Food Security and Food Sovereignty: The Difference Between Surviving and Thriving

Abstract

Previous research in American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities has documented high prevalence of food insecurity. Yet many AI/AN scholars and communities have expressed concerns that the dominant societal conceptions of food security are not reflective of the teachings, priorities, and values of AI/AN communities. Food security initiatives often focus on access to food and, at times, nutrition but little consideration is given to cultural foods, the spirituality carried through foods, and whether the food was stewarded in a way that promotes well-being not just for humans but also for plants, animals, land, and water. Despite the concerns of AI/AN communities that their needs are not centered in dominant societal food conceptualizations and food security programming, the food sovereignty efforts of AI/AN communities have captured national attention as a solution to modern food system inequities. Indigenous Food Sovereignty (IFS) is a holistic approach to food that incorporates values of relationality, reciprocity, and relationships. Fundamental differences exist between food security and food sovereignty, yet dominant society often reduces IFS as a solution to food security, rather than an entirely different food system that is predicated on values that contrast with that of dominant society. Despite calls to decolonize the definition and measurement of food security, we explore whether fixing the concept of food security is a worthy endeavor or whether efforts would be better spent supporting the resurgence and revitalization of AI/AN food values, food knowledge, and community food sovereignty initiatives.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.