Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:14:00.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A scoping review of the conceptualisations of food justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2023

Sandra Murray*
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, Newnham Drive, Launceston, 7250 Tasmania Australia
Fred Gale
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
David Adams
Affiliation:
Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
Lisa Dalton
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, Newnham Drive, Launceston, 7250 Tasmania Australia
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The emerging concept of ‘food justice’ describes a social movement and a set of principles. It align with the goals of social justice, demanding recognition of human rights, equal opportunity, fair treatment and is participatory and community specific. The aim of this study was to investigate the conceptualisation of food justice and to explore how community participation is positioned in food justice scholarship.

Design:

A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using the term ‘food justice’. This study used a five-step scoping review protocol. The databases included Scopus, Web of Science and Medline (OVID). Data were extracted on country of origin, research discipline, study type and conceptualisations of food justice. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify the themes.

Results:

The search identified 546 abstracts of which ninety peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis identified five themes of food justice across these ninety studies: (1) social equity, (2) food security, (3) food systems transformation, (4) community participation and agency and (5) environmental sustainability.

Conclusions:

Current conceptualisations of food justice are evolving. Together, these five themes, using the term food justice, embrace a more holistic and structural view of the food system. They emphasise healthy, sustainable and equitable food as a human right and acknowledge the need to address structural barriers to that right. Community participation and agency in food justice decision-making is critical for transformative change towards a healthy, sustainable, and more just food system.

Type
Scoping Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

The emerging concept of ‘food justice’ describes a social movement and a set of principles. It aligns with the goals of social justice, demanding recognition of human rights, equal opportunity, fair treatment and is participatory and community-specific(Reference Liebenberg1,Reference Loo2) . Its emergence also takes into account the global recognition that the food system is symbiotically linked to public health(Reference Story, Hamm and Wallinga3). This is because of the connectivity that exists between food, health and the environment.

Worldwide farmers produce enough food to feed all citizens(Reference Bahadur, Goretty and Dias4). At the same time a combination of substantial food waste, inadequate food distribution and mass production of over-processed and low-nutritious food. Consequently, hunger is increasing(Reference Lartey, Meerman and Wijesinha-Bettoni5), the prevalence of undernourished people is escalating(6), obesity is reaching epidemic proportions(Reference Lartey, Meerman and Wijesinha-Bettoni5) and public health being negatively impacted by escalating diet-related chronic disease rates. Furthermore, climate change influences agricultural production, and agricultural practices negatively impact the environment(Reference Ericksen, Ingram and Liverman7). This has led to a ‘triple crisis’, whereby obesity, undernutrition and climate change undermine the conditions for human and planetary health(Reference Swinburn, Kraak and Allender8). Food justice is emerging as a powerful mobilising concept for driving social change to address food inequities from a more-than-human perspective(Reference Abram9) – referring to the inseparability of human and natural interactions – but in theory and practice, it is a contested term(Reference Coulson and Milbourne10).

The world is at a critical juncture, as the state of global food insecurity – referring to a lack of access to sufficient and adequate food – increases after remaining virtually unchanged from 2014 to 2019 (FAO 2021). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 ‘Zero Hunger’ is the human rights catalyst for governments to target food systems and environments to improve people’s access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food by 2030(11). The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states ‘everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and his family, including food…’. Although not legally binding, many countries endorsed a human rights-based approach to economic, social and cultural rights in 1975(Reference Godrich, Barbour and Lindberg12). However, when it comes to equitable access to healthy, affordable and nutritious food, governments have predominately adopted a needs-based response, such as food relief, rather than a rights-based approach which is community-led(Reference Uvin13). The root causes of food insecurity are multifactorial and tend to include material hardships and inadequate financial resources(Reference Bowden14). The dominant response has focused on government welfare payments and supporting emergency food relief initiatives within the charitable food sector(Reference Godrich, Barbour and Lindberg12,Reference Caraher and Furey15) . Such technical fixes are unlikely to solve food insecurity challenge(Reference Lindberg, McKenzie and Haines16). These technical fixes are primarily focused on issues of food access, reflecting a ‘passive’ welfare ethos, locking people into welfare dependency(Reference Seivwright, Callis and Flatau17). While ‘community’ is understood as the site of the social problem, food insecurity will remain a site of political debate(Reference Everingham18).

The United Nations FAO has a vision for food security, which is when ‘… all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’(19). Consistent with this vision, some governments (e.g. Australia) state that their national goal is to remain one of the most food security nations in the world(20). National food security targets are often met by sourcing food produced under environmentally destructive and exploitative conditions and supported by subsidies and policies that destroy local food producers but benefit agribusiness corporations(Reference Edelman21,Reference Davies22) .

Food system transformation – the radical change needed in our food system to dramatically improve environmental, health and livelihood outcomes – should be informed by timely and robust evidence. The literature on food security, social justice and the food system is extensive and varied, and continually evolving(Reference Clapp, Moseley and Burlingame23). It ranges from assessments and proposed solutions to economic analyses, social and philosophical examinations of food as a human right and social justice issue(Reference Fleetwood24). To transform the food system, there is a call to broaden the scope of food security to go beyond the four well-documented pillars of availability, access, utilisation and stability to recognise sustainability and agency – where agency refers to the capacity of individuals and groups to exercise their voice and make decisions about their food systems – which are critical dimensions of food security and flow directly from the principles of the right to food legal framework(Reference Clapp, Moseley and Burlingame23). The right to food, a legal right protected under human rights law, implies the right of people to feed themselves in dignity(25). Sustainability seeks to achieve an environmentally sustainable food system(Reference Longo26), which refers to how citizens can be empowered to exercise their capacity to make choices about what they eat, the foods they produce, how that food is produced, processed, distributed and their role in participating in policy processes that shape food systems(Reference Clapp, Moseley and Burlingame23,27) .

