenges, the resource and capacity constraints discussed earlier make prioritizing and sequencing necessary at every step of transformation (Kuchiki, 2004; Gillespie et al., 2013). There is no one standardized approach to prioritizing actions, as evidenced by governments’ continuous contemplation on what to do first amidst competing pressing demands. At present, the prioritization of actions is primarily influenced by economic viability, visibility, and political gains (Timilsina, 2007). But such an approach certainly does not deliver radical food systems transformation, on the contrary. While many alternative prioritization and sequencing tools and processes exist, each has different purposes, strengths, and limitations. Most tools are too broad and lack the context specificity for food systems. Developing food systems-specific prioritization and sequencing tools that consider system-level outcomes and show a deeper understanding of the political economy and ethical dimensions of the process would be critical, going forward (Horton et al., 2017).

4.4.4 Managing trade-offs and prioritization through technological innovations

Dis-incentivize the emergence of unsustainable technological innovations is a crucial step to managing food systems trade-offs. This involves using instruments, processes and actions to discourage technological innovations that do not contribute to attaining alternative sustainable visions. On multiple occasions, we have noted how current technological innovation pipelines, though argued as healthy (Herrero et al., 2020), are unsustainable, necessitating a change in direction for sustainable food systems transformation (Béné, 2022). But it may not be enough to encourage sustainable innovations; it must be complemented with disincentivizing unsustainable technologies essentially because these are recognized to have shorter-term economic pull than sustainable alternatives (Miles et al., 2017)—posing a risk of out-competing the latter when left to compete. Theoretically, measures of regulations, taxes, and subsidies could also serve as disincentives to unsustainable technologies, if designed appropriately. In fact, the successes of sugar and beverage taxes leading some corporations to adjust their strategies (Roache and Gostin, 2017; Carriedo et al., 2021) testify to how such disincentives can influence the direction of innovations. Complementary regulatory measures are still required, however, to ensure that these taxes are not transferred to consumers by “smart businesses.”

It must also be acknowledged that placing disincentives is not a straightforward process, partially because of the challenges in assessing what is truly sustainable and what is unsustainable. For instance, some argue that “sustainable technology” does not exist because no one technology can meet all the metrics of sustainability (Kemp, 2010). Likewise, it can be argued that technologies are not inherently “bad” or “good” (Miller, 2021), and that their effects are dictated by their usage, not their nature. Evident in these claims is the difficulty of determining if an innovation would end up unsustainable. The development of sustainability indicators could provide some foundation for overcoming this challenge.

5 Delivering normative food systems transformation—what the framework teaches us

Three critical considerations emerge from the analysis.

5.1 The need to ensure normativity and goal(s)-driven food systems transformation

The framework emphasizes the need for normativity, visioning, and directionality in food systems transformation. While other frameworks (such as the MLP) may see transformation as a random process (El Bilali, 2020), our Framework differs through its explicit normative view, intending to outline the steps necessary for a goal-directed (sustainability) food systems transformation (Ruben et al., 2021; Woodhill, 2023). The four distinct stages/processes of actions across the four domains of politics outlined in the Framework illustrated by experiences and practices described in the literature provide the basis for normative transformation. Also critical to the normativity of the Framework is the emphasis on the visioning (the trajectory and end outcomes) of transformation. Moving from identifying resistance to creating alternatives, converting them into sustainable options, and managing trade-offs at every point offers the route to transformation toward (sustainable) visioned processes and outcomes. This makes for a goal-oriented transformation rather than the random processes that some, uncritically, have assumed can bring the necessary change (Béné, 2022).

But even more important is the ability of the Framework to direct actions that can deliver multiple levers of the required change. A plethora of past and present initiatives aim to set a narrow focus, such as “sustainable, healthy,” or even “inclusive” diets on which all actions are pitched to align (van Bers et al., 2019; Ruben et al., 2021) without paying attention to other elements such as resistance to change or ensuring that alternatives maintain the path of sustainability once they are started. Though such efforts are laudable, the persistence of food systems’ unsustainable trajectories shows that a narrow focus on meeting some set goals is not enough to deliver transformation. There is a need for mechanisms that simultaneously tackle multiple aspects of transformation, which the holistic nature of the Framework moves us toward. Specifically, the processes outlined here show how to execute food system changes that are intentional in avoiding path dependency (through identifying resistance to change) and reducing overreliance on single solutions (e.g., technological fixes) through the domains of politics, while also explicitly encouraging alignment with the desired sustainability goals (through the creation and maintaining of alternative momentum and their conversion into sustainable options). As we clarified, tackling these multiple aspects of transformation is critical to steering food systems changes.

5.2 The multi-dimensionality of food systems transformation

Another important lesson from the framework is the multiple dimensions of food systems’ actions necessary to deliver transformation. Political economy scholars (Leach et al., 2020 and others) have called for attention to the plurality of food systems politics to gain a fuller picture of transformation processes. The Framework responds to such calls through the domains of politics and their specific political actions at different stages. By acknowledging and charting the political configurations of actions across these multiple spaces, which Leach et al. (2020, p. 14) believe are necessary to achieve sustainable, equitable food systems of the future, we emphasize that transformation cannot be limited to single, sector-focused solutions.

Currently, technocratic solutions such as digitalization and sustainable intensification (Herrero et al., 2020; Barrett et al., 2022; von Braun et al., 2023), favored by corporations with financial power and governments desperate for quick and visible fixes, have resulted in the political concentration on “big food” actors and innovations (Clapp and Ruder, 2020; ETC Group, 2022; IPES-Food, 2023). Although discussions in these frames are important to shaping food systems change, critical considerations of politics embedded in other domains, such as the political economy of actors, public sector capacities, and cultural dynamics, are equally imperative. Specifically, political actions that cater to resources/investments, policies and legislations, innovations, and behavioral change are equally, and critically necessary. Hence, transforming food systems toward any specific goal – such as sustainable healthy diets – must be deliberately rooted in acknowledgments and establishment of political actions across all the domains highlighted in the Framework.

One way to approach this is to explore political actions through systemic, interlinked dynamics. In this sense, we are suggesting and adding our voices to a growing number of scholars (e.g., Caron et al., 2018; Gill et al., 2018; Leeuwis et al., 2021) calling for shifts to systemic, holistic, and comprehensive processes in food systems research and practice. By adopting systemic approaches, the politics of transformations would mirror real-world processes and embrace the complexities that must be accounted for to attain holistic changes. Such an approach, we posit, adds value to the isolated approaches of politics and/or transition that have been proposed so far.

5.3 From an enabling to a driving environment

Enabling environment for food systems change has gained attention in the development literature (Gillespie et al., 2013; van den Bold et al., 2015; Ajieroh et al., 2023). It describes changes in more distal factors related to food systems’ broad economic, political, environmental, social, and cultural context (Nisbett et al., 2014; Kampman et al., 2017). Though relevant to delivering some positive food system outcomes (Kampman et al., 2017), we consider the enabling environment too “passive” as it leaves initiatives (to change or not) to the private sector without challenging its responsibility in contributing to the system’s initial unsustainable and unhealthy conditions. In setting out some of the critical elements needed for a food system Great Transformation, Béné (2022) argued for the “establishment of not just an enabling but a normative environment.” Our Framework backs this proposition while furthering how to create such a normative environment. We propose to call this a driving environment and define it as the set of political processes and actions from diverse actors that actively support or contribute to establishing clear/evidence-based pathways toward desirable food systems outcomes.

Within this driving environment, the Framework directs attention toward not just the transformation of food systems, but also the transformation of the governance of those food systems. It shows that for a normative transformation to happen, we must challenge how things have been (or still are) governed. In particular, the description of the Framework’s driving environment challenges the assumption that transformation cannot happen without the private sector leading or being a central stakeholder (Folke et al., 2019; von Braun et al., 2023). Instead, it emphasizes governance through active interactions and leadership of multi-actors of the food system. Through the four stages of transformation, we show what changes in institutional, policy, legal, and regulatory environments must come together for food system transformation to happen and how those could be achieved through deliberate political actions involving multiple actors across the food systems, anchored on participation and leadership, but also accountability. Here, rather than waiting for political will to emerge by chance or for private entities with the resources and power to dictate the process, our framework proposes cultivating and nurturing the change normatively across four distinct but related transformation stages.

