Community food security: Practice in need of theory? | SpringerLink

Agriculture and Human Values 16: 141–150, 1999. © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Community food security: Practice in need of theory? Molly D. Anderson and John T. Cook School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

Accepted in revised form December 15, 1998

Abstract. Practitioners and advocates of community food security (CFS) envision food systems that are decentralized, environmentally-sound over a long time-frame, supportive of collective rather than only individual needs, effective in assuring equitable food access, and created by democratic decision-making. These themes are loosely connected in literature about CFS, with no logical linkages among them. Clear articulation in a theoretical framework is needed for CFS to be effective as a guide for policy and action. CFS theory should delimit the level of analysis (i.e., what are the boundaries of “community”); show how CFS relates to individual, household, and national food security and explain emergent properties, which are important at the community level of analysis; point to the best indicators of CFS or its lack; clarify the determinants of CFS; and clarify the stages of movement toward CFS. This theoretical base would allow researchers to develop valid and reliable measures, and allow practitioners to weigh alternative options to create strategic plans. A theoretical base also would help establish common ground with potential partners by making the connections to anti-hunger work, sustainable agriculture, and community development clear. Key words: Community food security, Hunger, Food security, Food systems, Planning, Theory Abbreviations: CFS – community food security; FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; GIS – Geographic Information Systems; LSRO – Life Sciences Research Office of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; NFCS – Nationwide Food Consumption Survey; NHANES – National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Molly D. Anderson is Associate Professor in the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and Director of the Center on Agriculture, Food and Environment. She received a Ph.D. in Ecology at the University of North Carolina, and M.S. and B.S. degrees in ecology and natural resource management. Her research and teaching involve food systems ecology, attitudes and behavior related to environmentally-responsible resource use in the food system, interrelationships of environmental problems with food supply, consumer education, and the enhancement of direct marketing opportunities for farmers. John T. Cook is a Technical Research Consultant in the Boston Medical Center Department of Pediatrics and Assistant Professor in the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. He received a Ph.D. in Planning for Developing Economies from the University of North Carolina, and a M.A. in Educational Psychology. He was Principal Investigator for the USDA’s Food Security Measurement Study, which developed measures of household-level food security and hunger for the US. His research interests include the relationships among individual, household, and community food security in developed and developing areas, and their influences on health outcomes.

Introduction Community food security (CFS) has emerged recently as a variation on the concept of food security, which has guided much international development work for decades. But what is CFS? Is it a new conceptual breakthrough that can help clarify the interrelationships of hunger, malnutrition, poverty, and development? Or is it just food security, recast to satisfy its

eclectic advocates and adherents? Is it a new conceptual approach to social planning and well-being, or a calculated strategy to obtain additional support for existing social-welfare programs such as community development, food assistance, or urban gardens? Does CFS exist, or is it an abstract but unreachable goal? Is it useful in helping practitioners and policy-makers choose strategies to address food-related problems for a particular group of people or in a particular place?

142

M OLLY D. A NDERSON AND J OHN T. C OOK

We believe that CFS as a concept suffers from loose definitions and absence of a theoretical structure. With sharper definitions and a clear theoretical basis, however, we think that it can improve understanding of the barriers to food security at several levels of analysis, and help policy-makers and practitioners improve food security in a given area. We begin with an introduction to food security and its changes in focus over the last few decades, and describe how CFS is related to earlier changes in emphasis. Next, we lay out what a CFS theory should tell us in order to demonstrate the limits of current understanding, then end with recommendations for developing a useful theory.

Changing definitions of food security Emergence in the 1960s and 1970s The concept of “food security” first appeared in international development work in the 1960s and 1970s (von Braun et al., 1992), as the ability to meet aggregate food needs in a consistent way. Maxwell (1996) listed 32 definitions of food security and insecurity published between 1975 and 1991. He described a distinct main channel of food-security work, which had shifted course several times during the past few decades, despite a multiplicity of nuances and meanings. These shifts serve as a springboard to the development of CFS. The World Food Conference in 1974 emphasized producing enough food for world needs, making sure that this supply was reliable, and avoiding dramatic price fluctuations. These concerns led logically to creation of new institutions to improve national food self-sufficiency such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and mechanisms to stabilize prices, such as the extension of the IMF Compensatory Financing Facility to cereals. Appropriate measures of food security conceived in this way are global or national food stocks and their prices, net import needs versus import capacity, or other indicators of discrepancy between aggregate supply and demand. The existence of a sharp disparity between total food supply and people’s access to that food was obvious early on, however, particularly to those trying to improve food access in poor countries. Introduction of new agricultural technology in developing countries as part of the Green Revolution demonstrated that large increases in production did not necessarily improve food access by poor people. Moreover, serious environmental problems resulted from measures taken to boost productivity, such as the accelerated development of insecticide resistance in pests, erosion of land