Agency is at the heart of community participation, which is critical for identifying an alternative future to the dominant food system, and advancing the social change needed to achieve transformation. Community-driven food system transformation, designed to facilitate human rights by promoting food security and addressing food insecurity, is simultaneously tackling the underlying structural determinants of food inequities and engaging in discourses and other local and global actions to confront these injustices(Reference Moragues-Faus28). At this juncture, the concept of food justice has emerged as a powerful mobilising concept for driving such social change.

Food justice has emerged as a response to social inequalities perpetuated by the mainstream food movement in the USA by marginalised communities seeking to address their food needs(Reference Alkon and Agyeman29,Reference Smith30) . To understand what is required to progress food justice – that is, political platforms and policies – more needs to be known about the discursive contributions that the literature is making in this field.

In this study, we investigated the conceptualisation of food justice and explored how community participation is positioned in food justice scholarship. This paper is part of a larger project exploring the practice of food justice in two local communities in an Australian state.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken to examine the extent of the available evidence and highlight gaps in the existing research which explores food justice. A five-step scoping review protocol(Reference Arksey and O’Malley31) was used to (i) define the research question, (ii) identify the relevant studies, (iii) select the relevant studies, (iv) chart, collate and summarise the data and (v) report the results.

Defining the research question

The aim of this review was to clarify the conceptualisation, use and practice of the term food justice. This review was guided by the following questions: What is the scope of publications on food justice according to country of origin, year of publication and discipline? How is food justice conceptualised with a particular focus on community participation? What is the frequency of research on food justice published in the peer-reviewed literature over time?

Identification of relevant studies

A search of Medline (OVID), Scopus and Web of Sciences was conducted for all available studies preceding September 2020 using the term ‘food justice’ in publication titles and abstracts. The search used the following keywords and query strings for each database: ‘TITLE-ABS-KEY (food justice)’ in Scopus and ‘TS = food justice’ in the MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection. We did not restrict the search to specific publication dates or research areas. The reference lists of systematic reviews were searched to ensure that all relevant studies were included. Saturation was achieved when no new studies were identified.

Selection of the relevant studies

All citations were imported to the EndNote™ reference manager and duplicates were removed. Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1) citations, titles and abstracts were independently screened by two researchers one (SM) and two (LD). Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Full texts of the included titles and abstracts were downloaded to Endnote citation software(32) and read by both researchers. They were exported to the Covidence Review Software(33), to manage the data screening process, whereby the two researchers undertook a full-text assessment for eligibility. Disagreements on full-text assessments were discussed by the researchers and resolved by consensus to eliminate selection bias.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Charting the data

Key data that were extracted included study reference details (title, journal name, authors, discipline of the first author, year of study), study setting (country), study design, study rationale, research question, conceptualisations of food justice and primary outcomes relating to food justice. The disciplines of the first authors and their country of origin were extracted from the websites of their universities or institutes of affiliation and were used to identify the discipline from which the term or concept of food justice was interpreted. The data were exported from Covidence to a Microsoft Excel table to conduct the narrative synthesis.

This study required the identification and interpretation of patterns and themes within the data set; therefore, the Braun and Clark’s six-step thematic analysis process was used to determine the final food justice themes, including familiarisation, coding, iterative theme development, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up(Reference Braun and Clarke34). Braun and Clark’s reflexive thematic analysis approach was applied(Reference Braun and Clarke35,Reference Braun and Clarke36) . The reflexive thematic analysis approach chosen for this study had a post-positivist approach to data analysis. This approach recognises the influence of researchers in interpreting data and encourages researchers to reflect on their influence as they develop and interpret codes(Reference Braun and Clarke34,Reference Braun and Clarke35) .

To ensure immersion, all selected literature was read by researcher one (SM) multiple times, coding all data, and researcher two (LD) double-coded 10 % of the studies(Reference Green, Willis and Hughes37). A comprehensive list of key food justice terms for all included studies was extracted using an inductive approach to coding without the need for a coding framework (Table 3). These terms were analysed and grouped to reflect overarching themes and then labelled using the dominant recurring keyword representing the theme of that group. For example, terms such as food scarcity, food insecurity and hunger were grouped as like-terms, and the concept of food security was then used as a label to represent overarching themes. After one complete coding cycle, all codes and themes were documented, presented and discussed with the research team (SM, LD, DA and FG). The data were then uncategorised, re-coded, re-categorised, meaning checked and corroborated by researchers one and two. New codes and themes were identified during the iterative process. Themes were cross matched against the conceptualisations identified in each of the ninety studies (online Supplementary File 1). Major definitions were summarised to include the frequency of appearance of each term by study (Table 4), growth in the use of the term food justice by year and disciplinary origin (Table 5).

Reporting the results

A description of the study selection process, study design, disciplines, years of publication and geographical distribution of the included studies as well as the conceptualisations of food justice were reported. Throughout this process, data were continually examined to make comparisons, examine contradictions and identify gaps, while keeping the aims of the paper at the front and centre(Reference Braun and Clarke35,Reference Green, Willis and Hughes37,Reference Braun and Clarke38) . The themes were discussed, reviewed, refined and checked by all the team members. Descriptions of some conceptualisations of food justice were insufficient, and interpretations of the terms were not always consistent. By adopting an approach based on conceptualisations of food justice, as well as definitions, the results provided a much broader understanding of how the term food justice was being used and adopted by authors. The results are described and presented as key themes of food justice. It was outside the scope of this review to report the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results

The search yielded 546 records from three databases: Medline (OVID), Scopus and Web of Science. Duplicates were excluded leaving 348 unique records for the analysis. Of the 348 records screened, 155 were excluded as irrelevant. The remaining 193 studies were subjected to a full-text assessment for eligibility, which led to 103 being determined as ineligible based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria in Table 1. The remaining ninety studies were included in the database for data extraction (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram of search process

The scope of studies on food justice

Table 2 provides a descriptive summary of the identified studies on food justice. It identifies the scope of studies by country of origin, year of publication and discipline. Food justice was a highly interdisciplinary and expansive field of research that quadrupled each year after 2015, with most published in 2017. The highest concentration of studies came from high-income countries: the USA, the UK, Canada and Hong Kong. There was a complete absence of the term food justice in other geographical regions and from low- and middle-income countries. Ten disciplines clustered into three fields of knowledge(39) published literature on food justice. The sociology and geography disciplines had the highest number of publications, representing 56 % of peer-reviewed studies and most were based in the USA and Canada. These studies have been associated with civil rights and social movements, the development of community-based approaches through alternative food practices, inequities in food access and environmental impacts. The methodologies were exclusively qualitative with case studies (61 %) examining existing initiatives, organisations and communities (Table 2).

