Ontario Dietitians in Public Health
Ontario Dietitians in Public Health (ODPH) are recognized and valued as leaders in public health nutrition working to promote the health of Ontarians. ODPH works to advance public health nutrition through member and partner collaboration in order to improve population health and health equity, locally and provincially.
Suggested citation:
Ontario Dietitians in Public Health. Rapid Review: Governance Structures that Support Local Food Systems. Ontario: Ontario Dietitians in Public Health; 2024. Available from: https://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/public-health-evidence-syntheses/554
Authors:
Aisha Malik, RD, BSc – Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit
Bridget King, RD, MHSc – Public Health Sudbury & Districts
Jessica Mackay, RD, MPH – Halton Region Public Health
Kendall Chambers, RD, MScFN – Southwestern Public Health
Sharmini Balakrishnan, RD, MPH – Chatham-Kent Public Health
Suzanne Neumann, RD, MSc – City of Hamilton Public Health Services
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to acknowledge that this evidence review was completed with the help and ongoing support of many others. Thank you to Danielle Charron, City of Hamilton Public Health Services, and Heather Kemp, Halton Region Health Department, for assistance in conducting the literature search. Thank you to Robyn Traynor and Emily Clark from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools for their guidance and support throughout the evidence review process.
Executive Summary
Background
Registered Dietitians working in population-level health often encounter food system challenges that negatively impact healthy eating behaviours, such as food insecurity, socioeconomic inequities, climate change and environmental sustainability, barriers to food sovereignty, and a lack of nutrition education and food literacy. Addressing the need for food system transformation, local governments and communities are increasingly engaging in initiatives to enhance local food systems through coordinated planning, policy development, and collaborative efforts. This rapid review aims to equip Registered Dietitians in local public health agencies with the knowledge to support the development of sustainable food systems by examining existing governance structures.
This review includes evidence available up to November 1, 2023 to answer the question: What are the governance structures that support local food systems and how is their effectiveness measured?
Key Messages
- Local and regional food system governance structures vary widely, adopting internal, external, and hybrid models to address diverse challenges such as food insecurity and sustainability.
- Elements for building a governance structure for sustainable food systems include: (1) a shared vision, (2) diverse, equitable, and inclusive membership; (3) coordinated action; (4) a relationship with local government; and (5) resource acquisition.
- Despite challenges in measuring effectiveness, food system networks can demonstrate tangible impacts such as policy advancements, community engagement, sustainable food production initiatives, and integrating food system goals into broader municipal plans.
- Advancements in governance structures underscore opportunities for enhancing food security, sustainability, and public health outcomes at the local level.
Issue and Context
As Registered Dietitians striving to promote population health and reduce the burden of
nutrition-related chronic diseases in Ontario communities, we often encounter food system challenges that constrain healthy eating behaviours. Some of the more prominent challenges include food insecurity, socioeconomic inequities, access to healthy foods, labour force shortages in farming and food processing, supply chain disruptions, climate change and environmental sustainability, food waste, barriers to food sovereignty and Indigenous Rights, lack of nutrition education and food literacy, and the influence of food marketing on food choices1. As one would expect, there is widespread acceptance of the need for food systems transformation2-3. Food system priorities have been identified for Canada4-5 and progress towards more sustainable, resilient, and equitable food systems requires participation and collaboration at all levels.
At the local level, there is growing recognition of the need for coordinated planning of food systems6-7. Despite limited legal jurisdiction, many Ontario municipalities are intervening to improve local food systems through food initiatives and policies, local food policy councils, food system networks, food coalitions, and food strategies. This work requires collaboration between diverse food-related sectors and there is an emerging role for public health practice8-9. Yet, there is a lack of clear guidance about how cities and regions can best collaborate, integrate policies across sectors, disperse power and rights, and create deliberative spaces to articulate and reconcile varying views and values.
Governance structures are important to consider, especially when focusing on long-term food system outcomes, as these can dictate who is at the table, where priorities are focused, which ideas are actioned, and what resources are available. The literature on food system governance explores the diversity of approaches, complexities, and interconnected transitions taking place10. Research also highlights the principles of nurturing diversity in the system, inclusivity, creating spaces for discourse and visioning, and considering inherent social impacts11-13. Furthermore, while the Milan Food Policy Pact suggests some governance indicators14, we have much to learn about how to monitor and evaluate the processes that aim to bring about food system improvement15.