newly brought into cultivation, and pesticide poisoning of people and wildlife (Freire de Sousa et al., 1985). Large numbers of people worldwide still did not have enough food, and seemed to have few prospects of meeting their food needs. This was so, even though the absolute quantity of food produced worldwide was sufficient to provide “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life” (World Bank, 1986, p. 1) – the classic definition of food security, which is cited most often. Shifts of the 1980s The shift to a second stage of thinking about food security occurred in the early 1980s, influenced by Sen’s concept and theory of “food entitlement” (Sen, 1981). Food security analysis began to include ensured food access in addition to production of adequate supplies (Maxwell, 1996). The appropriate unit of analysis for food access was seen as individuals or households, with food security assessed directly by anthropometric measures or food-intake surveys, or indirectly through proxies such as poverty, real wage rates relative to food prices, employment, and demand on the emergency-food supply system (FAO, 1996). The emphasis in food security analysis and measurement has remained on individuals and households since the mid-1980s. However, the links between individuals or households and the community, the nation, and the international economy are widely acknowledged to contribute to food security (e.g., Wagner and Warren, 1991; Lewis, 1992; Koralek, 1996). Maxwell (1996) described two further “paradigm shifts” in food security, which seem to us most applicable in a developing-country context, although they have influenced development of US CFS as well. First was the change from a “food first”1 emphasis, in which assuring short-term nutritional intake is the main objective, to a “livelihood” emphasis, in which secure, sustainable livelihoods were considered to be a necessary and often sufficient condition for food security. In our opinion, this shift really involved two significant changes in how food security was viewed: first, that it depends on individuals and households having a reliable source of livelihood, and second, that it requires a longer time-frame or planning horizon than “immediate” (however defined). One example of the growing recognition of the importance of long-term processes was the Rome Declaration on World Food Security of the Committee on World Food Security at the World Food Summit in October, 1996, which described multidimensional aspects of treating food insecurity. This Declaration emphasized the role of sustainable management of natural resources, elimination of unsustainable patterns of consumption and

C OMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY

production, the need to ensure equality between men and women, and revitalization of rural areas. Many of these changes are meaningful only over a long time period. The third shift was a change from reliance on objective measures of food security (such as target consumption levels or access to required daily caloric intakes) to more subjective dimensions of food security, which emphasize the quality of food available or people’s anxiety about food availability. Maxwell suggested that this evolution into a multitude of contemporary perspectives reflects different aspects of how food problems are experienced and perceived, similar to “post-modern” interpretations in other fields. He noted that, . . . the aggregate effect of the three paradigm shifts is a significant change in the food security agenda since the mid-1970s. Instead of a discussion largely concerned with national food supply and price, we find a discussion concerned with the complexities of livelihood strategies in difficult and uncertain environments, and with understanding how people themselves respond to perceived risks and uncertainties (Maxwell, 1996, p. 160). Refinements in the 1990s: US context The development of the concept of food security in the US overlaps with awareness of, and response to, domestic hunger. Hunger “in the midst of plenty” has elicited several waves of outrage and political mobilization (see Poppendieck, 1992; Clancy, 1993; Leidenfrost, 1993; or USDA/FCS, 1995 for overviews and discussion), stimulated by economic depression, political reforms, and demographic changes in the US population. The term “food security” and its relevance to US hunger problems was boosted to prominence by the Select Committee on Hunger of the US House of Representatives (US House of Representatives, 1990), as a new goal emerged of creating food security rather than simply ending hunger. In the literature on US food security, we see a divergence between authors seeking greater objectivity in the food insecurity concept, and others to whom Maxwell’s description of contemporary food security seems more applicable. This divergence mirrors a split among public health professionals between “medical health promotion” adherents, who define health as the absence of objectively-measurable symptoms of disease or handicaps, and others who have tried to define indicators of social or individual well-being whose presence denotes health (Seedhouse, 1997). The view of food security corresponding to the medical health promotion viewpoint is shared by researchers