Table 2 Descriptive summary of study characteristics of peer-reviewed publications

Thematic analysis of the conceptualisations of food justice

Five themes of food justice conceptualisation were identified (Table 3). The themes and their frequency of appearance across the ninety publications (which were not mutually exclusive) were as follows: (1) social equity in 89 % of the studies, (2) food security in 79 %, (3) food systems transformation in 56 %, (4) community participation and agency in 66 % and (5) environmental sustainability in 39 %.

Table 3 Themes of food justice conceptualisations and frequency of appearance by study

Within the five identified food justice themes, there were four themes including social equity, food security, food system transformation, and community participation and agency which all aligned with the core principles of social justice: equity, access, justice and rights(Reference Fleetwood24). Environmental sustainability, the fifth category aligned with the core principles of environmental justice, is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people concerning the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies(Reference Burger, Harris and Harper40). Each of the five themes, while interconnected and broadly overlapping, reflect overarching central themes that are more powerful when explicitly stated. The themes and their alignment with social and environmental justice perspectives are discussed below presenting a deeper analysis to broaden the discussion of food justice.

Social equity, the largest category of studies, described persistent challenges to equity in the food system and the existence of structural inequality and discrimination. Terminologies such as structural inequality, exploitation, oppression, and social exclusion affecting marginalised and low-income communities were most prominent. Also prominent within this theme were terms such as racism, class, gender, cultural politics, white privilege, historical trauma and colonisation(Reference Coulson and Milbourne10,Reference Smith30,Reference Guthman41Reference Siegner, Acey and Sowerwine50) . Health inequalities and disparities are also prominent(Reference Hayes and Carbone43) with a focus on the intersecting issues of policy, health, social justice, economic development and the natural environment(Reference Kaiser, Himmelheber and Miller51,Reference Pugh52) . Such an emphasis suggests that food justice takes a broad social justice perspective and considers how unequal access to healthy food intersects with poor health(Reference Harper, Sands and Angarita Horowitz53). There was a view that the voices of marginalised communities could be amplified by creating opportunities for dialogue with participants and improving health outcomes(Reference Alkon and Norgaard54Reference Porter58).

Food security, the next largest category of studies, described inequitable access to healthy, affordable and culturally appropriate food and land. Terminology such as poor or unjust access to healthy and affordable food was most prominent, with terms such as food insecurity, food poverty, food apartheid, scarcity, hunger, right to food, food deserts, food sovereignty and community food security also used to imply challenges or solutions to accessing food(Reference Moragues-Faus28,Reference Alkon and Agyeman29,Reference Hayes and Carbone43,Reference Cadieux and Slocum44,Reference Porter47,Reference Alkon and Norgaard54,Reference Mello56,Reference Wekerle59Reference Noll and Murdock72) .

Food systems transformation was the third largest category of studies. These studies described dysfunctional food systems and called for structural and redistributive changes in the food system. Terminology included transformation, food systems democratisation, power, food bank reform, food policy councils, food governance and policy reform, tackling problems at a local and national level, policy solutions, building coalitions, politicians, and the state, justice (historical, holistic, participative, distributive, representational) and reframing(Reference Coulson and Milbourne10,Reference Cadieux and Slocum44,Reference Sbicca and Myers45,Reference Thompson, Johnson and Cistrunk49,Reference Freudenberg, McDonough and Tsui55,Reference Sbicca61,Reference Tornaghi65,Reference Bedore73Reference Maughan, Anderson and Kneafsey83) . The hope for food systems transformation focused on increasing food access and dismantling structural inequalities. It was claimed that(84) it is insufficient for states to provide food relief without dismantling structural inequalities; therefore, food access is regarded as the entry point to food systems transformation and not the endpoint(Reference Fanzo, Haddad and Schneider85).

Community participation and agency were the second least represented category and described community rights to participate and engage in food policy decision-making and governance, community resistance to and disruption of the existing corporate food regime and community-led, driven and/or owned food solutions. Terminologies such as participation, advocacy, self-reliance, self-determination, activism, movements and direct action were used to empower the voice of the community(Reference Sbicca and Myers45,Reference Horst46,Reference Tornaghi65,Reference McKinney and Kato78,Reference Bradley and Galt86Reference Poulsen89) . Also terminology such as alternative food networks, urban planning and non-commodification of the food system represented opportunities for the community to engage in food policy decision-making and governance(Reference Cadieux and Slocum44,Reference Mello56,Reference Werkheiser and Noll75,Reference Burga and Stoscheck79,Reference Sandover82,Reference Walker90Reference Aptekar and Myers93) . Urban agriculture, community gardens, farmers’ markets, community and school-led, owned and controlled food solutions all provide opportunities for communities to be self-reliant, self-sufficient, empowered to take control and make decisions about their own food systems(Reference Siegner, Sowerwine and Acey48,Reference Siegner, Acey and Sowerwine50,Reference Porter, Conner and Kolodinsky67,Reference Sandover82,Reference Walker90,Reference Aptekar and Myers93Reference Porter97) .

