Introduction

The politicization of food issues is not a recent phenomenon in Latin America. In fact, throughout the 20th century, access to food was considered one of the key public issues in the region, even becoming the trigger for paradigmatic changes in the development models that guided state action (Gilardon, 2016; Barquera, Rivera-Dommarco & Gasca-Garcia, 2001; Linhares & Silva, 1979; Linhares, 1979). However, as verified in other parts of the world, currently this phenomenon reveals new dynamics (Fouilleux & Michel, 2020; Portilho, 2020). The principal development is the proliferation of insights regarding the reasons why food has become a key contemporary public issue. In addition to the issue of hunger, which has predominated throughout Latin American history and has returned to the agenda due to the economic crisis, aggravated by the recent pandemic, discussions linking food practices to issues of health, food sovereignty, food rights, cultural heritage, sociobiodiversity, and climate change now abound (Swinburn et al., 2019). Moreover, politicization manifests itself, not only in the realm of production (Molina, García & Casado, 2017) and the public sphere (Fouilleux & Michel, 2020), but increasingly includes consumption and the private sphere (Portilho, 2020; Tanaka & Portilho, 2019).

The propagation of views regarding the role of food as an organizational practice of different dimensions of social life is reflected in the disputes between the actors involved in the construction of food policies¹ (Fouilleux & Michel, 2020). Depending on how they interpret and prioritize public problems, the actors project different solutions, propose and justify public policy instruments that do not have common objectives and often end up having contradictory effects: credit for grain production leads to greater consumption of ultra-processed foods, aggravating health problems; support for meat exports promotes the expansion of livestock farming into environmental conservation areas; subsidies for the pesticide industry cause environmental and health effects; etc.

There are numerous particularities in the way in which the politicization of food is expressed in each territory. However, the chapters that make up this book also reveal that Latin American countries share a number of similarities, both in terms of the dynamics of food systems and the profile of the policies created to respond to the problems identified. This opening chapter presents an interpretation of the process of institutionalization of food policies in Latin America that extends beyond the analytical barrier imposed by national borders. Based on the knowledge provided on the reality of each country in the other chapters of this book and the discussions held by the research team, we will examine the different construction processes corresponding to public policies and associated instruments according to the way they are oriented by a cognitive and normative frames of reference called “référentiels” (Jobert & Muller, 1987; Muller, 2019). This interpretation is based on a dialogue involving two schools of contemporary social thought on public policy analysis. On the one hand, the so-called “cognitive approach” lends us the concept of référentiels, which manifest the ideas negotiated, selected, agreed and institutionalized within public policies (Fouilleux & Michel, 2020; Fouilleux & Jobert, 2017; Fouilleux, 2011; Muller, 2019). On the other, historical and sociological neoinstitutionalism provides the conceptual elements to understand the production of these référentiels as the result of strategies, cooperation and conflict between different actors and political coalitions (Mahoney & Thelen, 2010; Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). From these perspectives, we understand the state as a political and institutional space permeable to the pressures and demands of different actors, from which public policies with diverse and often contradictory référentiels emerge.

This analysis aims to make sense of the changes taking place with regard to food policies in Latin America, attempting to answer the following questions: What are the processes of construction and institutionalization of food policies in Latin America? Who are the actors behind them and the ideas that these actors advocate? And finally, do these food policies constitute new vectors of change in food systems for greater sustainability and inclusion between the urban and rural worlds?

The chapter is divided into four sections, in addition to this introduction. The following section briefly presents the analytical model that guides our reflections on the development of public policies. We then go on to identify the main food policy référentiels present in Latin America, constructed by different actors and ideas and manifested in different instruments. The section that follows analyzes how public policies guided by these référentiels have been defended/strengthened or challenged/dismantled by the actions of actors/coalitions contesting the control of food systems.

The model for food policy analysis in Latin America

The central element of our analytical framework (figure 1.1) is public policy, understood as a set of actions constructed and implemented by the state for society, with a variable degree of participation and power of both parties (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999; Kingdon, 1984). Based on the sociological perspective of public action, we understand public policies not only as devices instituted to solve a given public problem, but also, and above all, as processes of interpretation and social construction of reality (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2012).

Figure 1.1

Elements and dynamics of the analytical framework for food policy analysis.

More specifically, the starting point of our analysis is the identification of public policies that, over the past two decades, have set out to generate innovations that change the practices of production, processing, distribution, supply and consumption of food and waste treatment. These public policies will be analyzed mainly on the basis of their référentiels, which are linked to different actors, ideas and instruments. Indeed, according to the cognitive approach to public policy analysis, each policy involves the definition of objectives that are defined on the basis of a representation of the problem, its consequences and possible solutions. The definition of a public policy is always based on a representation of reality that constitutes the référentiel of that policy (Muller, 2019). Following Fouilleux and Michel (2020), Fouilleux and Jobert (2017) and Fouilleux (2003), we understand “food policy référentiels” to be the institutionalization of ideas and interpretations of food problems. The référentiel is “a snapshot of the policy at a given time,” expressing its organization, its objectives and its image (Fouilleux, 2003, p. 43).

The construction of each référentiel implies a permanent negotiation between political coalitions and is susceptible to inclusions, cuts and transformations according to changes in power relations and in the political objectives of the different actors involved in the construction of public policies. Thus, a set of ideas, the product of controversies and hybridizations, constitutes a stabilized and institutionalized référentiel through the dissemination of shared representations (Fouilleux, 2000; Fouilleux & Jobert, 2017).

The identification of the référentiels of food policies in Latin America requires attention not only to the problems to be addressed, but also to variables such as the values that influence the positioning of actors in the construction of public problems and solutions, and the norms that guide public action (Muller, 1995). The concept of référentiel thus includes representations of the world and the means of acting on the world. Values can be defined as the fundamental representations of what is right or wrong, desirable or unacceptable. They define an overall framework for public action. Norms are the differences between the perceived reality and the desired reality. They define the principles of action, i.e., what must be done to achieve a desired situation. Each référentiel directs the development of specific public policy instruments, which can be defined as the socio-technical devices that organize the social relations between the State and policy recipients (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2012).

The analysis then focuses on the upstream and downstream directions of the institutionalization of the policies. Upstream, the analytical framework focuses on the policy process of the construction of the référentiel. As such, we were interested in finding out about the relevant areas of negotiation and power relations, how they were shaped as public arenas governed by rules and hierarchies (Fouilleux, 2000). We also identified the political actors who dispute the construction of the référentiels that direct public policy, their interpretations of the world and the relational position of the political actors. To that end, our research focused on the relationships between collective state actors (ministries, departments, municipalities, universities, etc.) and non-governmental actors (social movements, trade unions, NGOs, companies, etc.) in producing policy policies.

To enhance their strategies and reinforce their positions in the public arena, actors create coalitions that allow them to share material and symbolic resources (meanings and identities) (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). Inequalities exist within the coalitions in terms of access to these resources, so that there are, for example, those that are dominant and dominated among the dominant parties, as well as those that are dominant and dominated among the dominated parties. Moreover, the strategic use of resources should not be confused with purely rational or instrumental action. Choices are permeated by political interests, moral conceptions and fictitious expectations (Mahoney & Thelen, 2010). Moreover, the more a resource is used, the greater the actor’s dependence on it may be, particularly if we are talking about the management of identities and meanings, which creates limits to the circulation of actors within the public sphere. As the literature shows, insofar as one organization adopts, for example, agribusiness as a political identity, and another defines agroecology as a signifier of its practices, the dialogue between them becomes more difficult (Sabourin, Craviotti & Milhorance, 2020; Niederle & Wesz Jr.).

In the downstream phase of the institutionalization of policies, the focus is, on the one hand, on their allocative role in terms of redistributing the resources that actors have at their disposal to act and, on the other, on their authoritative and legitimizing role, insofar as policies also act as institutional forces that favor or block the use of certain resources, also including identities and meanings. An example of this is the fact that some States have officially added terms such as “sovereignty” or “peasants” to give new meanings to the notions of “food security” and “family farming,” respectively. In doing so, they not only set out a public policy référentiel, but also legitimize and strengthen the position of certain actors (in this case, peasants’ social movements) in public arenas (which is always susceptible to power play and relations).