143

and practitioners who have defined the concept as the absence of household food insufficiency and hunger (the consequence of severe food insecurity). The national interest in measuring food security and hunger began in 1975, with the inclusion of a question to assess household food sufficiency in the 1977–78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NCFS). This interest corresponded to the rising awareness of these issues in the US, and progressed through increasing refinements in survey design and interpretation (US House of Representatives, 1990; Bickel et al., 1996). In 1990, the Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology published a paper on food security and its measurement, which was influential in the development of a theoretical framework for food security. Their conceptual definition was, [Food security is] access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life and includes at a minimum: a) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and b) the assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (e.g., without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, and other coping strategies). Food insecurity exists whenever [a] or [b] is limited or uncertain. (Anderson [ed.], 1990, p. 1560) This paper noted that national food-intake surveys, such as the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), had not been adequate to ascertain whether respondents have problems with availability, affordability, and accessibility of food because they failed to measure appropriate indicators. At the household level, the recommended indicators of food security included repleteness of household food stores, quality and safety of available foods, anxiety about food supplies, and whether food sources are socially acceptable or not. At the individual level, recommended indicators included adequacy of energy intake, adequacy of nutrient intake, feelings of deprivation or restricted choice, and normal meal patterns. In addition, the report stressed that the periodicity and duration of episodes of food insecurity, and specific barriers to food security, such as poverty, disabilities, or restricted transportation, must be assessed. Community-level indicators entered the LSRO conceptual model only as determinants of individuals’ or households’ nutritional states, by affecting the quantity and quality of food available, its accessibility in terms of grocery store location and transportation systems, and its affordability or price relative to the ability to marshal resources.

144


The recent US Department of Agriculture study of household food security and hunger measurement led to the selection of questions to be added to the US Current Population Survey to begin tracking changes in food security (Hamilton et al., 1997a, 1997b). This work provided an important and hitherto missing way to compare the severity of poverty-related food insecurity among different households and over time. But does limiting the measurement framework to poverty-related food insecurity capture the whole picture?

Coalescing of primary sets of contributors to CFS In the late 1980s and early 1990s, work by several organizations and people emerged that fits Maxwell’s contemporary “post-modern” view of food security more than the “medical model” of food security (i.e., the absence of clearly observable and quantifiable factors assessed at the individual and household levels). It is from the writing and activities of these organizations and people that the concept of CFS arose. For the remainder of this paper, we use the term “food security” in the meaning expressed in the World Bank/LSRO definitions. We use the term “community food security” (CFS) in the broader meaning expressed by Winne et al. (1998) and Fisher (1997). At present CFS is poorly integrated with attempts to measure or analyze food security. A basic premise of this paper is that such integration would be mutually beneficial: CFS has conceptual richness and deals with a scale of analysis which has been neglected in food security work, but food security has methodological and theoretical strength. We see three streams of practice and disciplinary orientation converging to create the current concept of CFS, although these are by no means mutually exclusive: some individuals and organizations have contributed to all three. One set of contributors consists mainly of community nutritionists and educators, who focus on providing sound, effective nutrition education. Many in this group stress the importance of community factors in impeding or promoting food access, and the need to include members of the population being served in decision-making and planning (e.g., Campbell, 1989; Wagner and Warren, 1991; Leaman and Harrison, 1996). A second set of contributors consists mainly of progressive agricultural researchers and grass-roots activists, whose primary focus is on food producers and more environmentally-sound food production practices. This group expanded its initial concerns about the environmental costs of current food production systems to include the sociopolitical dynamics of

control of food production systems, thereby illuminating social costs related to food systems, including poverty and hunger. Many sustainable agriculture advocates now are looking for production, distribution, and marketing mechanisms that will help provide food security for people who are increasingly underserved by trends in food systems (e.g., Allen, 1994; Gliessman, 1998). Examples of these mechanisms are community-supported agriculture with subsidized shares for low-income people, and farmers’ markets in poor urban neighborhoods. A third set of contributors consists of anti-hunger and community development researchers and activists, whose primary focus has been on seeking more effective ways to reduce hunger and poverty (e.g., Fisher and Gottlieb, 1995; Poppendieck, 1998). Among this group are the vast network of emergency food providers in food banks, soup kitchens, shelters, and pantries. This group also includes community development organizations, which have begun to consider food-system planning as part of the package of changes needed to make a safer or more functional environment for low-income people. The disciplines, professions, and organizations that have come together to promote CFS make the development of theory difficult: the purpose, form, and use of conceptual models varies across different fields. They work together more comfortably in practical action, where incompatible underlying premises do not necessarily clash. Their achievements include the passage of the Community Food Security Act in the 1996 US Farm Bill, and the establishment of a national Community Food Security Coalition. Projects funded under this Act must, . . . meet the food needs of low-income people by increasing their access to fresher, more nutritious food supplies; increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm and nutrition issues (Community Food Projects, 1998). The meager funding available thus far for Community Food Projects nationally ($1 million during the first year of implementation, $2.5 million in the second and third years) has gone primarily to community-based organizations to expand current activities. Although these are valuable efforts, they are relatively small steps toward widespread CFS. Several common themes appear in the language of the Community Food Security Act and contemporary writing about CFS since its passage. In a recent publication on concept, design and implementation by the Community Food Security Coalition, Winne et al.