Finally, environmental sustainability was the smallest category in the study. These studies described the need for food systems that minimise resource depletion and unacceptable environmental impacts. Terminologies such as climate change, human and environmental health, environmental sustainability and environmental justice were most prominent. While environmental concerns in the food justice literature were less prominent, their frequency of appearance increased from 2015(Reference Coulson and Milbourne10,Reference Moragues-Faus28,Reference Hayes and Carbone43,Reference Cadieux and Slocum44,Reference Kaiser, Himmelheber and Miller51Reference Alkon and Norgaard54,Reference Wekerle59,Reference Levkoe60,Reference Tornaghi65,Reference Thompson, Cochrane and Hopma71,Reference Bedore73,Reference Barron77Reference Burga and Stoscheck79,Reference Maughan, Anderson and Kneafsey83,Reference Walker90,Reference Kato98Reference Gordon and Hunt102) .

Definitions of food justice

The major definitions of food justice were summarised, including the frequency of their appearance. Twelve definitions were identified, the two most frequently cited being Gottlieb and Joshi (developed in 2010 and expanded in 2013), and Alkon and Agyeman (developed in 2011). Gottlieb and Joshi’s(Reference Gottlieb and Joshi103) definition was cited twenty-three times (including the original publication in which it appeared) and was reflected in four of the five identified themes (social equity, food security, food systems transformation and community participation and agency). Alkon and Agyeman’s(Reference Alkon and Agyeman29) definition was cited twenty-six times and reflected the same four food justice themes. The next most frequently cited definitions were those of Holt-Gimenez and Wang(Reference Holt-Gimenez and Wang74) which was cited eleven times, Cadieux and Slocum(Reference Cadieux and Slocum44) cited ten times, Levkoe(Reference Levkoe60) cited seven times and Hislop(Reference Hislop63) cited five times (Table 4). Based on an analysis of all twelve definitions, two distinct approaches to food justice were identified. The first, the ‘humanistic’ approach – referring to humans being placed front and centre – was reflected in ten definitions and was underpinned by the social justice principles of dignity, self-determination, equity, access, fairness and greater participation. The second ‘more-than-human’ approach was reflected in two definitions(Reference Cadieux and Slocum44,Reference Levkoe60) and combined social and environmental justice principles to include issues of distribution, participation and procedure, recognition and capabilities.

Table 4 Key definitions of food justice by author, year and frequency of appearance

The frequency of research on food justice over time

The use of the term food justice has grown since 2004, with an expansion in the five identified food justice themes from 2015 (Table 5). While all themes have increased in prominence, there has been a specific upward trend in themes addressing food systems transformation, community participation and agency, and environmental sustainability.

Table 5 Growth in food justice literature by year, discipline cluster and category

AS, Applied Science; SS, Social Science; H, Humanities; PH, Public Health.

Discussion

This scoping review found that, since 2004, the majority (77 %) of food justice studies, using the term, quadrupled each year from 2015 with 2017 being the most prolific publication year. The spike in publications can be linked to the momentum fostered by the official adoption of the UN SDG in late 2015(11), the concurrent general rise in food studies scholarship and the ‘social justice turn’ – adoption of an anti-oppressive stance – in the broader social and environmental literature. Publications on food justice came from the USA, Canada, the UK and Hong Kong (Tables 2 and 5). This distribution represents a long history of social justice activism in these countries that has been led by marginalised groups tackling inequality, poverty and injustice, in which food has often played an important role(Reference Cadieux and Slocum44,Reference Ornstein104) . The limitation of this distribution does not mean that social justice activism for food system transformation has not occurred in other countries. Conversely, this may mean that relevant literature in other languages has not been included due to the exclusion of non-English language literature in our exclusion criteria.

The multidisciplinary body of food justice research reported in this scoping review incorporates contributions from ten disciplines organised into three academic clusters or fields of knowledge. Within the social sciences publications, the discipline of sociology (47 %) was the most prolific, followed by geography (44 %) within the applied sciences, and public health (including nutrition) (9 %). From over 40 000 journals searched, 348 papers were reviewed, and several academic disciplines were not identified or had limited presence, including agricultural science, economics, management, law and philosophy. These disciplines are active and influential in food policy debates and discussions related to food security; curiously, they have yet to engage with the food justice debate. Conversely, these disciplines may have engaged and been published in different journals or formats, such as essays, rather than peer-reviewed journals. Further research is required to understand the reasons for this.

Since 2015, there has been a shift in the conceptualisations of food justice. The five themes identified in this review may be attributable to a movement towards challenging and restructuring the dominant food system in-line with global expectations to deliver progress on all seventeen SDG(105). The underlying premise of the SDG vision rests on principles of human rights and social justice that emphasise dignity, self-determination, equity, access, fairness, and greater participation(Reference Rawls106), and principles of environmental justice that emphasise distribution, participation, and procedure, recognition, and capabilities(Reference Coolsaet107).

Challenging and calling for the dominant food system to be restructured may also arise from a tendency to link the construct of food justice with other forms of social justice, such as activism and advocacy(Reference Coulson and Milbourne10). More recently, published literature indicates the need for further community participation and agency. While such actions align with human rights-based approaches to food security(108), this alone is unlikely to change policy, systems and practice. An integrated food systems approach requires a more-than-human rights-based approach that implies the inseparability of human and natural interactions and the right of people to feed themselves with dignity(Reference Abram9,25) .

Broadening the view of food justice

The scoping review identified that food justice has been conceptualised mostly in distributional terms in the definitions of Lang and Heasman(Reference Lang and Heasman109), Levkoe(Reference Levkoe60), Alkon and Norgaard(Reference Alkon and Norgaard54), Gottlieb and Joshi(Reference Gottlieb and Joshi103), Holt-Gimenez and Wang(Reference Holt-Gimenez and Wang74), Hislop(Reference Hislop63), Cadieux and Slocum(Reference Cadieux and Slocum44) and Horst(Reference Horst46) (Table 4). These conceptualisations reflect the elements of the World Food Summit’s (1996) definition of food security, which was further refined in the FAO 2002 definition given at the beginning of this study. At its core, the FAO definition embraces a social justice approach using distributive justice – the fair allocation of resources – as a mechanism to get food to people who lack access. In practice, this has a range of positive and pernicious effects. The focus on food distribution responsibilises individuals and households to meet their own food security needs in the first instance and encourages interventions such as emergency food relief practices in specific instances when individuals and households fail to do so(Reference Caraher and Furey15). This system ‘feeds on itself’, as emergency food relief distribution practices then enable the structural factors underpinning the original inability of the household to meet its food security needs – lack of financial resources, failed land reform, poor food quality, low levels of community empowerment and food inappropriateness – to be downplayed or ignored.