Finally, the framework emphasizes that trade-offs and synergies (of interests, values, goals, actions, and so on) abound at each stage of the transformation process. In this sense, goal-oriented governance mechanisms, different from current arrangements centered on corporate interests, are proposed to be pursued to realize transformation. These new governance mechanisms must draw on sustainability (as opposed to profit) as the basis of relationships and interactions to enhance their chances of success.

6 Concluding reflections

Global food systems face unprecedented challenges (Haddad et al., 2016; Dury et al., 2019; Kawarazuka et al., 2023) that risk attaining the Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. Hence, guidance on how to steer food systems away from unsustainable and unjust trajectories toward more sustainable, healthier, resilient, and equitable outcomes cannot be more urgent than now (Webb et al., 2020). Through this work, we argue that food systems transformation is not an impossible goal to aspire for; however, whether we achieve any form of transformation is essentially down to how food systems politics are enacted. Politics, we posit, is at the center of creating and maintaining current unsustainable food system trajectories and will also be crucial in guiding change processes toward sustainable goals. We expand on this argument through the elaboration of a holistic framework.

The Framework, which is relevant for both high and lower-income countries, integrates multiple perspectives and practical experiences on transition, transformation and politics to propose a holistic diagnostic and prescriptive tool for food systems transformation. As a diagnostic tool, the Framework can be applied to understand past transformation processes and investigate why new ideas, institutions, innovations, and narratives failed to emerge or to be scaled up. It can also be leveraged by actors across various levels to assess the nature of diverse politics that hinder current transformation actions. As a normative, prescriptive tool, the framework outlined the actions and political choices that should be considered across the different domains and processes (the two axes of the framework) to ensure the transformation of the food system toward desirable, normative goals and values – such as, healthy diets, environmentally friendly food production and retail processes, equitable distribution of social and economic benefits, inclusive governance, and respect of cultural/local norms and values.

In this regard, cognizant of the need for context-specific and place-based approaches (Caron et al., 2018; Ambikapathi et al., 2022; Losch and May, 2023), the framework should not be presented as a universal prescription; instead, we view it as an adaptable tool. As illustrated through the numerous empirical examples reviewed above, the nature of politics may vary across typologies of food systems (traditional, modern, consolidating), levels of development, or scales of consideration (international, national, sub-national, and community). We suggest drawing on specific politics of framings, social norms, public capacities, and innovations as they manifest within different contexts and cultures to diagnose and propose place-context-system-specific political actions for the transformation of food systems. In-depth country-level and sub-national considerations will be necessary to identify and design these political processes required for normative transformations. Through such explorations, the Framework’s practicality and relevance in different settings will be revealed and areas where improvement is needed identified.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

CB: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. A-RA: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by the Sustainable and Healthy Diet through Food System Transformation (SHiFT) initiative funded under CGIAR.

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.

Footnotes

1. ^For more comprehensive discussions about the different forms of power and how they can interact, complement and compete with each other in influencing processes related to food system transformation (see among others) (Clapp and Fuchs, 2009; Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016; Anderson M. et al., 2019; Swinburn, 2019; Clark et al., 2021; Carriedo et al., 2022; Béné and Lundy, 2023).

References

Abdulai, A.-R. (2022). A new Green revolution (GR) or neoliberal entrenchment in agri-food systems? Exploring narratives around digital agriculture (DA), food systems, and development in sub-Sahara Africa. J. Dev. Stud. 58, 1588–1604. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2022.2032673

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajates Gonzalez, R., Thomas, J., and Chang, M. (2018). Translating agroecology into policy: the case of France and the United Kingdom. Sustain. For. 10:2930. doi: 10.3390/su10082930

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ajieroh, V., Onabolu, A., Ezekannagha, O., and Adeyemi, O. (2023). Fostering an enabling environment for nutrition-sensitive agriculture and food systems in Nigeria. Food Nutr. Bull. 44, S3–S13. doi: 10.1177/03795721231173852

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ambikapathi, R., Schneider, K. R., Davis, B., Herrero, M., Winters, P., and Fanzo, J. C. (2022). Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity. Nat. Food 3, 764–779. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00588-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amiri, A., Mehrjerdi, Y. Z., Jalalimanesh, A., and Sadegheih, A. (2020). Food system sustainability investigation using system dynamics approach. J. Clean. Prod. 277:124040. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124040

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, C. R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M. J., Kiss, C., and Pimbert, M. P. (2019). From transition to domains of transformation: getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustain. For. 11:5272. doi: 10.3390/su11195272

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, M. D., and Rivera-Ferre, M. (2021). Food system narratives to end hunger: extractive versus regenerative. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 49, 18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.12.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, M., and Leach, M. (2019). Transforming food systems: the potential of engaged political economy. IDS Bull. 50:Article 2. doi: 10.19088/1968-2019.123

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, M., Nisbett, N., Clément, C., and Harris, J. (2019). Introduction: valuing different perspectives on power in the food system. IDS Bull. 50, 1–12. doi: 10.19088/1968-2019.114

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Andrée, P., Clark, J. K., Levkoe, C. Z., and Lowitt, K. (2019). “Introduction – traversing theory and practice: social movement engagement in food systems governance for sustainability, justice, and democracy” in Civil society and social movements in food system governance (London: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Antle, J. M., and Valdivia, R. O. (2021). Trade-off analysis of agri-food systems for sustainable research and development. Q. Open 1:qoaa005. doi: 10.1093/qopen/qoaa005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Antonelli, A. (2023). Indigenous knowledge is key to sustainable food systems. Nature 613, 240–242.

Google Scholar

Apampa, A., Clubb, C., Cosgrove, B. E., Gambarelli, G., Loth, H., Newman, R., et al. (2021). Scaling up critical finance for sustainable food systems through blended finance. CCAFS Discussion Paper. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Google Scholar

Aramyan, L. H., Beekman, G., Galama, J., van der Haar, S., Visscher, M., and Zeinstra, G. G. (2021). Moving from niche to norm: lessons from food waste initiatives. Sustain. For. 13:7667. doi: 10.3390/su13147667

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Araújo, K. (2014). The emerging field of energy transitions: progress, challenges, and opportunities. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 112–121. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Augustin, M. A., Cole, M. B., Ferguson, D., Hazell, N. J. G., and Morle, P. (2021). Perspective article: towards a new venture science model for transforming food systems. Glob. Food Sec. 28:100481. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100481

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Avelino, F., and Wittmayer, J. M. (2016). Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multi-actor perspective. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 18, 628–649. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Mendoza, J. M. F., Ingrao, C., Failla, S., Bezama, A., Nemecek, T., et al. (2020). Indicators for circular economy in the agri-food sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 163:105028.

Google Scholar

Babu, S. (2020). As policy makers call for building capacity for food system transformation, who is listening? IFPRI: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available at: https://www.ifpri.org/blog/policy-makers-call-building-capacity-food-system-transformation-who-listening

Google Scholar

Bain, J. S. (1954). Economies of scale, concentration, and the condition of entry in twenty manufacturing industries. Am. Econ. Rev. 44, 15–39.

Google Scholar

Baker, P., Lacy-Nichols, J., Williams, O., and Labonté, R. (2021). The political economy of healthy and sustainable food systems: an introduction to a special issue. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 10, 734–744. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.156

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker, P., Machado, P., Santos, T., Sievert, K., Backholer, K., Hadjikakou, M., et al. (2020). Ultra-processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obes. Rev. 21:e13126. doi: 10.1111/obr.13126

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barrett, C. B., Benton, T., Fanzo, J., Herrero, M., Nelson, R. J., Bageant, E., et al. (2022). Socio-technical innovation bundles for agri-food systems transformation. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Google Scholar

Barrett, H., and Rose, D. C. (2020). Perceptions of the fourth agricultural revolution: what’s in, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? Sociol. Rural. 62, 162–189. doi: 10.1111/soru.12324

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bear, C., and Holloway, L. (2015). Country life: agricultural technologies and the emergence of new rural subjectivities. Geogr. Compass 9, 303–315. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12217

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bedeau, J. V., Rezaei, M., Pera, M., and Morrison, J. (2021). Towards food systems transformation in the Mediterranean region: unleashing the power of data, policy, investment and innovation. New Medit 20, 5–16. doi: 10.30682/nm2103a

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Béné, C. (2022). Why the great food transformation may not happen – a deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence. World Dev. 154:105881. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105881

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Béné, C., Chege, C., Even, B., Hernandez, R., Lundy, M., Prager, S., et al. (2024). Why building participatory dashboards is key for sustainable food system transformation. Front. sustain. food syst. (in press).