Public policies carry with them the assumption that they are capable of producing political innovations that will have repercussions on technical, organizational and institutional changes which, in turn, will have effects on the restructuring of public arenas (positioning of actors, reorganization of coalitions, alteration of hierarchies). In fact, this is what the most disadvantaged actors will expect from public policies. However, in the course of political disputes, the dominant actors can not only block the construction of policy, but also subvert its logic to ensure the maintenance of their relative positions of power. This does not mean that innovations or changes will not occur, but rather that they will not create fissures in the institutional structure that defines social and economic hierarchies. An example of this would be the reorientation of agroecology policy to promote the control of the organic food market by the dominant actors in the food system (Fouilleux & Michel, 2020).

Finally, it is also important to bear in mind that the dynamics of any policy will always be affected by changes in other social spheres, so that policies may be reinforced, blocked or reoriented due to events that do not directly involve the actors that most actively participated in their construction or implementation. Interference from other spheres can be perceived through incremental changes in policies, when, for example, the Ministry of Finance reduces resources or the Central Bank raises the interest rate, or in abrupt shocks when, in specific circumstances, external pressures generate significant ruptures capable of undermining the very existence of the policy.

As other chapters will show, external shocks that provoke abrupt changes happen on a recurring basis in Latin America. Some analysts compare the institutional scenario of many Latin American countries to a “perfect storm,” that is, when an unfavorable event is dramatically aggravated by the occurrence of a rare combination of circumstances, turning into a disaster (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). The main events of this confluence of crises include the political breakdowns associated with the removal of governments, the fiscal vulnerability of States as a result of the fluctuation of agri cultural commodities on international markets, the failure of social protection systems and the explosion of unemployment and poverty, the impact of climatic events related to the increase in environmental devastation, and, finally, the aggravation of all the above by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Food policy référentiels in Latin America

Various designs and objectives have been included in the food policies created by Latin American countries over the years. This is due, among other things, to the emergence of new référentiels that guide the actions of States. Based on the examples in the other chapters and other studies, eight public policy référentiels can be identified that guide the action of Latin American States, some of which, although classified according to the same set of ideas and interpretations, exhibit internal differentiations (what we call “secondary référentiels”). Following our analytical framework, these référentiels were defined on the basis of the identification of the public issues they focus on and the solutions they suggest to solve them; the values and norms associated with the social creation of these problems and solutions; the links to which they correspond within the food system (production, distribution, consumption); the main role conferred on the state and the type of social category that is favored (table 1.1). These référentiels are taken as “ideal types” and, in many public policies, it is possible to observe nuances or connections between two or more reference points.

Table 1.1

Primary and secondary référentiels related to food policies in Latin America and their main elements.

The food-for-market référentiel is based on the liberal interpretation that supply should be organized on a global scale, taking advantage of the collective efficiency supposedly generated by the comparative advantages of each country. Claimed by political actors who criticize the “distortions” produced by state intervention in markets – while guzzling public resources to increase their comparative advantages (Bonanno, 2019) – this framework assumes that, provided the conditions for free trade are in place, global competition would guarantee the availability of food at an optimal price (i.e., Pareto efficiency). Since the late 1970s, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other neoliberal organizations have been primarily responsible for the dissemination of this framework. The structural adjustment policies imposed on indebted developing countries advocated the liberalization of economies and trade as the main roadmap to follow, which led to a change of scale in the definition of global food security problems, moving from a national to a global (and, at the same time, micro, individual) approach. The primary focus for addressing the problem of hunger was supposed economic growth, with its implications in terms of poverty reduction (Jarosz, 2011). Thus, public policies would manage macroeconomic regulation, leaving the lead role to large corporations and distribution networks in the “global food supply” (McMichael, 2016).

In different degrees and configurations, this référentiel was present in the vast majority of Latin American countries, either during the 19th and early 20th centuries or, with the institutionalization of neoliberal measures and instruments, since the 1990s. Unlike other référentiels institutionalized in specific programs, this référentiel is featured, primarily, in trade agreements or treaties and in other normative instruments, measures and general directives.

Constructed by political and governmental actors identified with neoliberal ideas and demanded by corporations and competitive productive sectors in international markets, the free trade agreements for food in Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Peru and the Dominican Republic, among others, illustrate this référentiel (Maldonado, 2016; Baca, 2014). To a large extent, liberalization treaties were established based on the interpretation of their benefits in terms of expanding agricultural markets for farmers and production segments; price competitiveness benefits for consumers, who could also enjoy greater food diversity; and economic returns in terms of foreign exchange and income generation (Baca, 2014). In the case of Mexico, such treaties began with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 – which includes bilateral agreements between Mexico and the United States, the United States and Canada, and Mexico and Canada – that were soon followed by others with varying degrees of openness and tariff conditions (CEDRSSA, 2015; Baca, 2014). Although revised and readjusted over time, such treaties (mainly NAFTA) have been questioned, especially by peasants’ movements and organizations defending food sovereignty due to the worsening of inequality and the productive and food changes induced (González, 2019; Baca, 2014). According to González (2019), before NAFTA, Mexico used to be self-sufficient in terms of corn, beans, rice and other commodities, but it is now dependent on imports from the United States, from where it sources 85% of its wheat, 73.7% of its rice and 38% of its corn.

Other policies that fit this référentiel are those that directed state reforms aimed at privatization, targeted regulations, reduced state intervention and free markets.

Food policies in Nicaragua, discussed by Freguin-Gresh and Cortes (see chapter 4), illustrate such actions. According to the authors, until the late 1970s, and defined by the agrarian elite and the commercial oligarchy, food policies were limited to supporting production for the foreign market (e.g., cotton, coffee, bananas, cattle) and regulating sanitary aspects of production, marketing and consumption (plant and animal health). Although the 1980s saw important political changes, in the following decade liberal perspectives returned to power, giving priority to macroeconomic stability, trade liberalization, privatization of enterprises and the reconstruction of a network of traders and distribution chains for private goods and services. Pressured by international events and organizations and by the ties between civil society and Sandinista parliamentarians, in the early 2000s, the government began to outline a number of food policies aimed, in particular, at improving the nutrition of children and schoolchildren.

The urban food supply référentiel gained ground especially in the second half of the 20th century due to the challenges posed by the growing food demand in large cities. Unlike the food-for-market référentiel, this référentiel is based on the power of the State and its planning capacity, and establishes as a principle of action the need to organize food distribution in a centralized manner. Specifically, this référentiel takes the form of a set of governmental actions that seek to ensure food supply in urban areas through the creation of structures administered or supported by the State. Its instruments focus, above all, on the organization of food supply to meet the demand of the service sector and private consumption.

Latin America’s wholesale markets and food supply centers are emblematic cases in this regard. Encouraged by the FAO and boosted in the 1960s and 1970s by the French and Spanish experiences, these structures organized or supported by the States seek to offer a wide variety of fresh foods, not necessarily linked to the local territory and culture, through the coordination of a wide range of economic actors, especially intermediaries and commercial agents (Cunha, 2014). According to the FAO and the Latin American Federation of Supply Markets – FLAMA (2020), there are almost 300 centralized supply markets in Latin America, with different formats, sizes, dynamics and relationships with the States. These wholesale markets have functions that go beyond the “simple marketing of agricultural products,” becoming “true food authorities” to the extent that they can regulate public supply, democratize information on food prices and quality, contribute to sanitary control, reduce losses and waste, and other food security actions (FAO & FLAMA, 2020).

As a complement to markets and supply centers, the promotion of temporary street markets (known as ferias libres in Chile) has been observed since the colonial period (Andrade, 2017; Tejada, 2013; Linhares, 1979). These initiatives assume different intensities and configurations, from those characterized by the presence of intermediaries and products circulating through long chains, to those marked by local supply chains, the presence of family farmers and peasants, and the promotion of agroecology and urban agriculture. In these cases, the street markets respond to the demands of urban supply and may also be related to other issues, such as concern for food and nutritional security, environmental issues, the promotion and marketing of family farming products and the strengthening of territories, intersecting with other référentiels discussed below.

According to the Observatorio de Ferias Libres (2013, p. 6), 933 street markets were organized in Chile in 2011, which “supply 70% of the fruit and vegetable market and 30% of the fish market (…) indicating the great importance of the channel both for food security and for the income of small producers and fishermen.” Given this importance, the Chilean government and several municipalities have been mobilizing a set of actions to promote these markets, such as the Street Market Development Fund, the Street Market Registry and digitalization initiatives. Following Chile’s example, several other national, regional and municipal governments have established similar actions (Ríos & Wesz Jr., 2020; Parrado Barbosa & Molina Ochoa, 2014; and see Guéneau et al., chapter 12).

