COVID-related racial disparities represent a spectrum of injustices and inequalities. Focusing on food oppression, this essay argues that racism infuses food law and policy in ways that contribute to racially disparate COVID deaths and severe illnesses. USDA nutrition program participants were at a nutritional disadvantage when COVID hit. Yet, government responses focused on food insecurity, not nutritional quality. Racism against a predominantly Black and brown labor force of essential food workers — from fields to meat plants to grocery stores — created tolerance for the administration’s failure to protect or compensate some of the country’s most vulnerable workers. When COVID-driven supply issues threatened to narrow white people’s activities and choices, the favored response was to keep their options open by sacrificing Black and brown workers. A food oppression lens — understanding how corporate interests drive food policy — is necessary to achieve food equality in this pandemic and beyond.

Prevailing political and ethical approaches that have been used to both critique and propose alternatives to the existing food system are lacking. Although food security, food sovereignty, food justice, and food democracy all offer something important to our reflection on the global food system, none is adequate as an alternative to the status quo. This article analyses each in order to identify the prerequisites for such an alternative approach to food governance. These include a focus on goods like nutrition and health, equitable distribution, supporting livelihoods, environmental sustainability, and social justice. However, other goods, like the interests of non-human animals, are not presently represented. Moreover, incorporating all of these goods is incredibly demanding, and some are in tension. This raises the question of how each can be appropriately accommodated and balanced. The article proposes that this ought to be done through deliberative democratic processes that incorporate the interests of all relevant parties at the local, national, regional, and global levels. In other words, the article calls for a deliberative approach to the democratisation of food. It also proposes that one promising potential for incorporating the interests of all affected parties and addressing power imbalances lies in organising the scope and remit of deliberation around food type.

This commentary argues for strengthening research and analysis of food workers' rights as part of a more comprehensive sustainable food systems approach. Starting with a broad definition of sustainability, one which includes social, as well as ecological, and economic elements, the author outlines current critiques of alternative food movement actors. She then looks at existing food labor activism and successes, providing them as examples for how sustainable food movement actors and researchers should move forward.

Many urban agriculture programs, and the organizations that run them, require substantial resources to remain viable and provide the multifunctional benefits that practitioners and supporters hope to achieve. As urban agriculture activity expands, practitioners and supporters face significant challenges, including how to match resources to the needs of practitioners and expectations of municipalities, and how to distribute those resources effectively and equitably so that communities, and the city as a whole, capture the benefits of these projects. This is particularly important as cities face increasing pressure to reduce costs and maximize the return on public expenditures. A 2-year study called Five Borough Farm documented the goals and objectives of urban agriculture projects in New York City and the resources for their success. The data showed that resource needs go beyond the material and financial needs discussed in the urban agriculture literature (e.g., land, soil, money). Interviews documented that urban agriculture projects have broader goals than merely producing food, and that attaining these goals (e.g., environmental improvements, community development, social justice) requires the support of government and networks of practitioners, non-profit organizations and philanthropies. Moreover, interviewee comments suggested that significant disparities in access to resources make the urban agriculture system in New York unequal and constrain the efforts of some farms and gardens. This paper, based on the Five Borough Farm research, examines the resource needs of urban agriculture operations in terms of farm and garden viability and equity among practitioners. It describes the goals, expectations and resource needs of New York City urban agriculture from the perspectives of farmers and gardeners, and from the views of city officials, funders and supporting non-profits. It discusses the need for attention to the political and social structures that create disparity and precariousness to ensure a sustainable and just urban agricultural system, in addition to the financial and technical assistance resources that enable farmers and gardeners to produce food. The paper concludes with recommended strategies to align resource needs and urban agriculture goals and expectations in New York and other cities.