Google Scholar

Béné, C., and Devereux, S. (Eds.) (2023). “Resilience and Food Security in a Food Systems Context” in Palgrave studies in agricultural economics and food policy (Palgrave Macmillan, Open Access).

Google Scholar

Béné, C., Fanzo, J., Achicanoy, H. A., and Lundy, M. (2022). Can economic development be a driver of food system sustainability? Empirical evidence from a global sustainability index and a multi-country analysis. PLoS Sustain. Transform. 1:e0000013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Béné, C., Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Hawkes, C., Caron, P., Vermeulen, S., et al. (2020). Five priorities to operationalize the EAT-lancet commission report. Nat. Food 1, 457–459. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0136-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Béné, C., Kawarazuka, N., Pham, H., de Haan, S., Tuyen, H., Duong, T., et al. (2021). Policy framing and crisis narratives around food safety in Vietnam. Environ. Plann. E 4, 985–1009. doi: 10.1177/2514848620941515

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Béné, C., and Lundy, M. (2023). Political economy of protein transition: battles of power, framings and narratives around a false wicked problem. Front. Sustain. 4:1098011. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1098011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Béné, C., Lundy, M. M., Achicanoy Estrella, H. A., Chege, C. G. K., Hernandez Barco, R. A., and Wiegel, J. R. (2023). Food system country profiles. Rome: Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Available at: https://food-system-country-profiles.cgiar.org/.

Google Scholar

Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I. D., de Haan, S., Prager, S. D., et al. (2019a). When food systems meet sustainability – current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev. 113, 116–130. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Béné, C., Prager, S. D., Achicanoy, H. A. E., Alvarez, T. P., Lamotte, L., Bonilla, C. C., et al. (2019b). Global map and indicators of food system sustainability. Sci. Data 6:279. doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0301-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bennett, E. M., Solan, M., Biggs, R., McPhearson, T., Norström, A. V., Olsson, P., et al. (2016). Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 441–448. doi: 10.1002/fee.1309

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berger, V. (2019). Social norm-based gamification to promote eco-friendly food choice. J. Consum. Mark. 36, 666–676. doi: 10.1108/JCM-01-2018-2547

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bergh, J. C. J. M.Van Den, and Bruinsma, F. R. (2008). Managing the transition to renewable energy: theory and practice from local, Regional and Macro Perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Google Scholar

Bhatia, K., and Ghanem, H. (2019). “Resource mobilization for agriculture and food security” in Sustainable food and agriculture (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization), 523–541.

Google Scholar

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices, Open access textbooks. 151 p.

Google Scholar

Bhutta, Z. A., Das, J. K., Rizvi, A., Gaffey, M. F., Walker, N., Horton, S., et al. (2013). Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? Lancet 382, 452–477. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60996-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Birner, R., Daum, T., and Pray, C. (2021). Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply-side trends, players and challenges. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 43, 1260–1285. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13145

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blay-Palmer, A., Sonnino, R., and Custot, J. (2016). A food politics of the possible? Growing sustainable food systems through networks of knowledge. Agric. Hum. Values 33, 27–43. doi: 10.1007/s10460-015-9592-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bloom, J. D., and Hinrichs, C. C. (2011). Moving local food through conventional food system infrastructure: value chain framework comparisons and insights. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 26, 13–23. doi: 10.1017/S1742170510000384

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bojić, D., Clark, M., and Urban, K. (2022). Focus on governance for more effective policy and technical support. Framework paper. Rome: FAO.

Google Scholar

Boström, M., and Micheletti, M. (2019). The Oxford handbook of political consumerism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Boza, S., Guerrero, M., Barreda, R., and Espinoza, M. (2017). Recent changes in food labelling regulations in Latin America: the cases of Chile and Peru. Working Paper No. 04/2017, World Trade Institute.

Google Scholar

Bremmer, B., and Bos, B. (2017). “Creating niches by applying reflexive interactive design” in AgroEcological transitions (Wageningen: Wageningen University & Research).

Google Scholar

Bronson, K., and Sengers, P. (2022). Big tech meets big ag: diversifying epistemologies of data and power. Sci. Cult. 31, 15–28. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2021.1986692

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brouwer, I. D., van Liere, M. J., de Brauw, A., Dominguez-Salas, P., Herforth, A., Kennedy, G., et al. (2021). Reverse thinking: taking a healthy diet perspective towards food systems transformations. Food Secur. 13, 1497–1523. doi: 10.1007/s12571-021-01204-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bui, S., Cardona, A., Lamine, C., and Cerf, M. (2016). Sustainability transitions: insights on processes of niche-regime interaction and regime reconfiguration in Agri-food systems. J. Rural. Stud. 48, 92–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.10.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burch, D., and Lawrence, G. (2009). Towards a third food regime: behind the transformation. Agric. Hum. Values 26, 267–279. doi: 10.1007/s10460-009-9219-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Canfield, M., Anderson, M. D., and McMichael, P. (2021a). UN food systems summit 2021: dismantling democracy and resetting corporate control of food systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:661552. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.661552

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Canfield, M., Duncan, J., and Claeys, P. (2021b). Reconfiguring food systems governance: the UNFSS and the battle over authority and legitimacy. Development 64, 181–191. doi: 10.1057/s41301-021-00312-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carolan, M. (2018). ‘Smart’ farming techniques as political ontology: access, sovereignty and the performance of neoliberal and not-so-neoliberal worlds. Sociol. Rural. 58, 745–764. doi: 10.1111/soru.12202

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carolan, M. (2020). Digitization as politics: smart farming through the lens of weak and strong data. J. Rural. Stud. 91, 208–216. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.040

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Caron, P., Ferrero De Loma-Osorio, G., Nabarro, D., Hainzelin, E., Guillou, M., Andersen, I., et al. (2018). Food systems for sustainable development: proposals for a profound four-part transformation. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38:41. doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0519-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carriedo, A., Koon, A. D., Encarnación, L. M., Lee, K., Smith, R., and Walls, H. (2021). The political economy of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in Latin America: lessons from Mexico, Chile and Colombia. Glob. Health 17:Article 1. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00656-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carriedo, A., Walls, H., and Brown, K. A. (2022). Acknowledge the elephant in the room: the role of power dynamics in transforming food systems; comment on “what opportunities exist for making the food supply nutrition friendly? A policy space analysis in Mexico”. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 11, 3137–3140. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7382

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Claeys, P. (2013). From food sovereignty to peasants’ rights: an overview of via Campesina’s struggle for new human rights. La Via Campesina’s Open Book: Celebrating 20 Years of Struggle and Hope. Available at: https://www.viacampesina.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/05/EN-02.pdf

Google Scholar

Clapp, J. (2014). Financialization, distance and global food politics. J. Peasant Stud. 41, 797–814. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2013.875536

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clapp, J. (2020). Food : John Wiley & Sons.

Google Scholar

Clapp, J., and Fuchs, D. (2009). “Agrifood corporations, global governance, and sustainability: a framework for analysis” in Corporate power in global agrifood governance. eds. J. Clapp and D. Fuchs (Cambridge: The MIT Press), 1–25.

Google Scholar

Clapp, J., Noyes, I., and Grant, Z. (2021). The food systems summit’s failure to address corporate power. Development 64, 192–198. doi: 10.1057/s41301-021-00303-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clapp, J., and Ruder, S.-L. (2020). Precision technologies for agriculture: digital farming, gene-edited crops, and the politics of sustainability. Glob. Environ. Polit. 20, 49–69. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00566

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, J. K., Lowitt, K., Levkoe, C. Z., and Andree, P. (2021). The power to convene: making sense of the power of food movement organizations in governance processes in the global north. Agric. Hum. Values 38, 175–191. doi: 10.1007/s10460-020-10146-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Conti, C., Zanello, G., and Hall, A. (2021). Why are Agri-food systems resistant to new directions of change? A systematic review. Glob. Food Secur. 31:100576. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100576

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Convergence (2021). Blended finance and agriculture—convergence resources : Convergence Available at: https://www.convergence.finance/resource/blended-finance-and-agriculture/view.