Anchored in the technical-mercantile imaginary created by the modernization of agriculture in the 1960s and 1970s, the productivist référentiel interprets the problem of food security as the result of food shortages in the face of world population growth. From this perspective, the problem of hunger should be resolved, primarily, by increasing food supply. Although this référentiel has lost currency since the 1980s due to the availability of sufficient food to meet global demand – except in specific areas such as conflict zones or hard-to-reach areas – the 2007–2008 food crisis revived the interpretation, reinforcing increased agricultural production as the objective of many food policies in the international arena (Fouilleux, Bricas & Alpha, 2017).

With policies fundamentally aimed at promoting the agricultural sector (farmers and upstream and downstream industries), this reference framework can be divided into two secondary référentiels: productivist based on agribusiness and productivist based on family farming. Sharing ideas and interpretations of the world and, in several contexts, overlapping with the food-for-market référentiel, the agribusiness-based productivist secondary référentiel is based on measures focused on increasing production and competitiveness and, often, with the global market as a target. Neo-Malthusian arguments of food scarcity are at the heart of the discursive construction of this référentiel (Fouilleux, Bricas & Alpha, 2017), which have the potential to trigger various agricultural policy instruments (rural credit, agricultural research, dissemination of technological innovations, technical assistance, price guarantees, agricultural insurance, etc.).

One example of this is rural credit in Brazil. Instituted since 1965 and constituting the main agricultural policy in terms of allocated resources, this instrument offers the option of financing costs and investments for various agricultural products and activities, with subsidized credit conditions. Each year, in response to the interests of the sector’s representative organizations and the interpretations of agricultural development by governmental and political actors, the Federal Government announces more financial resources and special conditions to boost production, especially that by medium and large producers, and to continue breaking agricultural production and export records. According to Wesz Jr. and Grisa (2017), almost 80% of the cost credit in 2015 was allocated to soybeans, corn, coffee and sugarcane, with soybeans receiving more than 40% of the resources. According to the authors, the characteristics of this policy “indicate the permanence of a style of state intervention that feeds an agro-export development model, which is guided by demand and remains a supplier of raw materials” (Wesz Jr. & Grisa, 2017, p. 103).

The Rural Change (Cambio Rural) program in Argentina is another example. Backed by international agencies and federal government organizations for agri culture, the program was created in 1993 in a context of trade openness and globalized economies, aimed at “productive reconversion” through increased productivity and added value, agricultural diversification and a shift towards crops with higher profitability (Taraborrelli, 2017). Aimed at “capitalized producers, whose size and organization allowed them to solve their problems with the support of the state (…) the program consisted of technical assistance to producers with the objective of modifying their productive structure and entrepreneurial capacity, as well as facilitating a connection with different sources of financing” (Taraborrelli, 2017, p. 168). In the 2000s, due to the political and institutional recognition of family farming, Cambio Rural was restructured under the name, Rural Change, Innovation and Investment (Cambio Rural II), focusing on small and medium-sized agrifood and agro-industrial enterprises, cooperatives and family farmers, either capitalized and/or with capitalization potential, to contemplate comprehensive territorial development (Patrouilleau, Taraborrelli & Alonso, 2018). However, the political changes of 2016, with the formation of a new government more closely aligned with neoliberal ideology, pushed back the proposal for productive reconversion and technological incorporation with a productivist and commercial bias, and focused on more consolidated farming operations (Jara et al., 2019; Patrouilleau, Taraborelli & Alonso, 2018).²

In turn, the family farming-based productivist secondary référentiel emerged in the 1990s/2000s as a result of the actions of various social and trade union movements of family farmers and peasants and/or government bureaucracies, considering the importance of this social category in terms of food supply and the production of affordable staples (given the nightmare of food price inflation being experienced in Latin American). In light of the unequal treatment historically conferred by the state on small-scale production, public policies guided by this secondary reference often seek to imitate productivist policies aimed at the agro-industrial sector or large agricultural establishments, giving priority to increasing agricultural production and productivity. As in the case of agribusiness, these policies activate instruments that rely on rural credit, price guarantees, production insurance, technical assistance and rural extension, as well as the dissemination of technologies and innovations.

One notable example is the National Program for the Strengthening of Family Farming (PRONAF), set up in Brazil in 1995. Given the historical marginalization of this social category with regard to state actions (including the aforementioned rural credit) and the difficulties imposed by trade liberalization (MERCOSUR), family farming unions and social movements began to demand differentiated agricultural policies. In the context of these demands, the creation of a credit policy that would address their particularities became essential. Once the program was created, studies and evaluations soon began to emerge indicating PRONAF’s difficulties in breaking away from elements that have been fundamental in the development of rural credit in the country: incentives for commodity production based on conventional production models; difficulties in contemplating productive diversity and ways of relating to land and nature; and limitations in incorporating the socioeconomic diversity of the social category, being accessed mainly by the most capitalized family farmers in southern Brazil (Wesz Jr., 2020; Grisa, Wesz Jr. & Buchweitz, 2014). Despite these criticisms, the program is still a high priority on the agendas of the main family farming trade union organizations.

Another example is the Sustainable Modernization of Traditional Agriculture Program (MasAgro), set up in Mexico in 2010. The result of a partnership between the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), the program was established as a ten-year cross-cutting project. The program aims to strengthen food security through research, capacity building and technology transfer in the field, and to help small and medium corn and wheat producers located in seasonal production areas to obtain high and stable yields, increase their income and mitigate the effects of climate change in Mexico (FAO/Sagarpa, 2012). The program operates through “regional innovation nodes,” providing technical assistance to producers who “do not have access to modern technologies or functional markets” (FAO/Sagarpa, 2012). The program promotes: “i) the generation and distribution of suitable varieties; ii) the adoption of more efficient post-harvest technologies; iii) the use of conservation and precision farming practices; and, iv) the development of region-specific markets” (FAO/Sagarpa, 2012). Although it refers to food and nutritional security, several authors question this public policy (Martínez et al., 2017). For Chapela, Menéndez and Berlanga (2015, p. 248), this “program resumes the scheme of homogeneous technological packages, based on the use of industrial genetics owned by seed, fertilizer and agrochemical companies.” Similarly, Sierra (2018, p. 4) states that this is a “new version of the Green Revolution,” constituted in a neoliberal context marked by public-private alliance and at a time when the adverse effects of intensive agriculture on the environment are particularly evident.

Certain images are able to highlight food supply issues immediately, without any need for extended discourse. Such is the case of images of malnourished children that shock the general public and act as remarkable vectors for conveying the underlying values and norms that correspond to what we know as the food social welfare référentiel. Unlike the previous référentiel, the problem of hunger in the world is no longer approached as a question of global food insufficiency, but as a question of limited access to food for certain population groups. Thus, through some of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Right to Food,³ this référentiel establishes access to food for the most vulnerable communities as a fundamental norm for public action. It is, in particular, mobilized in contexts and/or moments of economic, social or political crisis, or even as a result of unexpected events that compromise access to income, as has occurred since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis (Gurgel et al., 2020). In general, public policies directed by this référentiel focus on specific food distribution circuits controlled or organized by the state, including instruments such as food distribution, food baskets, cash transfers for food purchases, soup kitchens and community kitchens, and school canteens.⁴ The main objective is to respond rapidly to problems of severe food insecurity (lack of food) by guaranteeing access to either free or subsidized supplies of basic foodstuffs. Although essential given the urgent food situations, it is not uncommon for these actions to be disconnected from a broader debate or from complementary actions for the promotion of healthy and sustainable food, or even to ignore concerns about the origin or nutritional quality of food.

Argentina’s National Food Security Plan (PNSA), known as El Hambre Más Urgente (“Most Urgent Hunger”), based on the “National Nutrition and Food Program” (Act 25.724), and discussed by Aranguren et al. in chapter 9 of this book, represents an example of public policy related to the food social welfare référentiel. This plan was institutionalized in Argentina in 2003, as a response to the unprecedented economic, political and social crisis that began in 2001 (Gilardón, 2016). The crisis arose as a result of the neoliberal policies adopted in previous years that caused a rise in food prices in the domestic market, unemployment (21%) and poverty (affecting more than half of the population) and led, once again, to hunger and malnutrition becoming priority issues needing to be addressed. The plan “is intended to cover the nutritional requirements of children up to 14 years of age, pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly over 70 years of age living in poverty” (Argentina, 2003). Implemented by the Ministry of Social Development, the plan unified several programs and actions, and currently provides direct food and nutritional assistance (food distribution, vouchers or bank card⁵ to buy food in markets), support for social, children’s and community canteens, food services to canteens (breakfast, lunch, dinner or snack), distribution of milk and fortified milk for pregnant women and children, and support for kitchen garden production for household use (Aulicino & Langou, 2012). The latter dovetails with the ProHuerta program run by the National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA) in Argentina, which, since 1990, has promoted access to healthy food, agroecological production practices for self-sufficiency (at family, school and community level), food education and the organization of alternative street and traditional markets with an inclusive approach for producer families (see Aranguren et al., chapter 9). Although the PNSA proposes new guidelines, such as the human Right to Food, the core of the social policy was based on targeted assistance, with the main benefits being the direct delivery of food, support to canteens and productive kitchen garden enterprises (Carrasco & Pautassi, 2015).