This scoping review also found that food justice was increasingly conceptualised in procedural terms. Procedural justice moves beyond distribution and centres on participation in the decision-making process or policies used to make allocation decisions and manage resources, suggesting that participative disparities are at the root of the most important distributional disparities(Reference Cohen110). This approach challenges the structural accounts of people being at the mercy of law, politics and economics. Instead, people are repositioned as active agents capable of ascribing freedom and responsibility and facilitating change. This literature considers humanistic procedural justice emancipatory because it offers less powerful stakeholders a mechanism to challenge the corporatisation of food systems and the harmful technological fixes that are considered detrimental to the environment.

An example of this procedural emancipatory justice approach is the Global People’s Summit on Food Systems(111), which was launched as a counter-summit to the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021(105). The Global People’s Summit drew worldwide attention to the vulnerabilities and lack of sustainability inherent in the current global commodified export-based food system(Reference Canfield, Anderson and McMichael112). However, in the food justice literature, the Summit’s identified social and environmental concerns, under the broad concept of ‘food sovereignty’, are not currently heavily weighted in the dominant conceptions of food justice identified in this scoping review. Food sovereignty embraces a linked social–economic–environmental conception of justice and views local food systems as the most appropriate way to tackle sustainable food security. It responsibilises communities (local, state and national governments) by ensuring food security, which is understood as a fundamental political and economic right, and seeks to empower those who have failed by their communities to take affirmative action(Reference Mayer and Anderson113). This scoping review argues that distributional inequalities often result from participatory inequalities(Reference Fraser114,Reference Schlosberg115) .

An emerging opportunity for community participation and agency

This review supports the view of many food justice theorists(Reference Loo2,Reference Cadieux and Slocum44,Reference Alkon, Bowen and Kato116Reference Sbicca118) of a paradigmatic shift in the conceptualisation of food justice over the past two decades. The concept of food justice has expanded beyond its initial relatively limited meanings predominately underpinned by the social justice principles of the need to respond to food insecurity. Food justice now references multiple justice themes, including procedural, emancipatory and humanistic conceptions that obligate governments (i.e. local, state and national governments) to be primarily responsible for ensuring food security as a fundamental political-economic right. The approach is linked to enabling local communities to achieve food justice through empowerment which enables participation and respects agency(27). Local action by people with lived experience of food insecurity plays a vital role in addressing the root causes of food injustices throughout the food system and ensuring that society works towards food justice for all(Reference Sbicca118). Furthermore, the concept of food justice acknowledges and welcomes ‘other actors’ into the food system, as these are required to address various structural barriers to ensure that the rhetoric of food justice becomes a reality.

If governments and communities can work together, there are new opportunities to use food justice and rights language when conveying food security information; embrace grass roots advocacy to raise awareness and contextualised understandings of the issue; create dialogue among community participants to advocate fair food policies that affect them; develop community leaders to be experts in healthy and sustainable food systems; provide resources that community participants need to succeed in such as policy-relevant scientific evidence; bring the voices of underrepresented groups into the conversation and provide resources and skills. At the policy level, opportunities exist for evaluating policy changes that document benefits and limitations, and integrated food justice and rights into government frameworks and community projects(Reference Godrich, Barbour and Lindberg12,Reference Freudenberg, McDonough and Tsui55) .

While different stakeholders are likely to continue emphasising the specific themes of food justice to achieve different outcomes, it is useful to place this in a broader context. For example, some groups aiming to improve food justice outcomes in local municipal regions, where race and ethnic issues are central defining features, are likely to place greater emphasis on social equity. For others who seek to prevent obesity and diabetes and respond to the rapidly increasing rates of chronic disease, high-level policy reform linked to media advertising, food literacy and sugar taxes will come into focus. However, regardless of the specific focus, stakeholders must place their food justice conceptions within a broader consideration of the structural and environmental factors in play. Urbanisation, wage stagnation and the impacts of COVID-19 on the one hand and climate change, deforestation and biodiversity loss must be considered in any discussion of the food system and its link to social issues, such as public health.

Definitions of food justice vary, which means that the practice of food justice could be challenging to execute(Reference Kato98). The interpretation of justice as it relates to food production, distribution and consumption is multifaceted and complex(Reference Anderson119). Perhaps the fragmented nature of food justice is its strength, with its potential to be flexible in implementing local solutions to global issues(Reference Wekerle59). Food justice is only now beginning to mature to embrace a holistic and structural view of the food system that understands healthy food as a human right and acknowledges the need to address various structural barriers to that right(Reference Coulson and Milbourne10,120) . Community participation, agency, activism and empowerment must be part of any food justice plan for self-sufficiency and sustainability.

Limitation

This review had three limitations. First, it limited the search term to ‘food justice’ and Boolean strings such as ‘food AND justice’ were not applied. The search strategy, therefore, did not encompass all terms related to ‘food justice’ such as the right to food, food sovereignty, food security or food democracy studies. This enabled the authors to keep the study closely focused on the concept of ‘food justice’ to generate a manageable database. Second, the search was limited to three databases which, although larger, were not comprehensive. Taken together, these limitations likely overlooked relevant studies. Despite these limitations, the search strategies yielded many studies in which ‘food justice’ and related terms were the focus of the review, and the existence of considerable duplication across the databases indicates that the studies were drawn from a larger, shared sample. Third, there is an opportunity for further development of the five food justice themes, given their close interlinkage. Future reviews could encompass other conceptualisations and the connections between them and additional databases, to draw a wider picture of the relationships between marginalised communities and food injustice.