This rapid review was produced to inform how registered dietitians working in local public health agencies in Ontario can support the development and enhancement of local sustainable food systems. We sought to learn more about the governance structures that currently support local food system transformation; identify who has voice, agency, or power within local food system governance; how the change process is supported; and determine how the effectiveness of these governance structures and processes are measured.
Research Question
This rapid review aims to answer the question ‘What are the governance structures that support local food systems and how is their effectiveness measured?’
Methods
Search
Searches were conducted between June 22, 2023 and November 1, 2023 for articles published between 2018 and 2023, using the following academic databases, via EBSCOhost platform:
- Academic Search Premier;
- Medline;
- CINAHL Complete;
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews;
- Environment Complete;
- GreenFILE.
Additional searches were completed in the same time frame as indicated above through:
- Campbell Collaboration Library;
- Google Scholar.
Additional records were identified through screening reference lists from relevant systematic reviews. The complete search strategy is available in Appendix 1.
Study Selection Criteria
Articles were eligible for inclusion if they: reviewed primary studies1; assessed local or regional multisectoral collaborative action towards sustainable food systems; considered outcomes related to policy and/or program development and implementation, food security, advocacy, and legislation; were based in OECD countries2; and were published in English. Articles were excluded if they: assessed interventions that did not address collaborative action or focused on provincial, federal, or international
food system efforts. A summary of the eligibility criteria can be found in Table 1.
Table 1: Eligibility Criteria
Search results were uploaded into Rayyan and duplicates were removed. All six authors were involved in screening articles at both the title/abstract stage and full text stage. Each article’s title and abstract were independently screened on Rayyan by two reviewers. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. If consensus could not be reached between the two reviewers, a third reviewer was assigned. Full text articles were retrieved for all included articles. Each article’s full text was screened by one reviewer. Where further discussion was needed, a second reviewer screened the article and consensus was reached through discussion among all reviewers. A summary of the literature search and screening process can be found in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Literature Search and Screening Process
Quality Appraisal
Each included article was independently appraised for quality by two reviewers using critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The specific tool used for each article was based on the reviewers’ assessment of the study design. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion among the two reviewers. More information on the quality appraisal stage is available upon request.
Data Extraction
Relevant information from each article was extracted independently by two reviewers. Consensus was achieved through discussion. A summary of the quality appraisal scores and data extraction can be found in Appendix 2.
Main Findings
The search identified 392 articles, of which 6 met the inclusion criteria. Of the 6 included articles, 1 was rated as high quality16 and 5 were rated as moderate quality17-21. Articles were often rated lower quality if they lacked a statement about the researcher’s potential influence on the study or lacked information on how the research process could have affected the researchers’ interpretations. This review primarily consists of qualitative studies that employed methods such as semi-structured interviews, focus groups, participant observation, and document analysis for data collection. The articles reviewed feature food system networks located in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Spain, and France.
This rapid review aimed to provide insight into the diverse structural forms adopted by food system networks along with an exploration of how they measure effectiveness. Findings from this review have been organized into three broad areas: structural forms, elements of building a governance structure, and measures of effectiveness.
Structural Form
Governance structures encompass a broad spectrum of networks and models aimed at enhancing the social, economic, and environmental health of local and regional food systems. In this review, various terms such as Food Policy Councils (FPCs), coalitions, alliances, or partnerships, have been used to denote these networks. While FPCs are commonly used to describe diverse governance structures, there is considerable variability in how this term is defined. While adhering to the terminology used in the respective articles, the overarching focus in this review is on networks collaborating to address food systems challenges.
These networks exhibit a diverse array of forms, reflecting the multifaceted nature of community engagement, decision-making processes, and institutional frameworks. Here, the structural forms have been categorized into three governance models – internal, external, and hybrid models – each embodying distinct characteristics shaping the dynamics of food system networks. However, it’s essential to acknowledge the evolving and fluid nature of these governance networks, with partnerships between different entities fluctuating in formality and duration to adapt to emerging needs and opportunities. For instance, the Holyoke Food & Fitness Policy Council evolved over time to suit local contexts, shifting between an internal-like governance model to more of a hybrid-like governance model20.
Internal Governance Models
Internal governance models are those in which the decision-making body is embedded in municipal government. Within this review, an internal governance model was found within one moderate quality study19. The Napa Local Food Advisory Council, which was proposed by the former Napa agricultural commissioner, operated as a formal advisory board to local government. The council was responsible for making recommendations related to food insecurity and agricultural diversity to the agricultural commissioner and the county board of supervisors19.