Google Scholar

Cornelsen, L., Green, R., Turner, R., Dangour, A. D., Shankar, B., Mazzocchi, M., et al. (2015). What happens to patterns of food consumption when food prices change? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of food price elasticities globally. Health Econ. 24, 1548–1559. doi: 10.1002/hec.3107

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Corvalán Aguilar, C., Reyes, M., Garmendia, M. L., and Uauy Dagach-Imbarack, R. (2019). Structural responses to the obesity and non-communicable diseases epidemic: update on the Chilean law of food labelling and advertising. Obesity Rev. 20. doi: 10.1111/obr.12802

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Darnhofer, I. (2015). “Socio-technical transitions in farming: key concepts” in Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture: case studies from Europe (CABI Wallingford UK), 17–31.

Google Scholar

de Boon, A., Sandström, C., and Rose, D. C. (2022). Governing agricultural innovation: a comprehensive framework to underpin sustainable transitions. J. Rural. Stud. 89, 407–422. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.019

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

den Boer, A. C., Broerse, J. E., and Regeer, B. J. (2021). The need for capacity building to accelerate food system transformation. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 42, 119–126. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2021.05.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dentoni, D., Waddell, S., and Waddock, S. (2017). Pathways of transformation in global food and agricultural systems: implications from a large systems change theory perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.10.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Schutter, O. (2014). The specter of Productivism and food democracy symposium issue: safety and sustainability in the era of food systems: reaching a more integrated approach. Wis. Law Rev. 2014, 199–234.

Google Scholar

De Schutter, O. (2017). The political economy of food systems reform. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 44, 705–731. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbx0009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

De Schutter, O., Goïta, M., and Frison, E. (2021) Withdrawal from the UN food systems summit - memo from the IPES-food panel. Available at: https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UNFSS%20Withdrawal%20Statement.pdf

Google Scholar

Díaz-Bonilla, E. (2023). “Financing SDG2 and ending hunger” in Science and innovations for food systems transformation (Springer International Publishing Cham), 661–683.

Google Scholar

Dorninger, C., Abson, J. D., Apetrei, C. I., Derwort, P., Ives, C. D., Klaniecki, K., et al. (2020). Leverage points for sustainability transformation: a review on interventions in food and energy systems. Ecol. Econ. 171:106570. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106570

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duncan, J., DeClerck, F., Báldi, A., Treyer, S., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Cuhls, K., et al. (2022). Democratic directionality for transformative food systems research. Nat. Food 3, 183–186. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00479-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duncan, J., Levkoe, C. Z., and Moragues-Faus, A. (2019). Envisioning new horizons for the political economy of sustainable food systems. IDS Bull. 50:2. doi: 10.19088/1968-2019.117

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

DuPuis, E. M., and Goodman, D. (2005). Should we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. J. Rural. Stud. 21, 359–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.05.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dury, S., Bendjebbar, P., Hainzelin, E., Giordano, T., and Bricas, N. (2019). Food systems at risk: new trends and challenges. Montpellier: FAO, CIRAD.

Google Scholar

Eakin, H., Connors, J. P., Wharton, C., Bertmann, F., Xiong, A., and Stoltzfus, J. (2017). Identifying attributes of food system sustainability: emerging themes and consensus. Agric. Hum. Values 34, 757–773. doi: 10.1007/s10460-016-9754-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

El Bilali, H. (2020). Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 1693–1728. doi: 10.1007/s10668-018-0290-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

El Bilali, H. (2019). The multi-level perspective in research on sustainability transitions in agriculture and food systems: a systematic review. Agriculture 9:4. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9040074

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Elechi, J. O. G., Nwiyi, I. U., and Adamu, C. S. (2022). “Global food system transformation for resilience” in Sustainable development. eds. A. I. Ribeiro-Barros, D. S. Tevera, L. F. Goulao, and L. D. Tivana, vol. 1 (IntechOpen). Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/81235

Google Scholar

Eliasson, K., Wiréhn, L., Neset, T. S., Neset, T. S., and Linnér, B. O. (2022). Transformations towards sustainable food systems: contrasting Swedish practitioner perspectives with the European Commission’s farm to fork strategy. Sustain. Sci. 17, 2411–2425. doi: 10.1007/s11625-022-01174-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

ERF. (2008). Defensive R&D and innovation. Highlights note 08. European risk forum. Available at: http://eriforum.eu/uploads/2/5/7/1/25710097/erf_highlights_8_-_defensive_r_d_and_innovation_-_jul.16.pdf

Google Scholar

ETC Group. (2022). Food barons 2022 crisis profiteering, digitalization and shifting power (mapping corporate power in food systems). Available at: https://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/food-barons-2022-full_sectors-final_16_sept.pdf

Google Scholar

European Commission (2021). Everyone at the table: Co creating knowledge for food systems transformation. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. Brussels: Publications Office.

Google Scholar

Evans, A., and Miele, M. (2017). “Food labelling as a response to political consumption: effects and contradictions” in Routledge handbook on consumption (London: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Evenson, R. E. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300, 758–762. doi: 10.1126/science.1078710

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., McLaren, R., Marshall, Q., Davis, C., Herforth, A., et al. (2020). The food systems dashboard is a new tool to inform better food policy. Nat. Food 1, 243–246. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0077-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Schneider, K. R., Béné, C., Covic, N. M., Guarin, A., et al. (2021). Viewpoint: rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy 104:102163. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102163

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

FAO (2019a). A guide to resource mobilization : FAO Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i2699e/i2699e00.pdf.

Google Scholar

FAO. (2019b). FAO - news article: private sector has a crucial role to play in ensuring healthy diets for all. Available at: https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1412374/icode/

Google Scholar

Feng, S., Zhang, R., and Li, G. (2022). Environmental decentralization, digital finance and green technology innovation. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 61, 70–83. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2022.02.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Folke, C., Österblom, H., Jouffray, J.-B., Lambin, E. F., Adger, W. N., Scheffer, M., et al. (2019). Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1396–1403. doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-0978-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fraser, E., Legwegoh, A., Kc, K., CoDyre, M., Dias, G., Hazen, S., et al. (2016). Biotechnology or organic? Extensive or intensive? Global or local? A critical review of potential pathways to resolve the global food crisis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 48, 78–87. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Freeland-Graves, J., and Nitzke, S. (2002). Position of the American dietetic association: total diet approach to communicating food and nutrition information. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 102, 100–108. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(02)90030-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Friedman, N., and Ormiston, J. (2022). Blockchain as a sustainability-oriented innovation? Opportunities for and resistance to Blockchain technology as a driver of sustainability in global food supply chains. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 175:121403. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121403

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Friel, S. (2021). Redressing the corporate cultivation of consumption: releasing the weapons of the structurally weak. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 10, 784–792. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.205

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Friel, S., Barosh, L. J., and Lawrence, M. (2014). Towards healthy and sustainable food consumption: an Australian case study. Public Health Nutr. 17, 1156–1166. doi: 10.1017/S1368980013001523

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy 31, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.06.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gaitan-Cremaschi, D., Klerkx, L., Duncan, J., Trienekens, J. H., Huenchuleo, C., Dogliotti, S., et al. (2019). Characterizing diversity of food systems in view of sustainability transitions. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39:1. doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0550-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gale, B. T., and Branch, B. S. (1982). Concentration versus market share: which determines performance and why does it matter? Antitr. Bull. 27, 83–105. doi: 10.1177/0003603X8202700103

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Galli, F., Hebinck, A., and Carroll, B. (2018). Addressing food poverty in systems: governance of food assistance in three European countries. Food Secur. 10, 1353–1370. doi: 10.1007/s12571-018-0850-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garnett, T. (2013). Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 72, 29–39. doi: 10.1017/S0029665112002947

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garnett, T., and Godfray, C. H. (2012). Sustainable intensification in agriculture navigating a course through competing food system priorities. A report on a workshop, funded by the UK Government’s foresight Programme as part of its follow up activities to the future of food and farming project, 51. UK: Food Climate Research Network and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford.

Google Scholar

Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1, 24–40. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 21–40. doi: 10.1177/0263276414531627

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geels, F. W., and Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36, 399–417. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gemmill-Herren, B., Baker, L. E., and Daniels, P. A. (2021). True cost accounting for food: balancing the scale. London: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

Gies, S. V., Healy, E., and Stephenson, R. (2020). The evidence of effectiveness: beyond the methodological standards. Justice Eval. J. 3, 155–177. doi: 10.1080/24751979.2020.1727296

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gillespie, S., Haddad, L., Mannar, V., Menon, P., and Nisbett, N. (2013). The politics of reducing malnutrition: building commitment and accelerating progress. Lancet 382, 552–569. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60842-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gillespie, S., van den Bold, M., and Hodge, J. (2019). Nutrition and the governance of agri-food systems in South Asia: a systematic review. Food Policy 82, 13–27. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.10.013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gillespie, S., van den Bold, M., Hodge, J., and Herforth, A. (2015). Leveraging agriculture for nutrition in South Asia and East Africa: examining the enabling environment through stakeholder perceptions. Food Secur. 7, 463–477. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0449-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gill, M., Alanya, C. L., den Boer, A. C., Kok, K. P. W., Joao, B., Cahill, J., et al. (2018). Policy brief: a systems approach to research and innovation for food system transformation. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19681.97122

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Giner, C., and Brooks, J. (2019). Policies for encouraging healthier food choices. Paris: OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 137.