Conclusion

Despite its almost 20-year history, the parameters of food justice continue to evolve, with limited consensus in the literature on what food justice is, making it difficult for communities to mobilise for transformative food system changes. Food justice is a multidisciplinary concept that is rooted in human rights and justice. Most commentators embrace a ‘humanistic’ position to conceptualise and define food justice by drawing on the principles of social justice. This discursive position is likely to sustain food banks and food relief approaches to food security. A less prominent ‘more-than-human’ conception of food justice has recently emerged to combine social and environmental justice principles in a quest for human well-being and global sustainability. Combining the social justice principles of dignity, self-determination, equity, access and participation with environmental justice principles that emphasise participation, distribution and procedure, recognition and capabilities enables a broader and more contemporary conception of food justice. The broader conceptualisation of food justice can be used as a powerful mobilising concept for a range of stakeholders to contribute to food system transformation discussions and planning by advocating the health benefits of food justice. Furthermore, it can inform calls for a more integrated approach to healthier and more just local and national food policies, systems and practices that address obesity, undernutrition, climate change and other environmental issues that decimate human and planetary health.

Community participation and agency in food justice decision-making is critical for transformative change towards a healthy, sustainable and more just food system.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the King and Amy O’Malley Trust. Financial support: Funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Authorship: S.M. is the first and corresponding author contributing 60 % to the conception, design, planning, execution and preparation of the paper. L.D. contributed 20 % to the conception and design of the paper, contributed to data extraction and synthesis and edited a significant part of the paper. F.G. contributed 10 % to the conception and design of the paper and edited a significant part of the paper. D.A. contributed 10 % to the conception and design of the paper and edited a significant part of the paper. Ethics of human subject participation: Ethical approval was not required because this study retrieved and synthesised data from already published studies.

Conflict of interest:

The authors declare that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023000101