Long considered as a therapeutic remedy,⁶ food was at the heart of discourse on health during the 2000s. In the mental representations of “eating well,” food is associated with health from a very technical perspective (Mathé et al., 2008). This référentiel, which we can qualify as technical food, is characterized by a strong normative dimension, in particular through nutritional and health standards that are very present in public action (confronting traditional food practices), particularly in urban areas of Latin America (Martinez-Lomeli, 2020). This référentiel is divided into two secondary référentiels: nutritionist and hygienist.

Promoted by various actors – from civil society organizations, health professionals (especially nutritionists) and even segments of the food industry – the nutritionist secondary référentiel focuses on the problems of malnutrition and undernutrition, which are addressed through instruments focused on the composition of diets: (bio) enriched or fortified foods; supplements; control of the amount of sugar, sodium, fat, vitamins and calories. Although many of these actions are essential for nutritional adequacy, the promotion of health and consumer awareness, others are challenged by the fragmented, simplified and medicalized performance of food production and consumption (FBSSAN, 2016). In many situations, food policies align with a viewpoint that, according to Rocha (2020, p. 41), reduces “the nutritional value of foods to their individual nutrients, to the detriment of a broader understanding and more systemic solutions.”

An example of food policy based on this référentiel is Chile’s Food Labeling Act (Act No. 20.606/2016).⁷ This law emerged from interactions initiated in 2007, between parliamentarians and academics seeking to address the problem of obesity, poor diet and associated diseases (Sánchez and Silva, 2018). Overcoming political and business resistance, among other measures, the law establishes that foods containing added sugars, sodium or saturated fats in proportions that exceed the limits established by the Ministry of Health must carry a warning label on the front, indicating, as appropriate, the high content of calories, saturated fats, sugars and/or sodium (Chile, Ministerio de Salud 2018). For Schubert and Avalos (2020, p. 535), the labeling law seeks to “guide consumers’ decisions, by providing information about the ingredients the products contain and their nutritional value, and offering the choice to buy from another brand.” In addition to labeling, the law establishes that such products may not be marketed or distributed free of charge in the country’s schools, nor may advertising for them be aimed at children under 14 years of age (Chile, Ministerio de Salud, 2018). Although the law has led to changes in consumer behavior, Schubert and Ávalos (2020) and Sánchez and Silva (2018) point out that other actions are needed to address malnutrition, such as offering alternative foods, increasing taxes on certain foods to discourage consumption, subsidizing and promoting the consumption of healthy foods.

Another example of a policy in this référentiel is Paraguay’s Comprehensive Nutritional Food Program (PANI). PANI was originally set up as the National Assistance Program on Food and Nutrition (PROAN) in 2005, undergoing a change of name in 2011. Developed and implemented by the Paraguay National Institute of Food and Nutrition (INAN), linked to the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare, the program provides monthly nutritional supplements in the form of two kilos of whole milk powder fortified with iron, calcium, zinc, copper and vitamin C (see Zimmermann, Britez Cohene & Riquelme, chapter 19). The program was based on the “diagnosis of the problem of malnutrition in Paraguay, which is attributed to the lack of some or all of the nutrients that the body requires for adequate nutrition” (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencias, Paraguay, 2018, p. 3). With national coverage, the program targets children under five years of age, pregnant women and mothers of babies less than six months old, who are in a situation of poverty, underweight, malnourished or in any situation of social vulnerability (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencias, Paraguay, 2018). Along with milk delivery, monthly anthropometric measurements and sensitization, “on feeding and hygiene practices, which include the promotion of breastfeeding and the Dietary Guidelines,” are conducted monthly (Paraguay, UTGS, 2018, p. 3). Like PANI, nutritional supplementation programs are common in Latin America, especially for the maternal and infant population.⁸

Present in a more expressive form since the intensification of urbanization and industrialization in Latin American countries (1940s/1950s), the hygienist secondary référentiel has gained even more ground with the exacerbation of concerns arising from sanitary crises (mad cow, swine flu and, more recently, Covid-19). Advocated by technical professionals and endorsed by government bureaucracies and industrial sectors, this secondary référentiel focuses on reducing contamination problems and ensuring food safety, which implies proposing technical standards for the production, industrialization, distribution and marketing of foodstuffs and the treatment of waste. Aiming to avoid public health problems, this secondary référentiel contributed to “separate cities from the organic world” (Daviron et al., 2017), aggravating the processes of artificialization, standardization, scientization and rationalization of food. Seals of conformity, standardized good manufacturing practices and sanitary codes are some examples of the instruments legitimized by this sub-référentiel.

To illustrate the importance of this référentiel, we cite Craviotti’s article (see chapter 17), which discusses the difficulties and controversies involved in making Argentine family farming correspond to the rules governing the country’s food production and marketing of food in the country. In fact, this is not specific to Argentina, and can be seen in several Latin American countries (Requier-Desjardins, 1999). According to Pablo (2015, p. 13), “in Latin America the food market involves both formal and informal trade. A relevant proportion of peasant family farming falls into the category of informal trade because it does not comply with the safety and quality standards established in national legislation. Guided by international food and sanitary codes, these laws adopt standard criteria aimed at large-scale industrialization, the transportation of food over long distances and its conservation over long periods of time. As Craviotti (see chapter 17) and Chávez and Muller (2020) in the case of Argentina, Gazolla (2017) in the case of Brazil, and David (2016) in the case of Colombia, point out, it is not uncommon for family farms and smallholdings to adopt artisanal processing practices based on traditional knowledge and flavors, short circuits, and embedded in territorial dynamics of production and marketing that generally run counter to the rules of industrial production and marketing. While the hygienist référentiel is mainly advocated by technical professionals, governmental organizations and the industrial food sector, family farming and peasant organizations, as well as certain government and academic actors, have promoted changes that take into account the specificities of the traditional food practices of family farmers and indigenous populations.

It is also important to note that within this hygienist référentiel, food contamination is mainly biological. The problem of chemical contamination, linked to the increased use of pesticides and other chemical products, is minimized by agribusiness actors who focus on the need to combat plant diseases, which is reflected in the common use of the word “defensivos” (crop protection agrochemical products) in the names of these products. However, others use the words “agrotoxicos” (toxic agricultural chemicals) or even “venenos” (poisons), to describe these products, thus reflecting the politicization of the debate raised mainly by agroecological organizations.

The food sovereignty and food security référentiel was constructed in the mid-1990s largely as an alternative to the food-for-market and productivist food référentiels. This référentiel questions the view that food security must be achieved through increased productivity or global trade, which would imply the transformation of peasant agricultural systems (considered archaic) into “modern” agricultural systems based on mechanization and the use of off-farm inputs. In contrast, from the point of view of food sovereignty, it is not peasant agricultural production that causes poverty and hunger, but its disorganization (Marques & Moal, 2014). Thus, according to the actors whose ideas are included in this référentiel, food sovereignty manifests “the right of communities to define their own food and agricultural policy; to protect and regulate national agricultural production and trade to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine their degree of food autonomy and to eliminate dumping in their markets.” (Paré, 2012, p. 88). The food sovereignty and security référentiel comprises three secondary référentiels with different but complementary emphases in relation to the valuation of food habits, territorial dynamics and “good living” (Acosta, 2016): the food autonomy, heritage and gastronomic référentiel.

Mainly proposed by rural and agroecological social movements, the food autonomy sub-référentiel seeks to guarantee food supply through the organization of territories and rural communities. Despite challenges in relation to its institutionalization within public policy, this secondary référentiel constructs discourses and calls for instruments that place value on the knowledge of peasants and rural women (incorporating the feminist critique of the centrality of women in food practices), promote healthy eating through guaranteed access to “real food” (FBSSAN, 2016) based on traditional, local and agroecological foods, and defend the autonomy of communities to manage common goods, especially seeds.