External Governance Models
In contrast, external governance models are those which are created outside of municipal government. These models can include government participation; however, local government does not act as the main decision-making body. Our review found examples of external governance models in two moderate quality studies17,21.
Simon-Rojo et al. described four external agroecology movements in Madrid that brought together producers and consumers and acted as channels of civic engagement21. These social movements took on the structure of horizontal alliances, assemblies and working groups with informal coordinating structures that were eventually recognized by local governments, leading to some coproduction of public policies21.
In Calgary, Alberta, the YYC Growers and Distributors (YYC) formed to address an increasing demand for locally produced food. YYC is a producer cooperative made up of urban and rural growers. They are committed to supporting the local food system through improving availability of local food and providing education on local food systems. The group effectively functions outside of government, but municipal and provincial levels of government have sought their knowledge and expertise, proving a clear mark of their credibility17.
Hybrid Governance Models
Hybrid governance models strike a delicate balance between community-driven initiatives and government involvement. These models blend elements of both internal and external governance, leveraging the strengths of diverse organizations to address complex challenges within the food system. Evidence of hybrid governance models were apparent in 1 strong16 and 4 moderate quality articles17-20.
As illustrated by Mui et al., local, regional, and municipal governments can promote cross-collaboration by forming an official interdepartmental agency or working group between public health, planning departments, and other sectors in the food system16. In Philadelphia, leadership from the mayor and health commissioner led to the creation and execution of the Greenworks Philadelphia Sustainability Plan, which sparked extensive planning for sustainable initiatives and food systems. Likewise, in Region 5 Minnesota, cross-sector leadership from Region 5 Development Commission (R5DC) and county public health proactively engaged more than 600 residents, as well as uncommon partners from transportation, community, and economic development agencies to collaborate on food-related initiatives16.
Gupta et al.’s qualitative case series of 10 FPCs in California, USA, found that nine of the 10 FPCs operate as multisectoral coalitions, rather than being embedded in local government or established as independent nonprofit organizations19. For example, the Sacramento Food Policy Council, a community collaborative with mid- and frontline level government staff, was initially structured with an executive board, a steering committee, and four topic-based working groups. However, the FPC restructured itself around campaigns, which allowed the FPC to continue as a community-led structure19
In contrast to the formal internal advisory council highlighted in Napa, California19, two moderate quality studies17-18 identified structures which included government-mandated advisory boards. For example, in Toulouse, France, advisory boards are mandatory in French urban areas with more than 50,000 residents18. The federation of municipalities, known as the Toulouse Métropole, has an advisory board of 240 individuals including volunteers and two employees that help organize the work. This advisory board considers itself to be the interface between Toulouse Métropole and civil society. While these boards may have been initiated by local government, they continue to act as hybrid models as the advisory boards focus on proposing ideas and offering comments, rather than acting as the main decision making body.
Elements for Building a Governance Structure
Elements for building a governance structure encompass several key considerations vital for fostering effective collaboration and achieving sustainable food system outcomes. This review highlights five elements for building a governance structure: (1) shared vision; (2) diverse, equitable, and inclusive membership; (3) coordinated action; (4) relationship with local government; and (5) resource acquisition.
Shared Vision
Working towards a shared vision or common goal serves as the cornerstone for governance formation, as evidenced in all six articles16-21. Whether working on local initiatives in favour of urban food production and consumption in Toulouse, France18 or increasing access to fresh, culturally-diverse foods in Massachusetts, USA20, cohesive visions drive diverse partners to unite and advocate for change.
One strong article16 demonstrated how a common vision can advance food systems work in a more organized and impactful manner. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the municipal administration showcased an exceptionally robust dedication to food systems planning and policy. In this region, the planning was done under the public health umbrella of antihunger and prevention of chronic disease. Development of their “comprehensive sustainability plan” was an anchor to bringing diverse organizations together to facilitate a suite of policies to promote equitable access to healthy food16. In Region 5 Minnesota, their focus was driven by a desire to alleviate food insecurity and economic hardship. The Region 5 Development Commission (R5DC), Todd County Health Department, multiple healthcare organizations, and local governments collaborated to overhaul food systems planning and policy in this rural area16.