Google Scholar

Goldstein, J. E., Neimark, B., Garvey, B., and Phelps, J. (2023). Unlocking “lock-in” and path dependency: a review across disciplines and socio-environmental contexts. World Dev. 161:106116. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106116

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goodman, D., and DuPuis, E. M. (2002). Knowing food and growing food: beyond the production–consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 42, 5–22. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00199

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gravely, E., and Fraser, E. (2018). Transitions on the shopping floor: investigating the role of Canadian supermarkets in alternative protein consumption. Appetite 130, 146–156. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Green, R., Cornelsen, L., Dangour, A. D., Turner, R., Shankar, B., Mazzocchi, M., et al. (2013). The effect of rising food prices on food consumption: systematic review with meta-regression. BMJ 346:f3703. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3703

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., and Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44, 177–189. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Guo, Z., Bai, L., and Gong, S. (2019). Government regulations and voluntary certifications in food safety in China: a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 90, 160–165. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.04.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gyura, G. (2020). Green bonds and green bond funds: the quest for the real impact. J. Altern. Invest. 23, 71–79. doi: 10.3905/jai.2020.1.098

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Haddad, L., Hawkes, C., Waage, J., Webb, P., Godfray, C., and Toulmin, C. (2016). Food systems and diets: Facing the challenges of the 21st century. Global Panel on Agriculture and food system for Nutrition, 133 p

Google Scholar

Haines, A. (2017). Sugar tax: the winners and losers. Int. Tax Rev. 28:1.

Google Scholar

Hainzelin, E., Caron, P., Place, F., Alpha, A., Dury, S., Echeverria, R., et al. (2023). How could science–policy interfaces boost food system transformation? In J. Braunvon, K. Afsana, L. O. Fresco, and M. H. A. Hassan (Eds.), Science and innovations for food systems transformation (pp. 877–891). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Google Scholar

Hampshire, R. D., Aguayo, V. M., Harouna, H., Roley, J. A., Tarini, A., and Baker, S. (2004). Delivery of nutrition services in health systems in sub-Saharan Africa: opportunities in Burkina Faso, Mozambique and Niger. Public Health Nutr. 7, 1047–1053. doi: 10.1079/PHN2004641

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harris, J., Anderson, M., Clément, C., and Nisbett, N. (2019). The political economy of food. IDS Bull. 50. doi: 10.19088/1968-2019.112

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hasnain, S., and Chaudhury, A. S. (2021). Financing food system transformation: insights from global climate projects. J. Br. Acad. 9, 21–42. doi: 10.5871/jba/009s10.021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hassanein, N. (2003). Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation. J. Rural. Stud. 19, 77–86. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00041-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Havemann, T., Negra, C., and Werneck, F. (2022). “Blended finance for agriculture: exploring the constraints and possibilities of combining financial instruments for sustainable transitions” in Social innovation and sustainability transition (Cham: Springer), 347–358.

Google Scholar

Hendrickson, M. K., and James, H. S. (2016). Power, fairness and constrained choice in agricultural markets: a synthesizing framework. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29, 945–967. doi: 10.1007/s10806-016-9641-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herens, M. C., Pittore, K. H., and Oosterveer, P. J. M. (2022). Transforming food systems: multi-stakeholder platforms driven by consumer concerns and public demands. Glob. Food Secur. Agri. Policy Econ. Environ. 32:100592. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100592

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Benton, T. G., Bodirsky, B. L., et al. (2020). Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food 1, 266–272. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herring, R., and Paarlberg, R. (2016). The political economy of biotechnology. Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ. 8, 397–416. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095506

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite 86, 38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hinrichs, C. C. (2014). Transitions to sustainability: a change in thinking about food systems change? Agric. Hum. Values 31, 143–155. doi: 10.1007/s10460-014-9479-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hinton, L. (2022). Discursive power: trade over health in CARICOM food labelling policy. Front. Commun. 6:796425. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.796425

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

HLPE (2017). “HLPE report # 12—nutrition and food systems” in High level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the committee on world food security, 152.

Google Scholar

HLPE (2021). “Promoting youth engagement and employment in agriculture and food systems” in High level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the committee on world food security, 159.

Google Scholar

HLPE (2022). “Data collection and analysis tools for food security and nutrition” in High level panel of experts on food security and nutrition of the committee on world food security, 154.

Google Scholar

Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., and Loorbach, D. (2018). Transition versus transformation: What’s the difference? Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 27, 1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Holt-Giménez, E. (2019). Capitalism, food, and social movements: the political economy of food system transformation. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev. 9, 1–13. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2019.091.043

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Holt-Giménez, E., and Altieri, M. A. (2013). Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 37, 90–102. doi: 10.1080/10440046.2012.716388

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Horbach, J. (Ed.) (2005). Indicator systems for sustainable innovation : Physica-Verlag HD.

Google Scholar

Horton, P., Banwart, S. A., Brockington, D., Brown, G. W., Bruce, R., Cameron, D., et al. (2017). An agenda for integrated system-wide interdisciplinary Agri-food research. Food Secur. 9, 195–210. doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0648-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hossain, N., and Scott-Villiers, P. (2019). Purchasing and protesting: power from below in the global food crisis. IDS Bull. 50:Article 2. doi: 10.19088/1968-2019.119

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hübel, C., and Schaltegger, S. (2022). Barriers to a sustainability transformation of meat production practices—an industry actor perspective. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 29, 128–140. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hunter, D., Özkan, I., de Oliveira, M., Beltrame, D., Samarasinghe, W. L. G., Wasike, V. W., et al. (2016). Enabled or disabled: is the environment right for using biodiversity to improve nutrition? Front. Nutr. 3:14. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2016.00014

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hutter, L., and Lawrence, H. (2021). “The discourse of technological innovation: a new domain for accountability” in Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, 151–156.

Google Scholar

Ingram, J. (2015). Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: an analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. J. Rural. Stud. 40, 59–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

IPES-Food. (2016). From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International panel of experts on sustainable food systems. Available at: https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf

Google Scholar

IPES-Food (2017). Too big to feed: exploring the impacts of mega-mergers, concentration, concentration of power in the agri-food sector : IPES-Food Available at: https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Concentration_FullReport.pdf.

Google Scholar

IPES-Food (2023). Who’s tipping the scales? The growing influence of corporations on the governance of food systems, and how to counter it : IPES Available at: https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/tippingthescales.pdf.

Google Scholar

IPES-Food and ETC Group. (2021). Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045, IPES-Food. Available at: https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/LongFoodMovementEN.pdf

Google Scholar

Jacobsen, E., and Dulsrud, A. (2007). Will consumers save the world? The framing of political consumerism. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 20, 469–482. doi: 10.1007/s10806-007-9043-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jagustovic, R., Papachristos, G., Zougmore, R. B., Kotir, J. H., Kessler, A., Ouedraogo, M., et al. (2021). Better before worse trajectories in food systems? An investigation of synergies and trade-offs through climate-smart agriculture and system dynamics. Agric. Syst. 190:103131. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103131

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jia, X. (2021). Agro-food innovation and sustainability transition: a conceptual synthesis. Sustain. For. 13:6897. doi: 10.3390/su13126897

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kalibata, A. (2021) The food systems summit- a new Deal for people, planet and prosperity. UN secretary-General’s special envoy to the 2021 food systems summit. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/food-systems-summit-new-deal-people-planet-and-prosperity

Google Scholar

Kampman, H., Zongrone, A., Rawat, R., and Becquey, E. (2017). How Senegal created an enabling environment for nutrition: a story of change. Glob. Food Sec. 13, 57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.02.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kang, H., Roggio, A. M., and Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2022). Governance of local food systems: current research and future directions. J. Clean. Prod. 338:130626. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130626

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kanter, D. R., Schwoob, M.-H., Baethgen, W. E., Bervejillo, J. E., Carriquiry, M., Dobermann, A., et al. (2016). Translating the sustainable development goals into action: a participatory backcasting approach for developing national agricultural transformation pathways. Glob. Food Sec. 10, 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawarazuka, N., Béné, C., and Prain, G. (2018). Adapting to a new urbanizing environment: gendered strategies of Hanoi's street food vendors. Urban. Environ. 30, 233–248. doi: 10.1177/0956247817735482

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kawarazuka, N., Mabhaudhi, T., Green, R., Scheelbeek, P., Ambikapathi, R., Robinson, J., et al. (2023). Inclusive diets within planetary boundaries. One Earth 6, 443–448. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.05.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keller, M., Halkier, B., Wilska, T.-A., and Truninger, M. (2017). Routledge handbook on consumption. London: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

Kelly, B., Vandevijvere, S., Ng, S., Adams, J., Allemandi, L., Bahena-Espina, L., et al. (2019). Global benchmarking of children's exposure to television advertising of unhealthy foods and beverages across 22 countries. Obes. Rev. 20, 116–128. doi: 10.1111/obr.12840

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kemp, R. (2010). Sustainable technologies do not exist! EKONOMIAZ. Rev. Vas. Econ. 75, 22–39.