Although mainly developed by networks of family farmer and peasant organizations, agroecological organizations, non-governmental organizations and other social mediators (Vernooy, Sthapit & Shrestha, 2016), actions to promote and conserve traditional seeds are also supported by some public policies and serve as an example of this secondary référentiel. As Vernooy, Shrestha and Sthapit (2016, p. 16) point out, “there is a growing interest on the part of national and departmental governments in establishing and supporting community seed banks,” as in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Mexico, the Central American countries and the subnational governments in Brazil (Paraíba, Alagoas and Minas Gerais). Although marked by discontinuity in terms of actions, Pinto, Ticona and Rojas (2016) give an account of the Bolivian government’s support for conservation and community seed banks, particularly with the Community Agrobiodiversity Banks and the Community Quinoa and Canihua Banks. In the case of Costa Rica, Porras et al. (2016) report the establishment (2004) of the Bean Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Program (Pitta feijão) which, organized by a group of governmental organizations, introduced a quality control protocol for local bean seed production and established technical committees for participatory plant breeding and seed production. These technical committees, formed by farmers’ associations, culminated in the creation of the Southern Seed Production Union (Unión de Semilleros del Sur) in the Brunca region. In Mexico, the first seed banks were established in 2005 as part of a national strategy for in situ conservation and to support farmers in areas vulnerable to natural disasters (Sánchez et al., 2016). In 2015, the country’s 25 community seed banks were integrated into a network of conservation centers of the National System of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (SINAREFI) (Sanchez, Santos & Aragón-Cuevas, 2015). The objectives of these and other efforts include the conservation of biodiversity, promotion of diversity and food self-sufficiency of local communities.

Another example of policy under this référentiel is the Basic Food Commodity Price Guarantee Program, implemented by the Mexican Food Security Agency (SEGALMEX), a decentralized agency linked to the Mexican government’s Secretariat of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER). Although the Price Guarantee is not new in Mexican public policies, the program, established in 2019, presents important changes in relation to previous actions (Fierro, 2019; Ávila-Sánchez, chapter 6). According to the government website, the program aims to: “increase the income of small agricultural producers, with the objective of compensating their efforts, and contribute to improving their quality of life; stimulate the national production of basic grains (and fresh milk) seeking to reduce dependence on imports; ensure the availability of food for the basic food basket, whose main distribution is in rural areas.”⁹ The program guarantees small and medium-sized producers minimum prices for corn, beans, rice, wheat and milk, staples in Mexican food culture; prioritizes its application in the areas of greatest social vulnerability and in indigenous communities; and is implemented alongside other actions aimed at promoting food self-sufficiency. In other words, with the goal of ending the dependence on imports and the fragility of the food-for-market référentiel, the program was designed to promote self-sufficiency and combat rural poverty (Fierro, 2019).¹⁰

In a way, the food autonomy secondary référentiel also seeks to overcome the limitations of the urban food supply référentiel, especially in relation to the way it delimits the public problem (the need to guarantee food for the urban population) and the way it is approached (the action of the State mainly through the “logistics” of supply). Indeed, centralized urban supply is characterized by the strong presence and action of intermediaries in urban food supply chains and by the sale of food from “anywhere,” which travels long distances and has no local cultural or socioeconomic links (FAO & FLAMA, 2020; McMichael, 2009). The food autonomy secondary référentiel has reoriented public urban supply policies through three types of responses triggered by family farmer, peasant and agroecological organizations: i) demands for guaranteed commercial spaces in supply centers, such as the Agricultural Producers’ Trade Center (Centro de Comercialización para Productores Asociados, CECOPROA) in Asunción/Paraguay (Ríos & Wesz Jr., 2020) and sales space “at the Producer’s Farm” in Brazil’s Supply Centers (a direct sales space for farmers) (Eugênio, 2018); ii) the creation of Family Farming Marketing Centers or Farmers’ Markets, such as the Family Farming Marketing Centers in the states of Minas Gerais, Ceará, Pernambuco and Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (Moraes & Pires, 2019); and, above all, iii) the strengthening of family and peasants’ farming fairs and other traditional communities.

Associated with the previous sub-référentiel, but primarily highlighting the demands of ethnic groups, traditional communities, their mediators and specific territories, the heritage secondary référentiel more clearly articulates the components of ethnic, local and territorial food practices linked to identity. Once the problem of the loss of food and cultural heritage has become evident, this référentiel proposes solutions through policies for the rescue and valorization of food practices, products, ingredients, processes and knowledge.¹¹ Another noteworthy aspect is a discourse that values the connection between rural communities and urban consumers, who would be important agents for policies related to the recognition and valorization of food heritage. Certain certification mechanisms, intangible heritage registers, support for local fairs and festivals, and community tourism all serve to illustrate the instruments of this secondary référentiel.

An example of government actions in this secondary référentiel refers to the identification stamps developed for products supplied by family farms, peasants, indigenous peoples and other traditional groups. According to the Specialized Meeting on Family Farming (REAF) of Mercosur, family farming employs “production systems based on product diversification, preserving traditional food production, and the identity of the production communities and native populations, contributing both to the generation of a balanced diet and to the preservation of agrobiodiversity and the cultural values of rural communities” (MERCOSUR/REAF, 2014). In view of this, it is, “important to ensure the visibility of the work and products associated with family farming,” and “develop instruments that benefit consumers by enabling them to identify products and services sourced from family farming” (MERCOSUR/REAF, 2014). In fact, several countries have already adopted instruments to that end, such as: i) Brazil, with the Family Farming Product Identification Seal (SIPAF), the Brazilian Quilombos Seal and the Brazilian Indigenous Seal; ii) Argentina, with the Produced by Family Farming Seal; iii) Chile, with the Manos Campesinas Seal; iv) Ecuador, with the Family Rural Farm Production Seal; v) Uruguay, with the Murú Rural Women’s Production Seal; vi) Colombia, with the Peasant, Family and Community Agriculture Seal; and vii) Bolivia, with the Bolivian Social Seal (Cruz, Marques & Haas, 2020).

Another example is the designations of origin of food products, which recognize the distinctive character of a food product by virtue of differentiated qualities that are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors (Niederle, 2013). Cotija cheese in Mexico, Turrialba cheese in Costa Rica, Chuao cocoa in Venezuela, coffee in Colombia, Arriba cocoa in Ecuador, giant white corn from Cusco in Peru and Neuquén goat in Argentina, are some of the many examples of foods whose instrument seeks to protect and value as a result of collective ownership of the place and its inhabitants (Riveros et al., 2008).

Claimed, for the most part, by actors (with different socioeconomic conditions) linked to production, designations of origin become mechanisms for promoting territories, providing access to markets and added value. Although appropriated by dominant actors in the agrifood sector who use them for other purposes, the core idea of geographical indications is that they convey the potential for, “a symbiosis between market recognition and the safeguarding of cultural heritage,” so that “if consumers value products deeply rooted in local cultures, the greater the chances are of reproducing the knowledge and customs that make that product distinctive” (Niederle, 2013, p. 46).

Closely related to that above, the gastronomic secondary référentiel highlights the food issues generated by the processes of “gastronomization” – a term coined by Poulain (2011) to explain the recent and growing interest of the gastronomic world in regional and popular cuisine. This process goes beyond assigning local and traditional foods heritage status, as it more clearly incorporates an aesthetic dimension (Duarte et al., 2021). Moreover, more recently, due to the growing impact of socio-environmental criticism, this gastronomization process includes concern for the “ethicalization of aesthetics,” seen in the affiliation of many chefs with the drive to support agroecology and family and peasant farming (Guilherme & Portilho, 2018; Barbosa, 2016). In this case, more than a vital necessity, food becomes a manifestation of pleasure and civic responsibility on the part of chefs, restaurants, solidarity economy companies and consumers.