Similarly, in two moderate quality studies17,21 food producers came together to achieve a common goal. The YYC Growers and Distributors from Calgary, Alberta is a producer cooperative, with a common goal of reshaping market relationships and empowering consumers through direct relationships with producers. This focus on a common goal has helped them see success as demonstrated through their strong relationships with consumers and their noted credibility with municipal and provincial levels of government17. In Madrid, individuals who shared a commitment to agroecological principles, opposed the commodification of food, and valued cooperation and solidarity joined together to raise awareness and build alternatives to the prevailing economic model21.
The pursuit of a common goal not only serves as the catalyst for governance formation but also influences the composition of membership within these structures.
Diverse, Equitable, and Inclusive Membership
Diverse, equitable, and inclusive membership fosters creativity and localized problem-solving within food system collaborations. Involving a wide range of participants across sectors and communities enhances collaborative decision-making and innovation. The reviewed articles highlight diverse membership compositions, including representatives from the food supply chain (producers, processors, distributors, retailers, consumers, and waste managers), non-profit organizations, community organizations, academic institutions, local government, and community residents. Evidence of diverse and inclusive membership was highlighted in all six articles16-21.
A strong study by Mui et al.16 emphasized the importance of inclusion within the Philadelphia Food Charter, which laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Philadelphia Food Policy Advocacy Council (FPAC) in 2011. FPAC members and supporters collaborated to advocate for and shape policy recommendations for the city. A pivotal aspect for FPAC was its deliberate recognition of inclusion, embracing factors such as age, socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, and education within its membership and the city’s food systems planning process. This commitment was operationalized through shared leadership and accountability, fostering trust, and employing flexible and adaptive practices16.
A moderate-quality article by Sands et al.20 exemplified various strategies for driving change within food systems, emphasizing diverse, equitable, and inclusive membership. For instance, the collaborative prioritized racial equity, with staff and partners participating in training sessions on racial oppression and the influence of privilege and systemic racism on foodways. Furthermore, the collaborative ensured adequate representation, notably within the Latino community, and established leadership pathways and mentorship programs for community residents20.
The social movements described by Simon-Rojo21 were open to anyone engaged in food sovereignty and seeking an agroecological transition in the Madrid region. This included the public sector (academics, students, a technician from city council, consumers), private sector (producers, organic farmers engaged in direct selling and/or short supply chains) and civil society groups (community garden members, local associations, and non profit organizations)21.
In contrast, the Napa Food Advisory Council had limited community representation due to its confined membership and formal alignment with the county government. Initially created to address food insecurity and agricultural diversity, the council included representatives from agriculture, health, environment, and local restaurants. However, its ability to fulfill its original goals diminished after a change in leadership. The new agricultural commissioner shifted the council’s focus towards traditional agricultural regulation, limiting its responsiveness to broader community concerns. Furthermore, the council’s operations were constrained by governmental protocols, such as open meeting laws and strict agendas, which hindered inclusive community participation19.
Coordinated Action
Coordinated action is fundamental to driving intentional and sustainable change within the food system. Gupta et. al’s19 study of 10 FPCs in California, USA, highlighted the importance of establishing a strong foundation for achieving food system outcomes. This was characterized by a FPC’s ability to (1) enhance the council’s credibility as an expert in food policy, (2) prioritize policy-based activities rather than solely focusing on program-based interventions, and (3) maintain an organizational structure that fosters a strong relationship between local government and community members19 As evidenced in one strong16 and four moderate quality studies17,19, 20-21, the diverse strategies employed by food system networks demonstrate how these foundational elements can be integrated to drive tangible progress towards a more sustainable and equitable food system.
For example, over the past decade, the Philadelphia local government has exhibited a notably robust dedication to food systems planning and policy16. In 2008, former Mayor Michael Nutter led the development of the Philadelphia Food Charter, committing to promoting a food system that benefits the community, economy, and environment of Philadelphia. Shortly thereafter, Mayor Nutter’s dedication to making Philadelphia the greenest city in America led to the establishment of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, which spearheaded the Greenworks Philadelphia Sustainability Plan in 2009. This plan encompasses eight visions, one of which prioritizes access to healthy, affordable, and sustainable food and drinking water. A government representative highlighted the benefits of adopting a comprehensive plan focused on food and health under the leadership of the administration and public health department. This commitment has been propelled by the collaborative leadership of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and the Department of Public Health.