(1998) discussed ten distinguishing elements of CFS projects: • • • • • • •

• • •

a multi-disciplinary systems approach in planning and program implementation; promotion of action in geographic communities, rather than isolated sites; broad community participation in planning and needs assessment; community collaboration and coalition building in issue identification and strategic planning; multi-sector linkages (i.e., inclusion of non-profit organizations, businesses, and individuals from many different parts of the food system); use of locally-grown food, whenever possible; multiple project objectives, such as producing, distributing, and expanding access to high-quality food, creating jobs, developing a community’s economy, and training residents in skills useful for employment; inclusion of locally-owned small-scale business ventures; formation of food policy councils to address local policy issues; and long-range planning.

The description of CFS posted on the web-site of the national Community Food Security Coalition (Fisher, 1997) emphasizes building local capacity for food production and marketing, distributional equity, social justice, ecological sustainability, and a community focus on problems rather than “blaming the victim.” Especially for federally-funded work, the priority has been on bringing low-income populations up to the level of food quality and availability enjoyed by higher-income populations. Following these themes, CFS advocates propose decentralized, small-scale, local-level solutions, managed by local inhabitants with control, or at least full representation, by low-income people. While a growing body of contemporary publications addresses the relevance of each of these themes singly or in combination to meet food or community needs, we do not find a coherent statement of how they fit together logically nor how progress toward their achievement can be assessed. We believe that better articulation of a theory of CFS will provide this cohesion and an assessment framework.

What CFS theory should tell us About the nature of food-secure communities Before the components of CFS can be articulated in a theoretical framework, it is necessary to create a

145

consensus vision of a desirable food system, to clarify the underlying political philosophy of CFS, and to construct a conceptual definition of CFS. There is as yet little agreement on what a food-secure community would look like and how it would function. For example, many wealthier US towns and cities appear to have widespread food access; but there is very little public participation in food system decisionmaking. Are these places food-secure, or does CFS require some threshold level of civic commitment and engagement in the community’s food system? As a second example, all metropolitan areas in the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest import the majority of their foods from outside their states. Although this creates vulnerability if transportation costs rise considerably, or natural disasters interrupt service, these cities usually enjoy an abundant and diverse food supply. Residents would almost certainly object strenuously if anyone tried to limit imports of bananas, coffee, or other foods from outside the state. Is there a threshold level of imports beyond which CFS drops? The first step in developing a theory of CFS is developing collective visions of the components of food-secure communities. About underlying political philosophy CFS theory should be explicit also about how underlying political philosophy enters in, to make sure that disagreements over policies and practices are not actually disagreements over unstated political assumptions. If fundamental disagreements exist about political views and assumptions regarding the way the world functions (or ought to function), yet these are not clearly addressed by the theory, then terms, policies, and tactics may be interpreted in contradictory ways (Seedhouse, 1997). We think that the assumptions held by CFS advocates are based largely in a progressive political philosophy stressing egalitarianism and democratic governance. By political progressivism, we refer to a set of beliefs including the following: profits of large corporations should be subject to some public control; the tax system should ensure that corporations and people with highest incomes pay the highest tax rates; citizens and workers should have more control of industry; and economic security for all is desirable, even if it means limiting private ownership of some big businesses (Lobao and Thomas, 1992; Plutzer, 1987). Progressivism values a more egalitarian distribution of society’s resources and opportunities, through government interventions that extend beyond protecting individual freedoms. From an egalitarian viewpoint, citizens have basic rights that imply basic duties on the part of governments to take measures to redress inequities and improve opportun-

146


ities to meet basic needs for those who are prevented from doing so by personal or social circumstances beyond their control (Shue, 1980; Cook and Brown, 1996). Democratic governance refers to ways that decisions affecting the public are made: progressivism favors informed, participatory, democratic decisionmaking on issues that affect public welfare. About definitions Once a consensus vision of food-secure communities and the political philosophy of CFS are specified, succinct conceptual and operational definitions can be created. The definitions also must reflect how CFS differs from food security at other levels of analysis. This condition is not met at present. Consider, for example, the following definition: Community food security is an extension of the food security concept. We define it as “all persons in a community having access to culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate food through local nonemergency sources at all times.” (Winne et al., 1998, p. 1) If CFS is an “extension” of food security, exactly what is being extended and how? This definition is well within the range of definitions of food security itself, and does not explain what is unique about CFS. The most fundamental problem impeding clear definitions of CFS is the vagueness of the concept of “community.” The term means quite different things in different contexts, and frequently means virtually nothing. If it is used at all, will it be defined subjectively through the desires or opinions of people who live in a particular area, or in some objective way (e.g., a school district, a town, the area within walking distance of a certain point)? For CFS theory and research to be effective as a guide for public policy, programmatic action, and practice, the definitions of community and resulting research findings must be in terms that are relevant to these processes. Conceptual definitions of community based on abstract terms (e.g., shared values) may prove ineffective if policy and practice are a primary interest, while concrete definitions (e.g., a clearly delimited neighborhood or unit of governance) may be more effective. Since Ferdinand Tonnies contrasted the Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in 1887, sociologists have grappled with the meaning of community; and they have discussed implications of defining communities functionally, spatially, or morally (Poplin, 1972). “Community” is one of many units of social organization; but in discussion and writing about CFS, it is not often clear what kind of definition is intended and how the community in question contrasts with or