Driven by chefs who sought to “revolutionize” gastronomy (Matta, 2012), this secondary référentiel is responsible for directing various actions implemented by Latin American States, albeit to a greater or lesser degree institutionalized or enduring. Although also observed in other contexts,¹² the projects developed in Peru provide the most emblematic showcase for the influence of this secondary référentiel. In 2007, the Peruvian government, through the National Institute of Culture of Peru (INC), declared the country’s gastronomy as National Heritage, which triggered a gastronomic boom in the period (Matta, 2012). In this context, a variety of other actions were then implemented by civil society, private and governmental organizations seeking to build links between gastronomy and small farm production and the appreciation of local and regional foods. As mentioned by Zanetti (2017, p. 106), “In 2007, when traditional Peruvian gastronomy was beginning to carve out a space in the realm of contemporary national gastronomy, which until then was dominated by French cuisine, a group of Peruvian chefs, together with representatives from the State’s agricultural sector, met at a round table session to discuss how the emerging gastronomic boom could leverage the country’s rural development. As a result of this reflection, the Peruvian Gastronomy Association – APEGA was created with the objective of serving as an interlocutor to channel initiatives that promote the development of national gastronomy, reviving the appreciation for typical regional dishes and products.” Since its founding in 2008, APEGA has developed a series of initiatives in collaboration with the Central Government and a number of local governments, such as the Mistura gastronomic festival in Lima, aimed at building links between chefs and small farmers; the publication of “Peruvian Gastronomy for 2021: Guidelines for a Development Program of Peruvian Gastronomy within the Framework of the Bicentenary Plan,” which sets out medium-term guidelines for gastronomy, among them the need to, “connect small producers to the growing national and international gastronomic market” (Peru, CEPLAN, 2012, p. 12); and a wide range of regional and local gastronomic festivals.

Another example of this secondary référentiel involves school canteens in Brazil. Seeking to “recognize the role of school merendeiras¹³ in promoting healthy and adequate food in the school environment and promote the mobilization of the school community on the issue of food and nutrition education,” the Federal Government has been developing the, “Best School Meal Recipe Competition” (Brazil, FNDE 2017). The recipes must “preferably contain important ingredients for healthy eating, limiting the amounts of unhealthy foods, such as canned foods, sausages, powders, concentrates and dehydrated foods”; be linked to some kind of educational action on food; and include foods produced through family farming in their preparation (Brazil, 2017). Innovative and original recipes that promote the use of regional foods are also more favorably regarded in the judging process. At national level, the National Commission is composed, among other actors, of a student, a prestigious chef and a nutritionist responsible for the program. Guéneau et al. (see chapter 12) discuss a complementary program developed by the government of the Federal District in Brazil. Through the Chef and Nutri at School Project, the government offers the opportunity for a chef to visit schools, valuing the work of the merendeiras (school cooks) and encouraging adequate and healthy nutrition. Driven mainly by government actors, these initiatives promote the gastronimization of school food, in its aesthetic and ethical dimensions, seeking to qualify school meals and sensitize those who prepare them about the multiple functions of the food provided.

The environmentalized food référentiel is based on a representation of the food problem largely linked to the interactions between the food system and the Earth system. The global food system is understood to be one of the main drivers and, at the same time, the principal victim of environmental degradation (Rockström et al., 2020). Some of the scientific actors involved in environmental sciences and NGOs support the concept of planetary boundaries that the food system cannot cross (Campbell et al., 2017; Gerten et al., 2020; Springman et al., 2018). Thus, the environmentalized food référentiel includes standards that seek to limit or minimize the impacts of food systems on the environment and the availability of natural resources (water, land, biodiversity, biomass, fossil oil and minerals), the stakes being meeting future food demand with current natural resources (Davis et al., 2016). The process of constructing this référentiel also largely stems from the actions of “consumer-actors” (Stassart, 2010) that have an impact both on companies’ revenues (boycott and buycott) and on their political choices. Thus, governments and companies have paid increasing attention to the creation of policies that engage with this référentiel, which is expressed, for example, in instruments related to environmental responsibility (e.g., the Soy Moratorium¹⁴), the reduction of losses and waste (Webb et al., 2020), the adoption of clean technologies, environmental certifications, Food Miles, the reduction of meat consumption and transformation of diets, etc.

One example that is evident in several Latin American countries refers to actions to promote low-carbon agriculture and/or livestock farming. In response to evidence and criticism regarding the amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by agricultural and livestock practices, and often accompanying the establishment of national climate change mitigation and adaptation plans, several national governments have established sectoral plans for agriculture and livestock based on the reduction of carbon emissions. Examples include the Low Carbon Development Strategy (EDBC) for the livestock sector in Nicaragua (Canu, et al., 2018), the Low Carbon Livestock Strategy in Costa Rica (Costa Rica, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, 2015), the National Strategy for Low Emissions Sustainable Bovine Livestock (Guatemala, 2018), the Colombian Low-Carbon Development Strategy (ECDBC) with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) for Sustainable Livestock, and the Low-Carbon Agriculture (ABC) Plan and Program in Brazil (Brazil, 2012). The actions promoted by these programs and actions include: pasture rotation and division associated with crop-livestock-forest integration systems, live fences and dispersed trees in pastures; manure management through biodigesters; biofertilizer production and use; pasture recovery and productive intensification; promotion of livestock farming in areas more conducive to more intensive and profitable systems; technological innovation; and strengthening of value chains, access to markets and low carbon or carbon neutral certifications. In general, in response to consumer pressures and international environmental agreements, these government programs address the need to bring about changes and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their food production systems, not infrequently through the intensification of production and technological innovations.

Another action that is on the governmental agenda of several countries, despite challenges in terms of its institutionalization, refers to the creation of programs or policies to reduce food losses and waste. In addition to the economic costs and damage to food and nutritional security, losses and waste represent significant environmental costs. As stated by the Government of Argentina, “producing food that no one will consume means using natural resources, services and other goods inefficiently. Added to this is the environmental cost of greenhouse gas emissions generated along the food chain, which unnecessarily contribute to global warming and climate change. The environmental consequences are greater as waste is produced at more advanced stages of the chain. In other words, the higher the degree of transformation of a food, the greater the environmental impact. Finally, food waste increases the volume of waste and aggravates the problem of urban solid waste treatment” (Argentina, Ministerio de Agroindustria, 2017). To address this, the Argentine government created its National Program to Reduce Food Loss and Waste in 2015 and, in 2018, institutionalized Act 27,454 that creates the National Food Loss and Waste Reduction Plan, which was regulated in 2019. These initiatives include the implementation of information and communication campaigns to raise awareness among all actors in the food chain; improvements in transportation infrastructure, energy and market facilities; development and facilitation of access to equipment and new technologies/innovations; and governance between producers, intermediaries, food bank¹⁵ associations, non-governmental organizations, educational establishments, among others, to make agreements to reduce losses and waste through donations (Argentina, Segretaría de Alimentos y Bioeconomía & Segretaría de Agroindustria, 2018).

In terms of consumer-actor actions, it is important to stress that the environmentalized food référentiel is largely focused on the issue of “sustainable diets,” pointing to, “More environmentally-friendly dietary patterns, such as, for example, reducing the consumption of animal products, especially beef” (Takeut & Oliveira, 2013, p. 200). As a general rule, there is a certain convergence between sustainable diet and healthy diet (Triches, 2020), although the environmental issue is still little addressed in food guides, a public policy tool widely used to inform and raise consumer awareness about healthy and sustainable eating (Martinelli, Cortese & Cavalli, 2020). This environmental vision is beginning to direct several local and national food policies, such as food purchase programs for schools and other public institutions (prisons, hospitals, etc.), although a predominance of family farming and rural issues is still observed in these programs (see Grisa et al., chapter 16). Although incipient at municipal level, in recent years several public actions based on this référentiel have emerged in Brazil, including, as a priority objective, the reduction of animal protein consumption and the diversification of school meals, such as the Meatless Monday Program in São Paulo state and São Paulo municipality, the Innovative Tastes (Inova Sabores) Project in Jundiaí (São Paulo state), the Brazilian Food Awareness Program in Niterói (Rio de Janeiro state) or the Sustainable Schools Program in four municipalities of Bahia state (Cheib, 2020).

Finally, a new type of référentiel has emerged in recent years, which we call integrative. Although inspired by the values of sustainability, this référentiel goes beyond the purely socioecological dimensions of food, integrating other aspects related to nutrition and health (Ribeiro & Jaime, 2017). Thus, in recent years, the food problem has become a problem of integration between these different dimensions within a systemic approach to food. In addition, the reference to the “sustainable food system,”¹⁶ which has become dominant in the literature and the discourse of international institutions (Béné et al., 2019), has been evolving in recent years. The terms “integrated” and “resilient” have been added, firstly to reflect the integration between the different components of food systems, including the consideration of climate change and rural territories, and, secondly, to highlight the imperative for these systems to recover and adapt in the face of external shocks or stresses (Blay-Palmer, 2020). This integrative référentiel also emphasizes the need for “whole system change” to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by changing food consumption patterns (sustainable consumption and waste reduction), transitioning to sustainable forms of production and value chains that ensure nutrition, mitigating climate change and improving rural territories (Caron et al., 2020).