One moderate quality study19 highlighted several examples of how FPCs can exemplify the integration of the foundational elements noted above into their operational structure19. For instance, the Sacramento FPC intentionally restructured around a campaign-based framework, where each campaign aligned with long-term policy objectives of the council. For example, some campaigns focused on advocating for a central kitchen in schools or embedding food priorities in city and county plans. This approach not only fostered community participation without requiring long-term commitment, but also sustained the council’s momentum towards achieving community goals. Moreover, by clearly defining campaign goals, government staff could actively engage in council meetings, as they aligned with the missions of their respective agencies. The Sacramento FPC emerged as a respected expert and central partner on various food system priorities, with government staff supporting the council by facilitating connections and processes19.
Leveraging nonprofit support and connections to the mayor’s office, the Los Angeles FPC convenes diverse organizations and individuals into a ‘collective impact’ initiative, focusing on broad-scale community changes19. Serving as the backbone organization, the FPC orchestrates strategic direction, facilitates dialogue, manages data, coordinates outreach, and mobilizes funding. This collective impact model emphasizes aligning policy and program activities across various organizations to achieve shared objectives. The council fosters civic engagement by serving as a trusted venue for information exchange among elected officials, government agencies, and community partners. Decentralized working groups, overseen by a core group of paid staff and a diverse leadership board, engage communities in setting priorities. In addition, networking activities, including town halls and public events, ensure inclusive participation and maintain community engagement19.
Relationship with Local Government
Collaborating with local governments can greatly benefit food system networks in achieving their objectives. Local governments can provide essential resources and infrastructure, enabling food system networks to function effectively, particularly in areas with limited nonprofit or community-based organizational capacity. As highlighted by Gupta et al., government personnel can contribute by dedicating staff time, facilitating meetings, providing resources, and connecting food system networks with other government assets19. Their regular participation in food system network meetings fosters mutual education and builds trust, influencing policy agendas by altering decision makers’ perspectives and identifying potential allies19.
Evidence supporting the benefits of establishing a relationship with local government was identified in one strong16, and 5 moderate quality studies17-21. For instance, the Napa Food Advisory Council, spearheaded by the agricultural commissioner, strategically positioned local food production as a complement to the dominant wine industry19. Recognizing the value of diversifying the agricultural landscape, the commissioner secured funding to sustain the council’s foundational activities, allocating staff time and essential resources from the department’s budget19.
The local government in Madrid recognized external food movements and offered them seats around negotiation tables with representatives from municipal departments, actively participating in
co-production of public policies21 Similarly, in Dunedin, New Zealand, the Our Food Network Dunedin (OFN) achieved credibility within the city, which invited them to participate in a city-run advisory group. However, the OFN continues to work both inside and outside of government to ensure its mandate continues, demonstrating the benefits and challenges of maintaining a relationship with local government, while maintaining its independence17.
Resource Acquisition
Access to adequate resources emerged as an important aspect of food system governance in all the studies reviewed16-21. Such resources extended beyond financial and human resources to include water, land for community gardens and CSA deliveries, meeting spaces, communication resources (network connections, system navigation), and goods (sheds and gardening tools). The collaboration between partners forged mutually beneficial relationships that leveraged unique skills, identified synergies, mobilized resources and strengthened processes.
Groups employed varying strategies to collectively generate or secure the resources needed to achieve their common goals. For example, in Clark’s study17, groups became incorporated to ensure access to resources and receive grants, enabling them to operate outside of local governments. Some social food movements relied upon means-tested membership fees and fund-raising activities21.
In Philadelphia, a partnership between public health and inclusive planning provided both financial and human resources. This collaboration facilitated the advancement of a regional food system planning agenda and spurred the development of additional food-related policies and programs. Both the planning and public health departments allocated resources to collaborate across departments and throughout the administration, bridging efforts in food production and food security16.
Similarly, throughout California, many FPCs receive resources through local government funding19. For example, in Mendocino, San Mateo, and Sonoma, county funding to the Health Department supported FPCs, with San Mateo and Sonoma also funding facilitation services19.
In Toulouse, France, municipalities and their federations provided subsidies and grants to ensure professional organizations to maintain their employees18. Facing constraints in municipal staffing for local food policy development, these municipalities and their federations sought external expertise and a dedicated public workforce to design and implement actions promoting local food production and consumption. Community organizations and professional bodies played pivotal roles, offering resources and skills essential for building and managing innovative food policies. Concurrently, volunteer-based community organizations faced resource challenges in managing community gardens and community-supported agriculture (CSA) initiatives. Public agencies supported these efforts by providing access to public spaces for agriculture activities and facilitating garden enhancements. Professional organizations offered expertise in food justice advocacy, technical guidance on food production, and project design18.