Google Scholar

Kennedy, E., Webb, P., Block, S., Griffin, T., Mozaffarian, D., and Kyte, R. (2021). Transforming food systems: the missing pieces needed to make them work. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 5:nzaa177. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzaa177

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khan, N., Ray, R. L., Kassem, H. S., Hussain, S., Zhang, S., Khayyam, M., et al. (2021). Potential role of technology innovation in transformation of sustainable food systems: a review. Agriculture 11:984. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11100984

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klerkx, L., and Begemann, S. (2020). Supporting food systems transformation: the what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst. 184:102901. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102901

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Knight, F., Bourassa, M. W., Ferguson, E., Walls, H., de Pee, S., Vosti, S., et al. (2022). Nutrition modeling tools: a qualitative study of influence on policy decision making and determining factors. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1513, 170–191. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14778

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kraak, V. I., Swinburn, B., Lawrence, M., and Harrison, P. (2014). An accountability framework to promote healthy food environments. Public Health Nutr. 17, 2467–2483. doi: 10.1017/S1368980014000093

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kuchiki, A. (2004). Prioritization of policies: a prototype model of a flowchart method. Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), IDE Discussion Papers.

Google Scholar

Kugelberg, S., Bartolini, F., Kanter, D. R., Milford, A. B., Pira, K., Sanz-Cobena, A., et al. (2021). Implications of a food system approach for policy agenda-setting design. Glob. Food Secur. Agric. Policy Econ. Environ. 28:100451. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100451

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kuhnlein, H. V., and Chotiboriboon, S. (2022). Why and how to strengthen indigenous peoples’ food systems with examples from two unique indigenous communities. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:808670. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.808670

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kushitor, S. B., Drimie, S., Davids, R., Delport, C., Hawkes, C., Mabhaudhi, T., et al. (2022). The complex challenge of governing food systems: the case of south African food policy. Food Secur. 14, 883–896. doi: 10.1007/s12571-022-01258-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lam, D. P. M., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Guerrero Lara, L., Sellberg, M. M., Norström, A. V., Moore, M.-L., et al. (2022). Amplifying actions for food system transformation: insights from the Stockholm region. Sustain. Sci. 17, 2379–2395. doi: 10.1007/s11625-022-01154-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lartey, A., Meerman, J., and Wijesinha-Bettoni, R. (2018). Why food system transformation is essential and how nutrition scientists can contribute. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 72, 193–201. doi: 10.1159/000487605

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lawhon, M., and Murphy, J. T. (2012). Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions: Insights from political ecology. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 354–378.

Google Scholar

Leach, M., Nisbett, N., Cabral, L., Harris, J., Hossain, N., and Thompson, J. (2020). Food politics and development. World Dev. 134:105024. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leeuwis, C., Boogaard, B. K., and Atta-Krah, K. (2021). How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes. Food Secur. 13, 761–780. doi: 10.1007/s12571-021-01178-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lentz, E. C. (2021). Food and agriculture systems foresight study: implications for gender, poverty, and nutrition. Q. Open 1:qoaa003. doi: 10.1093/qopen/qoaa003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lizie, A. (2012). “Food and communication” in Routledge international handbook of food studies (London: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Lockie, S. (2002). ‘The invisible mouth’: mobilizing ‘the consumer’in food production–consumption networks. Sociol. Rural. 42, 278–294. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00217

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Losch, B., and May, J. (2023). “Place-based approaches to food system resilience: emerging trends and lessons from South Africa” in Resilience and food security in a food system context. eds. C. Béné and S. Devereux (Cham: Palgrave MacMillan), 321–353.

Google Scholar

Lugo-Morin, D. (2020). Indigenous communities and their food systems: a contribution to the current debate. J. Ethnic Foods 7:6. doi: 10.1186/s42779-019-0043-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Macdiarmid, J. I., Douglas, F., and Campbell, J. (2016). Eating like there’s no tomorrow: public awareness of the environmental impact of food and reluctance to eat less meat as part of a sustainable diet. Appetite 96, 487–493. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

MacRae, R., and Abergel, E. (2012). Health and sustainability in the Canadian food system: advocacy and opportunity for civil society. Seattle: UBC Press.

Google Scholar

Maltais, A., and Nykvist, B. (2020). Understanding the role of green bonds in advancing sustainability. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 1–20. doi: 10.1080/20430795.2020.1724864

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mandrioli, D., Kearns, C. E., and Bero, L. A. (2016). Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: a systematic review of reviews. PLoS One 11:e0162198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162198

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Manorat, R., Becker, L., and Flory, A. (2019). Global data visualization tools to empower decision-making in nutrition. Sight Life 33, 108–114. https://datadent.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SightandLifeMagazine_2019_Data_in_Nutrition_GlobalDataVisualizationTools.pdf

Google Scholar

Marzeda-Mlynarska, K. (2011). The application of multi-level governance model outside the EU-context: the case of food security. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers-EDAP, 2011

Google Scholar

Masters, W. A., Rosettie, K., Kranz, S., Pedersen, S. H., Webb, P., Danaei, G., et al. (2018). Priority interventions to improve maternal and child diets in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Matern Child Nutr, 14, 1–11. https://doi.org/10/ggfp9x

Google Scholar

Matthews, N. E., Stamford, L., and Shapira, P. (2019). Aligning sustainability assessment with responsible research and innovation: towards a framework for constructive sustainability assessment. Sustain. Prod. Consumpt. 20, 58–73. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2019.05.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mattioni, D., Milbourne, P., and Sonnino, R. (2022). Destabilizing the food regime “from within”: tools and strategies used by urban food policy actors. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 44, 48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mausch, K., Hall, A., and Hambloch, C. (2020). Colliding paradigms and trade-offs: Agri-food systems and value chain interventions. Glob. Food Sec. 26:100439. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100439

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maye, D. (2013). Moving alternative food networks beyond the niche. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 20, 383–389. doi: 10.48416/ijsaf.v20i3.173

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mazzucato, M. (2016). From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Ind. Innov. 23, 140–156. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2016.1146124

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McDermid, S. S., Hayek, M., Jamieson, D. W., Hale, G., and Kanter, D. (2023). Research needs for a food system transition. Clim. Chang. 176:41. doi: 10.1007/s10584-023-03507-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McNeill, D. (2019). Reflections on IPES-food: can power analysis change the world? IDS Bull. 50, 14–27. doi: 10.19088/1968-2019.116

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mialon, M., Swinburn, B., and Sacks, G. (2015). A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information. Obes. Rev. 16, 519–530. doi: 10.1111/obr.12289

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Michalke, A., Köhler, S., Messmann, L., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., and Gaugler, T. (2023). True cost accounting of organic and conventional food production. J. Clean. Prod. 408:137134. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137134

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Milat, A. J., and Li, B. (2017). Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice. Public Health Res. Pract. 27:2711704. doi: 10.17061/phrp2711704

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miles, A., DeLonge, M. S., and Carlisle, L. (2017). Triggering a positive research and policy feedback cycle to support a transition to agroecology and sustainable food systems. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 41, 855–879. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2017.1331179

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Millan, A., Limketkai, B., and Guarnaschelli, S. (2019). Financing the transformation of food systems under a changing climate. CCAFS Report. Wageningen, the Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Google Scholar