interrelates with other organizational units. Sometimes this question is confused with the question of what is “local,” perhaps because both have a spatial dimension. We do not see the two questions as necessarily linked: the community in question must be defined for CFS to have any meaning, but whether various aspects of food systems are local or not is part of a range of options for implementation, not necessarily part of the conceptual definition of CFS. The issue of lack of clarity, or consensus, about conceptual and operational definitions of community is not simply a matter of preference or perspective. With development, implementation, and publication of the USDA Food Security Measurement Study, a convenient basis exists for viewing community food security as the aggregated measure of householdlevel food security status of all households within a particular geographic area (Hamilton et al., 1997a). However, it is clear that researchers, practitioners and writers interested in CFS often mean more than this by the term. Yet, to date, the lack of clarity about what constitutes a community has hindered identification and measurement of community-level factors that influence household-level food security. As a result, there is not yet a clear understanding about how household- or individual-level food security is related to CFS. Is it possible, for example to say that a community is food insecure even though virtually all households in the community are found to be food secure? Or can a community be food secure on the basis of some broader measures (e.g., local food production, environmental health, participatory food policy, etc.) if a significant proportion of the households in the community are food insecure? Other open questions coming from the lack of consensus on definitions concern cultural appropriateness and social acceptability. Cultural acceptability is conditioned by tastes and experience, which are not shared or equally accessible. For example, if a certain number of people in a community have developed a taste for gourmet coffee, sofrito, or calzones, does this mean that the community is not food-secure unless these are readily available? Or should the criterion of cultural acceptability only apply to people who have grown up in a culture in which such items are traditional? Or should it apply only to food staples? About indicators or measures of CFS Once an approach to developing conceptual definitions of community is agreed upon, theoretical development can proceed. The next step is to clarify the concept of a “food-secure community” by specifying the ingredients or characteristics that distinguish a food-secure community from a food-insecure community. This


step will involve identifying factors that determine CFS, and establishing a conceptual framework, or model, that logically depicts the relationships of determinants to CFS status and to each other. Such a framework will represent the state variables, or factors that determine CFS, and the nature of the processes by which they influence it (and possibly each other). But most important, the conceptual model will make it possible to operationalize the concept in measurable form. The conceptual framework also will provide the necessary ingredients for stating falsifiable hypotheses about the factors that determine CFS, which must be operationalized as well. After these processes have been accomplished, the CFS theory can be modified, extended, or abandoned, depending on the cumulative results of hypothesis tests over time. Bilsborrow et al. (1984, pp. 418–428) discussed several approaches to conceptually and operationally defining a community for the purpose of survey design. Their distinction between factors or variables is relevant to the choice of variables made in assessing CFS. They distinguish between “contextual” factors that result from aggregation of individual or household-level data, and “global” factors for which corresponding measures do not and cannot exist for individuals or households. Examples of contextual community factors include average household income, proportion of households that are food secure or food insecure, proportion of households participating in local food production, and proportion of residents receiving food from private emergency food assistance programs. Examples of global community factors include whether there is a large supermarket, a farmers’ market, or shared gardening space in the community; whether there is public transportation in the community; and whether the community has a local food policy council. Both contextual and global community factors are necessary in designing community-level surveys and measures, and building a theory applicable to communities. Dahlberg (1993) emphasized the importance of interactions among different levels of analysis that include natural, social, and technological systems. Understanding the factors that influence community food security thus gives greater power to interpretation and action at the individual, household, and regional or national scales. The bridges between CFS and individual- or household-level food security and hunger, and the factors at various levels that determine them (i.e., community-, household-, and individual-level determinants) must be specified in the conceptual model in ways that make the points of policy and other types of interventions clear. Without specifying such points of intervention, CFS theory cannot guide action