In Holyoke, Massachusetts, the Food and Fitness Policy Council received multi-year funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF) to implement a plan for access to healthy food for Holyoke’s Latino, low-income community. The WKKF also provided evaluators and a technical assistance provider to assist with partnership development and conduct community listening sessions when Council faced leadership issues. Other support included a community resident who mobilized urban gardeners, and an agronomist who led sustainable agriculture and business planning for local urban farmers20.
Measures of Effectiveness
This review aimed to determine how the effectiveness of governance structures supporting local food systems is measured. However, none of the included articles addressed this directly and our review revealed challenges in collecting these measures. Defining effectiveness is complex – what qualities indicate an effective governance structure? Is it smooth functioning, sustainability, goal achievement, or other aspects? Additionally, the dynamic and evolving nature of food systems networks presents the challenge of determining when or how to measure governance structure effectiveness throughout the stages of group development.
Despite the lack of a comprehensive definition for the effectiveness of governance structures that support local food systems, this review highlighted several achievements made by food system networks. For example, one high quality article noted that the cities of Philadelphia and Minnesota were able to integrate food system recommendations from both professional planners and public health professionals into the local governments’ sustainability plans16. This success was due to the efforts of the food system governance structure, which included leadership support from local government and the public health department. These comprehensive sustainability plans catalyzed development of sustainable programs and strengthened the local food system16.
A moderate quality study article found that Sacramento’s food systems governance structure achieved significant policy milestones, including urban agriculture and land use ordinances, backyard livestock regulations, and minimum wage increases for food system workers19. Another moderate quality study noted that external civic engagement led to achievements such as coordinated structures of producers and small food processors; learning spaces for agroecology, nutrition, environmental and social awareness; and a producers’ association that facilitated new forms of direct marketing21.
In addition, The Los Angeles Food Policy Council implemented a Good Food Purchasing Policy, integrated urban agriculture goals into the city’s Sustainability Plan, developed a food donation component for a waste recycling program, and established a Healthy Neighborhood Market Network19. Furthermore, the article by Mui et al. highlighted some of the most innovative food system plans and programs in Philadelphia, such as the Greenworks Philadelphia Sustainability Plan, Philadelphia 2035, the Food Charter, Philadelphia FPAC, and Get Healthy Philly16.
Conclusion
Implications for Practice
This evidence review offers valuable insights for local and regional food systems governance. Registered dietitians in public health, along with their partners, are encouraged to consider the findings highlighted in this review when establishing local food system networks.
Whether a network focuses on programs, policies, or both, establishing a common goal or objective is essential. Food system networks that focus on policy-based interventions may consider integrating their work into broader government strategic plans, such as sustainability plans, climate adaptation and mitigation plans, and official plans.
Striving for a diverse and inclusive membership should involve planners, public health staff, local government representatives, the private sector, community organizations, and community residents, ensuring representation of marginalized populations. Ongoing education and professional development efforts should include training on racial oppression, equity, diversity, and inclusion.
In addition, networks can also benefit from supporting members in developing leadership skills, securing sustainable funding, and providing ongoing staffing support. Leadership should not be confined to a single government body; for instance, collaboration between a Mayor’s Office, planning departments, economic development, tourism departments, and public health can provide comprehensive leadership in food systems initiatives.
Lastly, maintaining a balance between networking opportunities and project or policy work is important. These partnerships facilitate informal information sharing, which can educate members, introduce new ideas and people, initiate connections, support problem-solving, and lay the groundwork for emerging partnerships and collaborative activities.
Limitations
While this review offers valuable implications for public health practice, it also has several limitations. As a rapid review, it does not provide the same level of detail as systematic reviews or guidelines.
Additionally, this review focused solely on primary studies examining local or regional efforts, potentially overlooking crucial insights from studies examining national or international efforts. Moreover, given the emerging nature of this field of study, there was limited evidence pertaining to measures of effectiveness. As registered dietitians, who are regulated health professionals in Ontario, our perspectives are shaped by colonial systems, which can perpetuate complicity in the dominant culture of White supremacy and maintain settler colonial viewpoints on food systems. Although Indigenous communities were included in the research criteria, a critical need exists to center Indigenous lived experiences to comprehensively understand food systems among Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, this research lacks Indigenous Peoples perspectives on food systems.