Thus, public policies inspired by this new référentiel seek to systemically respond to various food problems, such as obesity, malnutrition, climate change, poverty and social exclusion (Sonnino et al., 2020; Swinburn et al., 2019; Willet et al., 2019; IPES Food, 2019). This référentiel legitimizes policies to promote sustainable production from family and peasant farming, with the promotion of adequate, healthy and responsible food, highlighting the importance of short marketing circuits. In addition, another innovative aspect of this reference framework is the requirement for greater intersectoral cooperation in public action, insofar as the promotion of sustainable food systems depends on the coordination of policies managed by ministries, secretariats and departments across different areas (agriculture, health, nutrition, social development, education, etc.).

An example of government action under the integrative référentiel is the Public Policy for Food and Nutritional Sovereignty and Security in Cali, Colombia, analyzed in this book by Castelhano, Henry and Rankin (see chapter 13). Stimulated by national advances,¹⁷ in 2009 the Municipality of Cali initiated the construction of a municipal policy in a participatory manner, through the Food and Nutritional Security Roundtables, culminating with the regulation of the policy through Agreement No. 0470 of 2019. The policy seeks to “improve the quality of life of the population of Santiago de Cali through constant, coordinated and intersectoral action on food and nutritional security” (Concejo de Santiago de Cali, 2019). The policy is governed by 11 principles, namely integrality, considering that all food sovereignty and food security strategies and actions are elements that act in a coordinated and integrated manner in the food management process; universality, seeking to guarantee the right to food for all people; diversity and interculturality; intersectoral cooperation and transversality, linking different social and institutional actors; community and citizen participation; food equity through the inclusion of socially vulnerable groups generally excluded from markets; solidarity through individual and collective actions; regional integration; agroecological sustainability; community strengthening; and support for young peasants (Concejo de Santiago de Cali, 2019). In addition, the policy is organized into six axes, each of which involves a set of actions, namely:

• availability
• access
• adequate and sufficient consumption
• quality and safety
• biological use of food
• management and promotion of knowledge

Thus organized, it aims to address a wide range of contemporary food challenges, such as hunger, obesity, climate change and food democracy, seeking to transform the food system to be “sustainable over time and nutrition-sensitive” (Concejo de Santiago de Cali, 2019).

The performance of other programs corresponding to the integrative référentiel are also worthy of note, such as the National Urban, Suburban and Family Agriculture Program in Cuba and the configuration of the National School Feeding Program in some Brazilian municipalities. The Cuban program, which has been operating since 1997, is configured as a system from national to municipal level, bringing together several subprograms with the objective of “maximizing the production of diverse, fresh and healthy food in the available, previously unproductive areas. This production is based on ecological practices that do not pollute the environment, rational use of resources in each territory and direct marketing to the consumer” (FAO, 2016, p. 42). The program combines the landscaping of urban spaces, with the promotion of food supply, healthy eating, employment and income generation, socioeconomic inclusion, environmental preservation and social participation (FAO, 2016).

Regarding Brazilian school canteens, the program contributes to minimizing situations of hunger and food insecurity, and features a set of nutritional guidelines aimed at combating malnutrition, excess weight and obesity (e.g., controlling the supply of processed and ultra-processed foods) (Brazil, FNDE, 2020). In addition, since 2009, it has incorporated and guaranteed a market (at least 30%) for food produced by family farming, agrarian reform settlements, indigenous peoples and quilombola communities, giving priority to organic or agroecological and locally produced food (Brazil, FNDE, 2009). In addition to these federal regulations, some states and municipalities (e.g., the municipal government of Marechal Cândido Rondon and the state governments of Paraná and Santa Catarina) have adopted complementary laws, establishing minimum percentages or even total purchase of agroecological or organic food, in order to increase the supply of healthy food and contribute to more sustainable production practices. These actions are also complemented by a set of food and environmental education initiatives (composting, conservation of water and other natural resources, school gardens, etc.).

Politics in food policy: from référentiels to coalitions

In the previous section we presented the different référentiels that frame and dispute public policies in relation to food problems in Latin America. In this section we analyze how actors-coalitions act to politicize certain issues, (de)construct and (de)legitimize certain référentiels in order to change the dynamics of social fields, i.e., food systems – thus also changing their positions in the structural hierarchy of these fields. As in the previous section, we do not intend to exhaust the subject. We have only mobilized elements that illustrate how, over time, actors-coalitions produce innovations that alter power relations within public arenas, leading to the (re)production of policies that, guided by référentiels more or less close to their interests/worldviews, stress continuity or changes in food systems.

It is worth noting at the outset that the dynamics of the fields (food systems) are not only influenced by public policies. In fact, there are fields in which the strategies of private companies and the actions of organized social movements are more relevant than the action of the State, and even fields in which there are still no public policies (or they are very specific and weak) with référentiels in line with the ideas of these actors. This is the case of the field that has been structured around alternatives to meat production and consumption. Despite fragmented actions (such as the inclusion of vegetarian and vegan alternatives in certain public canteens), it is rash to speak of public policies directed by a référentiel that institutionalizes ideas similar to those advocated by companies producing “vegetable meat” or by anti-speciesist and/or climacteric consumer movements. It is also the case of the movement for the ethicality of gastronomy that, although supported by public authorities (as discussed above), the level of activity from these channels is not comparable to the diversity and intensity of the actions and activism being driven by consumer movement, chefs and other actors. In these two examples, initiatives by non-state actors that empower and stress food systems predominate.

Secondly, it is important to ratify that the référentiels presented in the previous section refer to a set of ideas institutionalized, to a greater or lesser degree, in public policy. They are ideas, interpretations and regulations that come from different forums for the production of ideas, composed of individuals and groups that politicize and dispute the construction of public policies (Fouilleux, 2000). When entering the institutional and political game, many of the collective representations of individuals and groups have to adjust to and are confronted with the ideas of other individuals and groups, with their own and other institutional environments, and are influenced by external events. In other words, the ideas that exist in public arenas are reorganized, readjusted and molded as their process of institutionalization within public policy advances.

Third, it is important to note that, although manifested in legal and regulatory frameworks, référentiels present different degrees of vulnerability to change or, conversely, path dependency mechanisms (Pierson, 2000; Mahoney, 2001). These movements (vulnerability or institutional reinforcement) depend on the institutional fragilities and ambiguities of public policies and instruments, on the tensions that exist in agrifood systems, and on the power relations between groups of actors defending or challenging the representations of the world being brought into play. Throughout this book, we will see that while some référentiels have a long lifespan and are practically crystallized in institutions, others have an ephemeral life and do not withstand changes in mandates.

Moreover, it should be noted that the influence and relative importance of each référentiel in the dynamics of food systems depends, as we have said, on logics that go beyond the State’s capacity for action, as well as the power conferred and legitimized by the political instruments that set them in motion. Although it is not a question of simply comparing budgets or numbers of beneficiaries, given that institutional and power logics are much more complex, it is to be expected that a billion dollar rural credit program with national scope and operated by financial organizations with a high degree of capillarity will have a much greater capacity to effect the way food production, supply and consumption is organized than local initiatives implemented by a municipal governments that are usually reliant on resources donated by charitable foundations.

Considering these political dynamics that determine the politicization of food issues and the construction, institutionalization and permanence (or not) of référentiels, certain inferences can be drawn regarding the general characteristics that influence the food policy production process in Latin American countries.

Final considerations

The analysis set out in this chapter points to different ideas and interpretations that influence and question the construction of food policies in Latin America. Focusing our reflection on the different values and norms that guide the construction of public policies, as well as on the way in which actors interpret public problems, define solutions (where to intervene? How to intervene?) and position the role and instruments of the State, we map eight public policy référentiels, which are: i) food-for-market; ii) urban food supply; iii) productivist (with its variations between productivist based on agribusiness and productivist based on family farming); iv) food social welfare; v) technical food (with its manifestations in the nutritionist and hygienist secondary référentiels); vi) food sovereignty and security (with its differentiations between food autonomy, heritage and gastronomic); vii) environmentalized food; and viii) integrative.

As we have seen, these different référentiels are present in different countries, although with different degrees of incidence, institutionalization and stability. Such référentiels are present in different spaces and institutionalisms in each country, expressing, on the one hand, the fragmentation, disjointedness and contradiction that exists in public action and, on the other, the configuration of the State as a field of power and dispute. Some référentiels have long been institutionalized in public action (productivist, food-for-market, urban supply référentiels), expressing the power relations, influence and permeability of the agrarian elites, agroindustrial groups, market actors, international organizations; or even, the concern with historical and recurrent problems in Latin American agrifood systems (hunger, poverty, nutritional deficiencies, food security) (food social welfare and technical food référentiels).