147

to make communities more food-secure. Moreover, unless the relationships between CFS and householdor individual-level food security are clear in the theory, CFS cannot be viewed as a vehicle for improving food security at those other levels. Conclusion What can be gained from CFS theory? Developing a CFS theory is not just an abstract exercise. It has direct consequences for social policy and action. The first way that a clear theory can help in strategic planning is by making the linkages between CFS and related concepts apparent. These include food security, sustainable agriculture, rural development, and sustainable development. If coalitions among various organizations working on food-system changes are to be effective, the points of similarity are probably more important than the points of difference because such common ground is the basis for collaboration. On the other hand, a CFS theory that shows links among critical state variables can help demonstrate how programs designed to meet other goals can influence CFS. For example, resources committed to strengthening emergency food supplies and thereby improving household or individual food security may decrease local self-reliance, thereby weakening CFS. On a state or national scale, policies to increase cash crops for income generation, thereby increasing household food security of those who can raise and sell those crops, may worsen CFS by decreasing control over local resources, leading to reduced food production and less resilience if external markets fail. The second practical consequence of a clear CFS theory is knowledge of the best measures or indicators. There is a large set of factors that are plausibly related to CFS, ranging from the prevalence of dietrelated diseases within the community’s population to the availability of inner-city buses. Potential types of data to be included in a CFS assessment include, • • • • • •

•

measures of nutritional status (clinical, biochemical, anthropometric); nutrient intake and food consumption; related food practices (e.g., breastfeeding, cooking practices, shopping practices); food and nutrition knowledge and attitudes; social capital, as it relates to the food system; food system descriptors (e.g., food availability and quality, multiple factors affecting food accessibility, educational opportunities about food quality and access); and economic/social system descriptors that affect the capacity for change in the food system.

148


Collecting and integrating all of these types of data are infeasible, partly because many of them are costly to collect in a reliable way. Moreover, some potential indicators are covariant, and knowing the status of some may give reliable estimates of others. For cost-effective analyses, it will be useful to know which factors are the best indicators or predictors of CFS, and to focus on these. Measures of CFS should provide valid ways of comparing communities, to aid decisions about investment of public resources. This may take the form of a scale of relative severity of community food insecurity, as in the recently-created USDA household-level food security scale. However, creating such a scale is far from trivial, because of the multi-dimensional and multi-level factors that need to be included. The state variables and processes of CFS are not static: they almost certainly change over time. Therefore, a theory of CFS should articulate the stages in development of, or movement toward, CFS. This has very important consequences for policy and program implementation. Food policy councils are part of the set of distinguishing elements of CFS in the US (Winne et al., 1998), and they operate more or less independently in many cities to build local food policy from scratch. But perhaps there is a particular structure of decision-making bodies, or a sequence of policy measures, that tends to be most effective at the community, city, state, regional, or national levels. We know very little about the trade-offs and synergies among policy options, i.e., short-term versus long-term effects and comparative costs of different strategies. Similarly, we know little about the incentives for cooperation in creating CFS that might attract different stakeholders. For example, what are the interests and roles of large-scale growers and food businesses in building CFS? What incentives would make participation in solutions to community food insecurity attractive to players who already have considerable power in the food system? If there is a portfolio of “best” policy measures, the work of food policy councils or other planning forums may become considerably more effective. Or perhaps food policy councils and other voluntary collaborations are not the most appropriate structure for decisions about CFS at all. They can be representative of the community only if the assumption holds that, once barriers are removed, people will participate in decision-making about food and choose options that move a community toward greater food security. This is a risky premise in a society where political engagement is becoming less and less popular.

Recommendations for next steps This paper, and especially the preceding section, may raise more questions than it answers. We think this is appropriate, given the present stage of development of CFS. In concluding, we describe the questions we think should be tackled first to move toward a usable CFS theory. This may lead to a preliminary research agenda, to be elaborated and implemented in close collaboration among food security researchers, planners, practitioners, and residents of the communities in question. The highest priority task in developing a theory of CFS is clarification of its definition and determinants, including the meaning of community. Definitions should be specified in terms consistent with how people who are believed to suffer from community food insecurity, or benefit from relative CFS, understand the concepts. Part of the task of definition is the development of a consensus vision of foodsecure communities, as described above, to depict and examine the components viewed as essential by different sectors of a community. Another important part of the work is identifying attitudes about and perceptions of CFS in both qualitative and quantitative ways, perhaps using focus groups, in-depth interviews, and household surveys in a process comparable to that by which household food security measures were developed (e.g., Radimer et al., 1990; Wehler, 1986; Hamilton et al., 1997b), or the survey of Canadian dietitians done by Power et al. (1998). As explained above, a vital need of the CFS definition is deciding which emergent properties of communities to include. This can be done in a variety of ways, including comparison of the consequences of measures and policies that focus on different hierarchical levels or different definitions of community. Our second priority recommendation is to test some of the assumptions made by advocates or government agencies about how CFS policies can be implemented, by analyzing the consequences for communities of actions based on different assumptions. For instance, is increased reliance on local foods vital for CFS, whether a community wants this or not? Should more people grow their own food in backyards, schoolyards, or community gardens for CFS? Does gleaning significantly improve CFS? Such assumptions should be evaluated carefully by analyzing their consequences and the consequences of other options, through developing falsifiable hypotheses derived from a theory of CFS. An additional related process that we see as critical to development of a theory of CFS is to examine how community-level factors influence individual- or household-level food security. For example, data from