References
1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Canada’s National Pathways [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Government of Canada; 2023 Nov 8 [cited 2024 Apr 18]. Available from: https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/department/initiatives/canadas-national-pathways/national-pathways- document
2 United Nations Food Systems Coordination Hub. Secretary-General’s call to action for accelerated food systems transformation (FST) [Internet]. Rome: UN Food Systems Coordination Hub; 2023. [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from:
https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/fs-stocktaking-moment/documentation/un-secretary-general-call-t o-action/en
3 World Health Organization. Food systems for health: information brief [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023. [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240035263
4 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Food policy for Canada [Internet]. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; 2019. [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://agriculture.canada.ca/sites/default/files/legacy/pack/pdf/fpc_20190614-en.pdf
5 Food Secure Canada. Resetting the table: a people’s food policy for Canada [Internet]. Montreal: Food Secure Canada; 2015. [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://foodsecurecanada.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2015-FSC-22Resetting-the-Tabl e-A-peoples-food-policy22.pdf
6 Robert N, Mullinix K. Municipal policy enabling regional food systems in British Columbia, Canada: assessing focal areas and gaps. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2018;8(B):115–32. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.08B.003
7 Tatebe K, Watson K, Robert N, Kreitzman M, Polasub W, Mullinix K. Food systems planning in Canada: priority practices summary [Internet]. Richmond (BC): Institute for Sustainable Food Systems, Kwantlen Polytechnic University; 2024 [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/Institute%20for%20Sustainable%20Food%20Systems/Priority%20Practices%20for%20Planners%20Summary%20Document.pdf
8 Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario). Evidence of municipal- and community-level interventions to promote sustainable food systems [Internet]. Toronto: Public Health Ontario; 2020 [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/e/2020/eb-sustainable-food-systems.pdf?sc_la ng=en
9 National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health. Determining health: food systems issue brief [Internet]. Antigonish: NCCDH; 2024 [Cited 2024 May 27]. Available from: https://nccdh.ca/resources/type/category/determining-health
10 Haysom, G. Food and the City: Urban scale food system governance [Internet]. Urban Forum; 2015 June [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278665708_Food_and_the_City_Urban_Scale_Food_System
11 Hospes O, Brons A. Food systems governance challenges for justice equality and human rights. 1st ed. London; Routledge Taylor and Francis Group; 2016.p 14-42.
12 Leeuwis C, Boogaard BK, Atta-Krah K. How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes. Food Sec. 2021;13:(761–780). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01178-4
13 Sonnino R, Tegoni C, De Cunto A. The challenge of systemic food change: Insights from cities, Cities. 2019;85:110-16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.08.008.
14 Milan Urban Food Policy Pact [Internet]. Milan; 2015 [Cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/framework-for-action/food-governance/
15 Fanzo J, Haddad L, Schneider K, Béné C, Covic N, Guarin A, et al. Viewpoint: rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals, Food Policy. 2021;104: 1-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102163.
16 Mui Y, Khojasteh M, Hodgson K, Raja S. Rejoining the planning and public health fields: leveraging comprehensive plans to strengthen food systems in an urban versus rural jurisdiction. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2018;8(2):73-93. . https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.08B.004
17 Clark JK, Lowitt K, Levkoe CZ, Andrée P. The power to convene: making sense of the power of food movement organizations in governance processes in the Global North. Agric Hum Values. 2021;38: 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10146-1
18 Duvernoy I. Alternative voices in building a local food policy: forms of cooperation between civil society organizations and public authorities in and around Toulouse. Land Use Policy. 2018;75:612-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.019
19 Gupta C, Campbell D, Munden-Dixon K, Sowerwine J, Capps S, Feenstra G, et al. Food policy councils and local governments: creating effective collaboration for food systems change. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. 2018;8(2):11-28. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.08B.006
20 Sands C, Duran N, Christoph L, Stewart C. Phoenix rising: the evolution of Holyoke’s collaborative organizing for healthy food resilience. Health Promot Pract. 2018;19(1):63S –69S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839918788849
21 Simon-Rojo M, Bernardos IM, Landaluze JS. Food movement between autonomy and coproduction of public policies: lessons from Madrid. Nat Cult. 2018;13(1):47–68. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2018.130103
Appendices
Appendix 1: Search Strategy
Appendix 2: Data extraction tables