Miller, B. (2021). Is technology value-neutral? Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 46, 53–80. doi: 10.1177/0162243919900965

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moodie, R., Bennett, E., Kwong, E. J. L., Santos, T. M., Pratiwi, L., Williams, J., et al. (2021). Ultra-processed profits: the political economy of countering the global spread of ultra-processed foods – a synthesis review on the market and political practices of transnational food corporations and strategic public health responses. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 10, 968–982. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.45

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Morkel, C., and Ramasobama, M. (2017). Measuring the effect of evaluation capacity building initiatives in Africa: A review. Afric. Eval. J. 5. doi: 10.4102/aej.v5i1.187

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mudigere Sannegowda, U. B., and Garkoti, S. C. (2022). Traditional community-led seed system for maintaining crop vigour, diversity and socio-cultural network in view of the changing climate: a case study from western Himalaya, India. Climate Action 1:19. doi: 10.1007/s44168-022-00020-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ngqangashe, Y., and Friel, S. (2022). Regulatory governance pathways to improve the efficacy of Australian food policies. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 46, 710–715. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.13284

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nisbett, N., Gillespie, S., Haddad, L., and Harris, J. (2014). Why worry about the politics of childhood undernutrition? World Dev. 64, 420–433. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Noack, A.-L., and Pouw, N. R. M. (2015). A blind spot in food and nutrition security: where culture and social change shape the local food plate. Agric. Hum. Values 32, 169–182. doi: 10.1007/s10460-014-9538-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C., Schlüter, M., et al. (2016). Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8317

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

O’Brien, E., and Macoun, A. (2022). Responsible citizens, political consumers and the state. Acta Polit. 57, 377–395. doi: 10.1057/s41269-021-00194-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

OECD (2010). Multi-level governance: a conceptual framework. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 171–178.

Google Scholar

OECD (2015). Better policies for development 2015: policy coherence and green growth. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Google Scholar

OECD (2016). Better policies for sustainable development 2016: a new framework for policy coherence. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Google Scholar

OECD (2021). Making better policies for food systems : OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 279.

Google Scholar

OECD and FAO (2021). “Meat” in OECD & food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2021–2030 (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

Google Scholar

Oliver, T. H., Boyd, E., Balcombe, K., Benton, T. G., Bullock, J. M., Donovan, D., et al. (2018). Overcoming undesirable resilience in the global food system. Glob. Sustain. 1:e9. doi: 10.1017/sus.2018.9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Olsson, P., Galaz, V., and Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecol. Soc. 19. doi: 10.5751/ES-06799-190401

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parkhurst, J. (2017). The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Oxon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Google Scholar

Parsons, K., and Barling, D. (2021). Food systems transformation: what’s in the policy toolbox? Available at: http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/handle/2299/25340

Google Scholar

Pelling, M. (2010). Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. Oxfordshire: Routledge- Abingdon-on-Thames.

Google Scholar

Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., and Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Clim. Chang. 133, 113–127. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pereira, L., and Drimie, S. (2016). Governance arrangements for the future food system: addressing complexity in South Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 58, 18–31. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2016.1186438

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pereira, L. M., Drimie, S., Maciejewski, K., Tonissen, P. B., and Biggs, R. (2020). Food system transformation: integrating a political–economy and social–ecological approach to regime shifts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:Article 4. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17041313

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Politico (2022). Addressing harmful subsidies globally will help solve the climate and biodiversity crises : Politico Available at: https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-are-the-twin-crises-of-our-era-reforming-agricultural-fishery-and-forestry-subsidies-could-help-solve-both/.

Google Scholar

Popkin, B. M., and Reardon, T. (2018). Obesity and the food system transformation in Latin America. Obes. Rev. 19, 1028–1064. doi: 10.1111/obr.12694

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Poponi, S., Arcese, G., Pacchera, F., and Martucci, O. (2022). Evaluating the transition to the circular economy in the agri-food sector: selection of indicators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 176:105916. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105916

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Prost, S. (2019). Food democracy for all? Developing a food hub in the context of socio-economic deprivation. Politi. Govern. 7, 142–153. doi: 10.17645/pag.v7i4.2057

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pudjiastuti, S. R. (2021). Global issues of environmental law enforcement impacts on sustainable development. J. Human. Soc. Stud. 5, 56–62. doi: 10.33751/jhss.v5i1.3226

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Qiao, Y., Martin, F., He, X., Zhen, H., and Pan, X. (2019). The changing role of local government in organic agriculture development in Wanzai County, China. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 40, 64–77.

Google Scholar

Reisch, L., Eberle, U., and Lorek, S. (2013). Sustainable food consumption: an overview of contemporary issues and policies. Sustainability 9, 7–25. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2013.11908111

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Renting, H., and Wiskerke, H. (2010). New Emerging Roles for Public Institutions and Civil Society in the Promotion of Sustainable Local Agro‐Food Systems. 9th European IFSA Symposium, 4‐7 July 2010, Vienna (Austria).

Google Scholar

Rip, A., and Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. Hum. Choice Clim. Change 2, 327–399.

Google Scholar

Roache, S. A., and Gostin, L. O. (2017). The untapped power of soda taxes: incentivizing consumers, generating revenue, and altering corporate behavior. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 6, 489–493. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2017.69

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roggio, A. M., and Evans, J. R. (2022). Will participatory guarantee systems happen here? The case for innovative food systems governance in the developed world. Sustain. For. 14:1720. doi: 10.3390/su14031720

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ronit, K., and Jensen, J. D. (2014). Obesity and industry self-regulation of food and beverage marketing: a literature review. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 68, 753–759. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2014.60

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rowe, S. B. (2002). Communicating science-based food and nutrition information. J. Nutr. 132, 2481S–2482S. doi: 10.1093/jn/132.8.2481S

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruben, R., Cavatassi, R., Lipper, L., Smaling, E., and Winters, P. (2021). Towards food systems transformation—five paradigm shifts for healthy, inclusive and sustainable food systems. Food Secur. 13, 1423–1430. doi: 10.1007/s12571-021-01221-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rust, N. A., Ridding, L., Ward, C., Clark, B., Kehoe, L., Dora, M., et al. (2020). How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet. Sci. Total Environ. 718:137208. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137208

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sandhu, H. (2021). Bottom-up transformation of agriculture and food systems. Sustain. For. 13:2171. doi: 10.3390/su13042171

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sargant, E. (2014). Sustainable food consumption: a practice based approach, vol. 11. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Google Scholar

Schiller, K., Godek, W., Klerkx, L., and Poortvliet, P. M. (2020). Nicaragua’s agroecological transition: transformation or reconfiguration of the agri-food regime? Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 44, 611–628. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1667939

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schneider, M. (2017). Dragon head enterprises and the state of agribusiness in China. J. Agrar. Chang. 17, 3–21. doi: 10.1111/joac.12151

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schoneveld, G. C. (2022). Transforming food systems through inclusive agribusiness. World Dev. 158:105970. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105970

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schot, J., and Geels, F. W. (2007). Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change: a critical survey of the literature. J. Evol. Econ. 17, 605–622. doi: 10.1007/s00191-007-0057-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schwarz, G., Vanni, F., and Miller, D. (2021). The role of transdisciplinary research in the transformation of food systems. Agric. Food Econ. 9:s40100-021-00207–2. doi: 10.1186/s40100-021-00207-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, L. L., Teret, S. P., Kelly, D., and Brownell, K. D. (2010). The food industry and self-regulation: standards to promote success and to avoid public health failures. Am. J. Public Health 100, 240–246. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.160960

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shove, E., and Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices: understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. J. Consum. Cult. 5, 43–64. doi: 10.1177/1469540505049846

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., and Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: everyday life and how it changes. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar

Shove, E., and Walker, G. (2014). What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 41–58. doi: 10.1177/0263276414536746

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sibanda, L. M., and Mwamakamba, S. N. (2021). Policy considerations for African food systems: towards the United Nations 2021 food systems summit. Sustain. For. 13, 1–15. doi: 10.3390/su13169018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sievert, K., Lawrence, M., Parker, C., and Baker, P. (2021). Understanding the political challenge of red and processed meat reduction for healthy and sustainable food systems: a narrative review of the literature. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 10, 793–808. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.238

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Silvestri, C., Silvestri, L., Piccarozzi, M., and Ruggieri, A. (2022). Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 1–39. doi: 10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Silvestri, G., Diercks, G., and Matti, C. (2022). X-curve, a sensemaking tool to foster collective narratives on system change : DRIFT and EIT Climate-KIC Transitions Hub Available at: https://drift.eur.nl/app/uploads/2022/02/X-Curve-booklet-DRIFT-EIT-Climate-KIC-2022.pdf.