a local implementation of the USDA household-level food security scale in Hartford, Connecticut, are being used currently to examine the influence of communitylevel factors on household food security through multilevel logistic regression models by researchers in the Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy. In addition, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analyses are being used to examine the influence of different operational definitions of community on the way CFS is defined and measured. Similar research in other locations can help clarify the relationships among food security at different levels, and factors at different levels of aggregation. This should help to achieve consensus on the most appropriate conceptual definitions of community. Our third priority recommendation is to examine the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to measuring CFS. For instance, a comparison might be made of costs and information obtained by rapid reconnaissance methods versus a more comprehensive study based on focus groups, in-depth interviews, community meetings, and survey data. While evaluating measurement alternatives, it is important to ensure that the data needed will continue to be available and continue to be feasible to collect, so that trends and changes can be identified over time. Our fourth recommendation is to evaluate the successes and failures of various efforts to improve CFS, in the context of a sound theory of CFS, so that it will be possible to begin constructing systematic policy priorities and “optimal mixes” of policies to apply in different circumstances. A reasonable place to start is with policies and programs that have high returns relative to costs or that address multiple concerns simultaneously (e.g., farmers’ markets or public markets that serve neighborhoods with limited access to fresh produce). We believe CFS is a useful and important extension of previous food security research and practice. An uneasy relationship between “thinking” and “doing” has permeated CFS activities to date, among each of the different sets of contributors to its development. On one side, the “doers” are sometimes frustrated by fruitless discussion when they see a clear problem that just needs action to be solved. On the other side, the “thinkers” are sometimes frustrated by wasted or counter-productive action based in simplistic notions of the problems. So far, “doers” have dominated CFS work and the federal funding available in this area. This may be entirely appropriate, but we argue that conceptual development of CFS will help the “doers” be more effective. Correspondingly, the assessment of barriers to food security by people working on implementation of solutions should inform theory. Until a viable theory of CFS is developed, based on

149

clear consensus definitions and logical relationships, little progress is likely to be made toward understanding what CFS is, how it can be measured, or how policies help or hinder its emergence. We hope this paper will provide the basis for movement toward such theory, and a catalyst for others to contribute to its development.

Note 1. The label Simon Maxwell used for this emphasis may be somewhat confusing, particularly to American readers who associate “food first” with a book of that title by Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins, with Cary Fowler. Maxwell was referring not to the implicit message of the book that the political underpinnings of hunger and maldistribution of resources should be addressed, but quite simply to the pragmatic emphasis on getting food to hungry people.

References Allen, P. (1994). The Human Face of Sustainable Agriculture: Adding People to the Environmental Agenda. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California: Issue Paper 4. Anderson, S. A. (ed.) (1990). “Core indicators of nutritional state for difficult-to-sample populations,” Journal of Nutrition 120(11S): 1557–1600. A report prepared by the Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, for the American Institute of Nutrition, with the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Bickel, G., M. Andrews, and B. Klein (1996). “Measuring food security in the United States: A supplement to the CPS,” in D. Hall and M. Stavrianos (eds.), Nutrition and Food Security in the Food Stamp Program (pp. 91–111). Alexandria, Virginia: USDA/FCS/OAE. Bilsborrow, R. E., A. S. Oberai, and G. Standing (1984). Migration Surveys in Low-Income Countries: Guidelines for Survey and Questionnaire Design. London: Croom Helm. Campbell, C. C. (1989). “Community-based nutrition monitoring,” Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association 50(2): 93– 97. Clancy, K. L. (1993), “Sustainable agriculture and domestic hunger: Rethinking a link between production and consumption,” in P. Allen (ed.), Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability (pp. 251–293). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Community Food Projects (1998). “Description of Community Food Projects,” http://www.reeusda.gov/rgam/cfp/ communitya.htm. Cook, J. T. and J. L. Brown (1996). “Children’s rights to adequate nutritious foods in the two Americas,” Food Policy 21(1): 11–16.