References

Liebenberg, S (2018) Participatory justice in social rights adjudication. Hum Rights Law Rev 18, 623649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loo, C (2014) Towards a more participative definition of food justice. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 787809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Story, M, Hamm, MW & Wallinga, D (2009) Food systems and public health: linkages to achieve healthier diets and healthier communities. J Hunger Environ Nutr 4, 219224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahadur, K, Goretty, M, Dias, G et al. (2018) When too much isn’t enough: does current food production meet global nutritional needs? PLoS One 13, e0205683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205683.Google Scholar
Lartey, A, Meerman, J & Wijesinha-Bettoni, R (2018) Why food system transformation is essential and how nutrition scientists can contribute. Ann Nutr Metab 72, 193201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO, UNCEF, WFP et al. (2017) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017. Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security. https://www.fao.org/3/I7695e/I7695e.pdf (accessed June 2022).Google Scholar
Ericksen, P, Ingram, J & Liverman, D (2009) Food security and global environmental change: emerging challenges. Environ Sci Policy 12, 373373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburn, B, Kraak, V, Allender, S et al. (2019) The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the Lancet Commission report. Lancet 393, 791846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abram, D (2012) The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-Human World. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Coulson, H & Milbourne, P (2020) Food justice for all? Searching for the ‘justice multiple’ in UK food movements. Agri Hum Values 38, 4358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN SDGs (2015) Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/ (accessed September 2021).Google Scholar
Godrich, S, Barbour, L & Lindberg, R (2021) Problems, policy and politics – perspectives of public health leaders on food insecurity and human rights in Australia. BMC Public Health 21, 112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uvin, P (2007) From the right to development to the rights-based approach: how ‘human rights’ entered development. Dev Pract 17, 597606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, M (2020) Understanding Food Insecurity in Australia, CFCA PAPER NO. 55. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/policy-and-practice-papers/understanding-food-insecurity-australia (accessed February 2023).Google Scholar
Caraher, M & Furey, S (2018) The Economics of Emergency Food Aid Provision. A Financial, Social and Cultural Perspective, 1st ed. London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Lindberg, R, McKenzie, H, Haines, B et al. (2022) An investigation of structural violence in the lived experience of food insecurity. Crit Public Health 112. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2021.2019680.Google Scholar
Seivwright, AN, Callis, Z & Flatau, P (2020) Food insecurity and socioeconomic disadvantage in Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17, 559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everingham, C (2001) Reconstituting community: social justice, social order and the politics of community. Aust J Soc Issues 36, 105122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2002) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001.Google Scholar
DAWE (2020) ABARE Insightes – Analysis of Australia’s Food Security and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Issue 3. https://www.awe.gov.au/abares/products/insights/australian-food-security-and-COVID-19 (accessed December 2021).Google Scholar
Edelman, M (2014) Food sovereignty: forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. J Peasant Stud 41, 959978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, J (2019) Corporate harm and embedded labour exploitation in agri-food supply networks. Eur J Criminol 17, 7085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, J, Moseley, WG, Burlingame, B et al. (2021) Viewpoint: the case for a six-dimensional food security framework. Food Policy 106, 102164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleetwood, J (2020) Social Justice, food loss, and the sustainable development goals in the era of COVID-19. Sustainability 12, 5027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2009) The Right to Food and Access to Justice: Examples at the National, Regional and International Levels. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Longo, P (2016) Food justice and sustainability: a new revolution. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8, 3136.Google Scholar
HLPE (2020) Food Security and Nutrition: Building a Global Narrative Towards 2030. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. https://www.fao.org/3/ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf (accessed May 2022).Google Scholar
Moragues-Faus, A (2017) Problematising justice definitions in public food security debates: towards global and participative food justices. Geoforum 84, 95106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkon, A & Agyeman, J (2011) Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability. London, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, BJ, II (2019) Food justice, intersectional agriculture, and the triple food movement. Agric Hum Values 36, 825835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arksey, H & O’Malley, L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Social Res Method 8, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The EndNote Team (2013) EndNote, EndNote X9 ed. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate.Google Scholar
Veritas Health Innovation (2021) Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation.Google Scholar
Braun, V & Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3, 77101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V & Clarke, V (2021) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol 18, 328352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V & Clarke, V (2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 11, 589597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J, Willis, K, Hughes, E et al. (2007) Generating best evidence from qualitative research: the role of data analysis. Aust N Z J Public Health 31, 545550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, V & Clarke, V (2021) Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counsel Psychother Res 21, 3747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ABS (2020) Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC). https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australian-and-new-zealand-standard-research-classification-anzsrc/latest-release (accessed June 2022).Google Scholar
Burger, J, Harris, S, Harper, B et al. (2010) Ecological information needs for environmental justice. Risk Anal: Offic Publ Soc Risk Anal 30, 893905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guthman, J (2008) Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. Cult Geographies 15, 431447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, JD & Spiller, KA (2015) Food solutions New England: racial equity, food justice, and food system transformation. J Agric Food Sys Community Dev 5, 165171.Google Scholar
Hayes, C & Carbone, E (2015) Food justice: what is it? Where has it been? Where is it going? J Nutr Disorders Ther 5, 2161–0509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadieux, K & Slocum, R (2015) What does it mean to do food justice? J Polit Ecol 22, 126.Google Scholar
Sbicca, J & Myers, JS (2017) Food justice racial projects: fighting racial neoliberalism from the Bay to the Big Apple. Environ Sociol 3, 3041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horst, M (2017) Food justice and municipal government in the USA. Plann Theor Pract 18, 5170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, CM (2018) Growing our own: characterizing food production strategies with five U.S. community-based food justice organizations. J Agric Food Sys Community Dev 8, 167185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegner, A, Sowerwine, J & Acey, C (2018) Does urban agriculture improve food security? Examining the nexus of food access and distribution of urban produced foods in the United States: a systematic review. Sustainability 10, 2988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D, Johnson, KR, Cistrunk, KM et al. (2020) Assemblage, food justice, and intersectionality in rural Mississippi: the Oktibbeha Food Policy Council. Sociol Spectrum 40, 381399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegner, AB, Acey, C & Sowerwine, J (2020) Producing urban agroecology in the East Bay: from soil health to community empowerment. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst 44, 566593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, ML, Himmelheber, S, Miller, S et al. (2015) Cultivators of change: food justice in social work education. Social Work Educ 34, 544557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugh, M (2017) A recipe for justice: support for a federal food justice interagency working group. Food Drug Law J 72, 341360.Google ScholarPubMed
Harper, K, Sands, C, Angarita Horowitz, D et al. (2017) Food justice youth development: using Photovoice to study urban school food systems. Local Environ 22, 791808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkon, AH & Norgaard, KM (2009) Breaking the food chains: an investigation of food justice activism. Sociol Inq 79, 289305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenberg, N, McDonough, J & Tsui, E (2011) Can a food justice movement improve nutrition and health? A case study of the emerging food movement in New York City. J Urban Health 88, 623636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mello, C (2018) Engagement as scholarship: food justice in practice. Ann Anthropol Pract 42, 3952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swords, A (2019) Action research on organizational change with the Food Bank of the Southern Tier: a regional food bank’s efforts to move beyond charity. Agric Hum Values 36, 849865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, CM (2018) Fostering formal learning in the Food Dignity project. J Agric Food Sys Community Dev 8, 213219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wekerle, GR (2004) Food justice movements: policy, planning, and networks. J Plann Educ Res 23, 378386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levkoe, CZ (2006) Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agric Hum Values 23, 8998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbicca, J (2012) Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Organ Environ 25, 206208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evangelisti, N, Vitiello, E, Campi, VG et al. (2001) The development and economic impact of biotechnology especially regarding the biomedical sector within Europe’s main industrialized countries. Minerva Biotecnologica 13, 313323.Google Scholar