Google Scholar

Singh, B. K., Arnold, T., Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Broerse, J., Brunori, G., Caron, P., et al. (2021). Enhancing science–policy interfaces for food systems transformation. Nat. Food 2, 838–842. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00406-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, L. C., and Haddad, L. (2015). Reducing child undernutrition: past drivers and priorities for the post-MDG era. World Dev. 68, 180–204. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sodano, V., and Gorgitano, M. T. (2022). Framing political issues in food system transformative changes. Soc. Sci. 11, 1–19. doi: 10.3390/socsci11100459

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Spaargaren, G., Loeber, A. M., and Oosterveer, P. (2011). Food practices in transition. New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Ssebunya, B. R., Schmid, E., van Asten, P., Schader, C., Altenbuchner, C., and Stolze, M. (2017). Stakeholder engagement in prioritizing sustainability assessment themes for smallholder coffee production in Uganda. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 32, 428–445. doi: 10.1017/S1742170516000363

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stephens, P. (2021). Social finance for sustainable food systems: opportunities, tensions and ambiguities. Agric. Hum. Values 38, 1123–1137. doi: 10.1007/s10460-021-10222-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stuckler, D., and Nestle, M. (2012). Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Med. 9:e1001242. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001242

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Swinburn, B. (2019). Power dynamics in 21st-century food systems. Nutrients 11:2544. doi: 10.3390/nu11102544

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Swinburn, B., Kraak, V., Rutter, H., Vandevijvere, S., Lobstein, T., Sacks, G., et al. (2015). Strengthening of accountability systems to create healthy food environments and reduce global obesity. Lancet 385, 2534–2545. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61747-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Szanton, D. L. (2004). The politics of knowledge: area studies and the disciplines. Oakland: University of California Press.

Google Scholar

Termeer, C. J. A. M., Drimie, S., Ingram, J., Pereira, L., and Whittingham, M. J. (2018). A diagnostic framework for food system governance arrangements: the case of South Africa. NJAS 84, 85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2017.08.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thorpe, J., Guijt, J., Sprenger, T., Stibbe, D., Thorpe, J., Guijt, J., et al. (2021). Multi stakeholder platforms as system change agents: a guide for assessing effectiveness (1–1 online resource (PDF, 24 pages): illustrations). Wageningen: Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation.

Google Scholar

Timilsina, A. R. (2007). Getting the policies right: the prioritization and sequencing of policies in post-conflict countries. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

Google Scholar

Tomlinson, I. (2013). Doubling food production to feed the 9 billion: a critical perspective on a key discourse of food security in the UK. J. Rural. Stud. 29, 81–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Torres-Salcido, G., and Sanz-Canada, J. (2018). Territorial governance. A comparative research of local agro-food Systems in Mexico. Agriculture 8:18. doi: 10.3390/agriculture8020018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tregear, A. (2011). Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: critical reflections and a research agenda. J. Rural. Stud. 27, 419–430. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.06.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tui, S. H.-K., Descheemaeker, K., Valdivia, R. O., Masikati, P., Sisito, G., Moyo, E. N., et al. (2021). Climate change impacts and adaptation for dryland farming systems in Zimbabwe: a stakeholder-driven integrated multi-model assessment. Clim. Chang. 168:10. doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03151-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tummers, L. (2019). Public policy and behavior change. Public Adm. Rev. 79, 925–930. doi: 10.1111/puar.13109

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

USDA (2023). Ag and food sectors and the economy : U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/.

Google Scholar

US Federal Trade Commission (2003). To promote innovation: the proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. USA: Federal Trade Commission.

Google Scholar

Vågsholm, I., Arzoomand, N. S., and Boqvist, S. (2020). Food security, safety, and sustainability—getting the trade-offs right. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:16. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van Bers, C., Delaney, A., Eakin, H., Cramer, L., Purdon, M., Oberlack, C., et al. (2019). Advancing the research agenda on food systems governance and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 39, 94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.08.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van den Bold, M., Kohli, N., Gillespie, S., Zuberi, S., Rajeesh, S., and Chakraborty, B. (2015). Is there an enabling environment for nutrition-sensitive agriculture in South Asia? Stakeholder perspectives from India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Food Nutr. Bull. 36, 231–247. doi: 10.1177/0379572115587494

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van Gameren, V., Ruwet, C., and Bauler, T. (2015). Towards a governance of sustainable consumption transitions: how institutional factors influence emerging local food systems in Belgium. Local Environ. 20, 874–891. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2013.872090

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Verain, M. C., Dagevos, H., and Antonides, G. (2015). Sustainable food consumption. Product choice or curtailment? Appetite 91, 375–384. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.055

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Verbruggen, P. (2013). Gorillas in the closet? Public and private actors in the enforcement of transnational private regulation. Regul. Govern. 7, 512–532. doi: 10.1111/rego.12026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vermeir, I., Weijters, B., De Houwer, J., Geuens, M., Slabbinck, H., Spruyt, A., et al. (2020). Environmentally sustainable food consumption: a review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Front. Psychol. 11:1603. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01603

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vermeulen, S., Park, T., Khoury, C., and Béné, C. (2020). Changing diets and the transformation of the global food system. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1478, 3–17. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14446

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

von Braun, J., Afsana, K., Fresco, L. O., and Hassan, M. H. A. (2023). Science for transformation of food systems: opportunities for the UN food systems summit. Sci. Innov. Food Syst. Transform. 921, 921–948. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_50

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Webb, P., Benton, T. G., Beddington, J., Flynn, D., Kelly, N. M., and Thomas, S. M. (2020). The urgency of food system transformation is now irrefutable. Nat. Food 1, 584–585. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-00161-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

White, S., Schmidt, W., Sahanggamu, D., Fatmaningrum, D., van Liere, M., and Curtis, V. (2016). Can gossip change nutrition behaviour? Results of a mass media and community-based intervention trial in East Java, Indonesia. Trop. Med. Int. Health 21, 348–364. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12660

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Whitfield, L. (2017). New paths to capitalist agricultural production in Africa: experiences of Ghanaian pineapple producer–exporters. J. Agrar. Chang. 17, 535–556. doi: 10.1111/joac.12152

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wiebe, K., and Prager, S. (2021). Commentary on foresight and trade-off analysis for agriculture and food systems. Q. Open 1:qoaa004. doi: 10.1093/qopen/qoaa004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilkinson, G. R., Schofield, M., and Kanowski, P. (2014). Regulating forestry—experience with compliance and enforcement over the 25 years of Tasmania’s forest practices system. Forest Policy Econ. 40, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.11.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Winders, B., and Ransom, E. (2019). Global meat—social and environmental consequences of the expanding meat industry. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 245.

Google Scholar

Woodhill, J. (2023). Why, what, and how: a framework for transforming food systems : Foresight4Food Available at: https://foresight4food.net/why-what-and-how-a-framework-for-transforming-food-systems/.

Google Scholar

World Bank (2020). Agriculture finance & agriculture insurance [Text/HTML] : World Bank Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialsector/brief/agriculture-finance.

Google Scholar

Wu, X., Ramesh, M., and Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: a conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Polic. Soc. 34, 165–171. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yates, J., Gillespie, S., Savona, N., Deeney, M., and Kadiyala, S. (2021). Trust and responsibility in food systems transformation. Engaging with big food: marriage or mirage? BMJ Glob. Health 6:e007350. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007350

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yee, W.-H., and Liu, P. (2021). Governance capacity and regulatory enforcement: street-level organizations in Beijing’s food safety reform. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 87, 256–274. doi: 10.1177/0020852321992110

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zerbian, T., Adams, M., Dooris, M., and Pool, U. (2022). The role of local authorities in shaping local food systems. Sustain. For. 14:12004. doi: 10.3390/su141912004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zurek, M., Hebinck, A., Leip, A., Vervoort, J., Kuiper, M., Garrone, M., et al. (2018). Assessing sustainable food and nutrition security of the EU food system—an integrated approach. Sustain. For. 10:4271. doi: 10.3390/su10114271

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zurek, M., Hebinck, A., and Selomane, O. (2021). Looking across diverse food system futures: implications for climate change and the environment. Q. Open 1:qoaa001. doi: 10.1093/qopen/qoaa001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar