This article outlines the main conclusions from Chapter 3 of the recent FOSTER deliverable, which addresses R&I policy support options for furthering food systems science at national, regional and local level in the EU. You can access the complete deliverable on the FOSTER website here.
The chapter, “Inclusion of Structurally Excluded People,” examines the marginalised perspectives within food systems and their potential to drive meaningful change.
Food systems shape how we produce, distribute, and consume food, but many decisions around our food are dominated by elites in the establishment while many other stakeholders are excluded. This article explores why including underrepresented voices matters, drawing on recent literature. By examining structural challenges and real-world solutions, we show how including diverse perspectives can make food systems more equitable, sustainable, and legitimate.
Imagine a table where decisions about our food – how it’s grown, sold, processed and shared – are made. Often, large corporations and government officials have most seats at this table. Yet, citizens and consumers, small farmers and low-income communities are scarcely represented at this table. This underrepresentation and exclusion causes inequalities in a system that feeds us all. Recent research and policy debates emphasize the need for promoting inclusivity, ensuring everyone affected by food systems, especially marginalized groups, have a voice in decision-making. Inclusivity creates fairer and more sustainable outcomes. This article unpacks who is left out, why their inclusion matters, and how we can build a more democratic food system.
Who is underrepresented, and why?
Right now, powerful players like commercial retailers, large-scale farmers and financial institutions have a large influence on decisions around our food system. Studies also note that Western scientific knowledge dominates discussions around food, while local, practical and Indigenous knowledge is generally underrepresented. As a result, citizens are generally underrepresented in decision making around our food systems. Indigenous peoples, women, migrant communities, LGBTIQ+ individuals, youth, groups with a lower socio-economic status and smallholder farmers are even less present on the abovementioned table – while their perspectives can offer valuable insights into sustainable practices.
Several barriers keep these groups out:
- Power Dynamics: Economic and political elites control decision-making, often meeting behind closed doors and also dominate participatory processes,
- Scientific Language: The use of complex academic and political language makes it hard for community members to engage.
- Resource Constraints: Time, money and education limit participation. For instance, small producers struggle with costly regulations designed for big players.
- Mindsets: Some policymakers assume citizens don’t care about food systems beyond buying food, ignoring diverse needs across cultures or identities.
Including underrepresented groups isn’t just fair. It is essential for better outcomes:
- Fairness and justice: Everyone affected by food policies deserves a say, respecting their rights and viewpoints.
- Learning from others: Including diverse perspectives deepens our understanding and sparks innovative solutions.
- Sustainability: Inclusive perspectives of various stakeholders lead to more supported and practiced solutions that can promote the likelihood of lasting, supported changes.
- Legitimacy: Decisions reflecting societal needs gain wider support, making policies more effective and trusted.
Inclusion through participation
There are various formats, like food policy councils, citizen juries, and participatory budgeting that have all worked well to give communities a direct role in decision making around food. One needs to be aware that underrepresented groups cannot just be expected to join participatory processes on their own – they need to be specifically approached for this. In processes of participation, promoting that all voices are heard equally is important. Building trust and promoting knowledge sharing – respecting different views – is key in this.
While there are good examples of participation that promotes inclusivity, there are also examples where it fails to do so. Even well-meaning inclusion efforts can fall short. Research often overlooks certain groups, like youth or informal organizations, because they’re less vocal or visible. Inviting marginalized communities to existing structures may not be enough if those structures don’t change. For instance, newcomers may lack the know-how to effectively participate. True inclusion might require rethinking how decisions are made, giving more power to those on the margins.
Food systems touch every aspect of our lives, but decision making around food often excludes many people who should have a seat on the table. Inclusivity in decision making often leads to better outcomes and can be done through a variety of approaches. When we break down barriers and invite underrepresented groups, we can create a table where everyone has a seat. Some good examples show what is possible, but participation of citizens and underrepresented groups must go beyond token gestures to shift power dynamics. For researchers, policymakers, and citizens, the challenge is clear: listen to all voices, not just the loudest.