Hislop, R (2014) Reaping Equity: A Survey of Food Justice Organizations in the U.S.A. Davis, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Dobson, J (2015) Achieving food equity: access to good local food for all. J Urban Regener Renewal 8, 122132.Google Scholar
Tornaghi, C (2017) Urban agriculture in the food-disabling city: (Re)defining urban food justice, reimagining a politics of empowerment. Antipode 49, 781801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swords, A, Frith, A & Lapp, J (2018) Community-campus collaborations for food justice: strategy, successes and challenges at a teaching-focused college. J Agric Food Sys Community Dev 8, 261277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J, Conner, D, Kolodinsky, J et al. (2017) Get real: an analysis of student preference for real food. Agric Hum Values 34, 921932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbicca, J (2018) Food justice and the fight for global human flourishing. Local Environ 23, 10981102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachelin, A, Ivkovich, L, Jensen, P et al. (2019) Leveraging foodways for health and justice. Local Environ 24, 417427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennie, C & Alkon, AH (2018) Food justice: cultivating the field. Environ Res Lett 13, 073003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, MS, Cochrane, A & Hopma, J (2020) Democratising food: the case for a deliberative approach. Rev Int Stud 46, 435455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noll, S & Murdock, EG (2020) Whose justice is it Anyway? Mitigating the tensions between food security and food sovereignty. J Agric Environ Ethics 33, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedore, M (2010) Just urban food systems: a new direction for food access and urban social justice. Geogr Compass 4, 14181432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt-Gimenez, E & Wang, Y (2011) Reform or transformation? The pivotal role of food justice in the U.S. food movement. Race/Ethn: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 5, 83102.Google Scholar
Werkheiser, I & Noll, S (2014) From food justice to a tool of the status quo: three sub-movements within local food. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 201210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, D (2016) Food justice, direct action, and the human rights enterprise. Crit Sociol 42, 799814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, J (2017) Community gardening: cultivating subjectivities, space, and justice. Local Environ 22, 11421158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, L & Kato, Y (2017) Community context of food justice: reflections on a free local produce program in a New Orleans food desert. AIMS Agric Food 2, 183200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burga, HF & Stoscheck, C (2017) Does the Minnesota food access planning guide address food justice and equity? A content analysis of policy language. Built Environ 43, 376389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, K, Block, D & Bradley, K (2018) Food justice scholar-activism and activist- scholarship: working beyond dichotomies to deepen social justice praxis. ACME 17, 988998.Google Scholar
Porter, CM (2018) Triple-rigorous storytelling: a PI’s reflections on devising case study methods with five community-based food justice organizations. J Agric Food Sys Community Dev 8, 3761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandover, R (2020) Participatory food cities: scholar activism and the co-production of food knowledge. Sustainability 12, 3548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maughan, C, Anderson, CR & Kneafsey, M (2020) A five-point framework for reading for social justice: a case study of food and farming policy discourse in the context of Brexit Britain. J Agric Food Sys Community Dev 9, 281300.Google Scholar
FAO, UNCEF, WFP et al. (2021) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy Diets for All. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Fanzo, J, Haddad, L, Schneider, KR 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, K & Galt, RE (2014) Practicing food justice at dig deep farms & produce, East Bay Area, California: self-determination as a guiding value and intersections with foodie logics. Local Environ 19, 172186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitiello, D, Grisso, JA, Whiteside, KL et al. (2015) From commodity surplus to food justice: food banks and local agriculture in the United States. Agric Hum Values 32, 419430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbicca, J (2016) These bars can’t hold us back: plowing incarcerated geographies with restorative food justice. Antipode 48, 13591379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulsen, MN (2017) Cultivating citizenship, equity, and social inclusion? Putting civic agriculture into practice through urban farming. Agric Hum Values 34, 135148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S (2016) Urban agriculture and the sustainability fix in Vancouver and Detroit. Urban Geogr 37, 163182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, R (2017) Rethinking justice in city-regional food systems planning. Built Environ 43, 447459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkon, AH, Cadji, YJ & Moore, F (2019) Subverting the new narrative: food, gentrification and resistance in Oakland, California. Agric Hum Values 36, 793804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aptekar, S & Myers, JS (2020) The tale of two community gardens: green aesthetics v. food justice in the big apple. Agric Hum Values 37, 779792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbicca, J (2012) Growing food justice by planting an anti-oppression foundation: opportunities and obstacles for a budding social movement. Agric Hum Values 29, 455466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heynen, N, Kurtz, HE & Trauger, A (2012) Food justice, hunger and the city. Geogr Compass 6, 304311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agnelli, K, Cramer, EP, Buffington, ML et al. (2016) Food landscapes: cooking, community service and art-making with teens. J Community Pract 24, 205214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, CM (2018) What gardens grow: outcomes from home and community gardens supported by community-based food justice organizations. J Agric Food Sys Community Dev 8, 187205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kato, Y (2013) Not just the price of food: challenges of an urban agriculture organization in engaging local residents. Sociol Inq 83, 369391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, K & Herrera, H (2016) Decolonizing food justice: naming, resisting, and researching colonizing forces in the movement. Antipode 48, 97114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, MM, Agaronov, A, Entwistle, T et al. (2017) Voices through cameras: using photovoice to explore food justice issues with minority youth in East Harlem, New York. Health Promot Pract 18, 211220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, SG & Mishtal, J (2019) Whose sustainability? An analysis of a community farming program’s food justice and environmental sustainability agenda. Cult Agric Food Environ 41, 5665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, C & Hunt, K (2019) Reform, justice, and sovereignty: a food systems agenda for environmental communication. Environ Commun J Nat Culture 13, 922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, R & Joshi, A (2010) Food Justice. Food, Health and the Environment, Paperback 2013 ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ornstein, AC (2017) Social justice: history, purpose and meaning. Society 54, 541548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNFSS (2021) United Nationals Food System Summit 2030. https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/about (accessed September 2021).Google Scholar
Rawls, J (2020) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolsaet, B (2021) Environmental Justice – Key Issues in Environment and Sustainability. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
IPES-Food (2021) A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045. http://www.ipes-food.org/pages/LongFoodMovement (accessed May 2022).Google Scholar
Lang, T & Heasman, M (2004) Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Cohen, RL (1985) Procedural justice and participation. Hum Relations 38, 643663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PCFS (2021) Proceedings of the Global People’s Summit for Just, Equitable, Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems, September 21–23, 2021. https://panap.net/resource/proceedings-of-the-global-peoples-summit-for-just-equitable-healthy-and-sustainable-food-systems-september-21-23-2021/ (accessed May 2022).Google Scholar
Canfield, M, Anderson, MD & McMichael, P (2021) UN Food Systems Summit 2021: dismantling democracy and resetting corporate control of food systems. Front Sustainable Food Syst 5, 661552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, T & Anderson, M (2020) Food Insecurity: A Matter of Justice, Sovereignty and Survival. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, N (2009) Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World, vol. 31. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, D (2009) Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alkon, AH, Bowen, S, Kato, Y et al. (2020) Unequally vulnerable: a food justice approach to racial disparities in COVID-19 cases. Agric Hum Values 37, 535536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt-Gimenez, E (2017) The reproach of hunger: food, justice, and money in the twenty-first century. Can J Dev Studies-Revue Canadienne D Etudes Du Developpement 38, 159161.Google Scholar
Sbicca, J (2018) Food Justice Now!: Deepening the Roots of Social Struggle, Food Justice Now!: Deepening the Roots of Social Struggle. Minneapolis, MA: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, MD (2008) Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform. Agric Hum Values 25, 593608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foodprint (2021) What is Food Justice and Why is it Necessary? https://foodprint.org/issues/food-justice/ (accessed January 2023).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Figure 1

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram of search process

Figure 2

Table 2 Descriptive summary of study characteristics of peer-reviewed publications

Figure 3

Table 3 Themes of food justice conceptualisations and frequency of appearance by study

Figure 4

Table 4 Key definitions of food justice by author, year and frequency of appearance

Figure 5

Table 5 Growth in food justice literature by year, discipline cluster and category

Supplementary material: File

Murray et al. supplementary material

Murray et al. supplementary material

Download Murray et al. supplementary material(File)
File 86.6 KB