150


Dahlberg, K. A. (1993), “Regenerative food systems: Broadening the scope and agenda of sustainability,” in P. Allen (ed.), Food for the Future: Conditions and Contradictions of Sustainability (pp. 75–102). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Fisher, A. (1997). “What is community food security?,” http://www.foodsecurity.org/ (reprinted from Urban Ecologist 1997, Issue 2.). Fisher, A. and R. Gottlieb (1995). Community Food Security: Policies for a More Sustainable Food System in the Context of the 1995 Farm Bill and Beyond. Los Angeles, CA: The Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, University of California, Working Paper No. 11. FAO (1996). Sixth World Food Survey. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Freire de Sousa, I. S., E. G. Singer, and W. L. Flinn (1985). “Sociopolitical forces and technology: Critical reflections on the Green Revolution,” in J. C. Super and T. C. Wright (eds.), Food, Politics and Society in Latin America (pp. 228–245). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Chelsea, Michigan: Ann Arbor Press. Hamilton, W. L., J. T. Cook, W. W. Thompson, L. F. Buron, E. A. Frongillo, Jr., C. M. Olson, and C. A. Wehler (1997a). Household Food Security in the United States in 1995: Summary Report of the Food Security Measurement Project. Washington, DC: USDA/FCS/OAE. Hamilton, W. L., J. T. Cook, W. W. Thompson, L. F. Buron, E. A. Frongillo, Jr., C. M. Olson, and C. A. Wehler (1997b). Household Food Security in the United States in 1995: Technical Report of the Food Security Measurement Project. Washington, DC: USDA/FCS/OAE. Koralek, R. D. (1996). Report of the Proceedings, Conference on Access to Food, September 18 and 19, 1995. Alexandria, Virginia: KRA Corporation for USDA Food and Consumer Service. Leaman, M. and K. R. Harrison (1996). “Community development: An historical perspective for dietitians and community nutritionists,” Journal of the Canadian Dietetic Association 57(4): 133–136. Leidenfrost, N. (1993). Definitions Concerned with Food Security, Hunger, Undernutrition, and Poverty. Washington, DC: USDA Extension Service. Lewis, S. (1992). “Food security, environment, poverty, and the world’s children,” Journal of Nutrition Education (January/February Supplement): 3–5. Lobao, L. M. and P. Thomas (1992). “Political beliefs in an era of economic decline: Farmers’ attitudes toward state economic intervention, trade, and food security,” Rural Sociology 57(4): 453–475. Maxwell, S. (1996). “Food security: A post-modern perspective,” Food Policy 21(2): 155–170.

Plutzer, E. (1987). “Determinants of leftist radical political beliefs in the United States: A test of competing theories,” Social Forces 65: 1002–1019. Poplin, D. (1972). Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of Research. New York: The Macmillan Company. Poppendieck, J. (1992). “Hunger and public policy: Lessons from the Great Depression,” Journal of Nutrition Education (January/February Supplement): 6–11. Poppendieck, J. (1998). “Want amid plenty: From hunger to inequality,” Monthly Review 50(3): 125–136. Power, E. M., J. D. Sheeshka, and A. L. Heron (1998). “Canadian dietitians’ understanding of food security,” Journal of Nutrition Education 30: 45–49. Radimer, K. L., C. M. Olson, and C. C. Campbell (1990). “Development of indicators to assess hunger,” Journal of Nutrition 120(Supplement 11): 1544–1548. Seedhouse, D. (1997). Health Promotion: Philosophy, Practice and Prejudice. Chichester, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sen, A. K. (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shue, H. (1980). Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and US Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation (1995). Papers and Proceedings, Conference on Food Security Measurement and Research, January 21–24, 1994. Alexandria, Virginia. US House of Representatives (1990). Food Security in the United States. Washington, DC: Select Committee on Hunger, Committee Report. von Braun, J., H. Bouis, S. Kumar, and R. Pandya-Lorch (1992). Improving Food Security of the Poor: Concept, Policy, and Programs. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Wagner, P. A. and G. L. Warren (1991). “Addressing food security issues in the community,” Hunger and Food Security Issues 2(2) (Entire issue). Wehler, C. A. (1986). Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project: New Haven Risk Factor Study. Hartford, CT: Connecticut Association for Human Services. Winne, M., H. Joseph, and A. Fisher (1998), H. Joseph (ed.), Community Food Security: A Guide to Concept, Design, and Implementation. Venice, California: Community Food Security Coalition. World Bank (1986). Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries. World Bank Policy Study. Washington, DC: World Bank. Address for correspondence: Molly D. Anderson, School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155-7028, USA Phone: (617) 627-2442; Fax: (617) 627-3887; E-mail: [email protected]