Expressing their historical trajectory and their political and cognitive roots in societies, such référentiels are often reinforced by political, economic and social crises.

Other référentiels (the food autonomy secondary référentiel, the heritage and gastronomic, environmentalized food and integrative référentiels) have been challenging spaces in governmental arenas and agendas more recently and derive from the emergence/social construction of new public problems, the entry of new actors into the sphere of agrifood-related issues, and the emergence of new social movements and forms of collective action. Actors and social movements marginalized or negatively impacted by “old” référentiels (mainly family farming and peasant organizations), consumers and consumer organizations, different professional categories (chefs, cooks, nutritionists, urban planners), environmentalists, organizations in the agroecological field and more are some of the actors that began to form coalitions, dispute the state and create institutional fissures for the institutionalization of new ideas and interpretations of the world. This institutionalization, however, is susceptible to the influence of other coalitions of actors, external events and dynamics of other strategic fields of action.

Such public policy référentiels have different effects on the dynamics of agrifood systems. Several authors and international organizations highlight the way in which the actions of the State have contributed to and promoted the recurrent socioeconomic, health, food and environmental crises experienced by contemporary societies and, at the same time, emphasize the key and fundamental role of the State in the construction of and transition to sustainable food systems. The State has the resources and capacity to intervene, promote, coordinate, regulate and monitor healthy, sustainable and inclusive production and consumption. “(…) the State emerges as a powerful actor: its regulatory power, its huge budget and, not least, its mandate to act on behalf of the public interest, endow it with unique authority over both food supply and consumption” (Sonnino, Spayde & Ashe, 2016, p. 313). Thus, we highlight the importance of the State, in dialogue and co-construction with society, to advance in the institutionalization of public policy référentiels that, acting in different dimensions, contribute to a profound transformation of current food systems towards sustainable, integrated and resilient food systems. The food sovereignty and security, environmentalized and integrative food référentiels are particularly important in this regard.

References

1. Acosta, A. (2016). O bem viver: uma oportunidade para imaginar outros mundos. (T. Breda, Trans.). Autonoma Literária, Elefante Editora. (Original work published 2008). https://rosalux​.org.br​/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Bemviver​.pdf
2. Argentina, Ministerio de Agroindustria. (2017). Informe de avance Programa Nacional de Reducción de Pérdida y Desperdicio de Alimentos 2013–2015. http://www​.alimentosargentinos​.gob.ar/HomeAlimentos​/ValoremoslosAlimentos​/imagenes​/Informe_de_avance_PDA_2013_2015.pdf
3. Argentina, Programa de nutrición y alimentación nacional, Ley Nacional de Argentina 25.724 (2003). http://servicios​.infoleg​.gob.ar/infolegInternet​/anexos/80000-84999/81446/norma​.htm
4. Argentina, Segretaría de Alimentos y Bioeconomía & Segretaría de Agroindustria. (2019). Informe de avance 2018. Programa nacional de reducción de pérdida y desperdício de alimentos. Ministerio de Producción y Trabajo. http://www​.alimentosargentinos​.gob.ar/HomeAlimentos​/ValoremoslosAlimentos​/documentos​/Informe_avance_2018_PDA.pdf
5. Aulicino, C., & Langou, G. D. (2012). La implementación del Plan Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria en ámbitos subnacionalies (Documento de Trabajo n. 88). CIPPEC.
6. Aureliano, L., & Draibe, S. M. (1989). A especificidade do “welfare state” brasileiro. In Ministério da Previdência e Assistência Social (MPAS)/Comissão Econômica para América Latina e Caribe (CEPAL), Reflexões sobre a natureza do Bem-estar (pp. 86–178). Cepal. http://hdl​.handle.net/11362/29505
7. Baca, A. S. (2014). El patrón alimentario del libre comercio. UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, CEPAL.
8. Barbosa, L. (2016). A ética e a estética na alimentação contemporânea. In Cruz, F.T., Matte, A., & S. Schneider (Eds.), Produção, consumo e abastecimento de alimentos: desafios e novas estratégias (pp. 95–123). UFRGS.
9. Barquera, S., Rivera-Dommarco, J., & Gasca-Garcia, A. (2001). Políticas y programas de aliment-ación y nutrición en México. Salud pública de México, 43(5), 464–477. https://www​.saludpublica​.mx/index.php/spm​/article/view/6342/7639 [PubMed: 11765723]
10. Barton, D., Ring, I., & Rusch G. (2014). Policyscapes: nature-based policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision (Policy brief). POLICYMIX. https://policymix​.nina​.no/Portals/policymix​/POLICYMIX%20Policy​%20brief%202_web_1.pdf
11. Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I. D., de Haan, S., Prager, S. D., Talsma, E. F., & Khoury, C. K. (2019). When food systems meet sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development, 113, 116–130. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011 [CrossRef]
12. Blay-Palmer, A., Carey, R., Valette, E., & Sanderson, M.R. (2020). Post Covid 19 and food pathways to sustainable transformation. Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 517–519. 10.1007/s10460-020-10051-7 [PMC free article: PMC7232606] [PubMed: 32427212] [CrossRef]
13. Bonanno, A. (2019). State capitalism in neoliberal agrifood: the case of the Brazilian company JBS. In Bonanno, A., & J. S. B. Cavalcanti (Eds.), State capitalism under neoliberalism: the case of agriculture and food in Brazil. Lexington Books.
14. Brazil, Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação (FNDE). (2009). Resolução/CD/FNDE nº 38, de 16 de julho de 2009. Dispõe sobre o atendimento da alimentação escolar aos alunos da educação básica no Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar. https://www​.fnde.gov​.br/index.php/acesso-a-informacao​/institucional​/legislacao/item​/3341-resolução-cd-fnde-nº-38-de-16-de-julho-de-2009
15. Brazil, Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação (FNDE). (2017). Edital nº 003/2017; Concurso Melhores Receitas da Alimentação Escolar – 2ª edição. http:​//melhoresreceitas​.mec.gov.br/docs/regulamento.pdf
16. Brazil, Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação (FNDE). (2020). Resolução nº 6 de 08 de maio de 2020. Dispõe sobre o atendimento da alimentação escolar aos alunos da educação básica no âmbito do Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar-PNAE. https://www​.fnde.gov​.br/index.php/centrais-de-conteudos​/publicacoes​/category/100-resolucoes?download​=13857:resolução-nº-6,-de-08-de-maio-de-2020
17. Brazil, Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA). (2012). Plano setorial de mitigação e de adaptação às mudanças climáticas para a consolidação de uma economia de baixa emissão de carbono na agricultura. https://www​.gov.br/agricultura​/pt-br/assuntos​/sustentabilidade​/plano-abc/arquivo-publicacoes-plano-abc/download.pdf
18. Brazil, Ministério da Saúde. (2013). Política nacional de alimentação e nutrição. https://bvsms​.saude.gov​.br/bvs/publicacoes​/politica_nacional​_alimentacao_nutricao.pdf
19. Campbell, B. M., Beare, D. J., Bennett, E. M., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Ingram, J. S. I., Jaramillo, F., Ortiz, R., Ramankutty, N., Sayer, J. A., & Shindell, D. (2017). Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society, 22(4), Article 8. 10.5751/ES-09595-220408 [CrossRef]
20. Canu, F. A., Wrewtlind, P. H., Audia, I., Tobar, D., & Andrade, H. J. (2018). Estrategia de Desarrollo Bajo en Carbono (EDBC) para el sector de Ganadería bovina de Nicaragua. DTU Library. https://backend​.orbit​.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles​/portal/145121640​/Nicaragua_Livestock_Spanish_2.pdf
21. Cardilho, V. H. (2018). Análise do papel das merendeiras terceirizadas como atores implementadores no Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar: desafios na perspectiva do trabalho [Master’s dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Faculdade de Ciências Aplicadas]. Unicamp.
22. Caron, P., Ferrero y de Loma-Osorio, G., Nabarro, D., Hainzelin, E., Guillou, M., Andersen, I., Arnold, T., Astralaga, M., Beukeboom, M., Bickersteth, S., Bwalya, M., Caballero, P., Campbell, B. M., Divine, N., Fan, S., Frick, M., Friis, A., Gallagher, M., Halkin, J.-P., Hanson, C., Lasbennes, F., Ribera, T., Rockstrom, J., Schuepbach, M., Steer, A., Tutwiler A., & Verbur, G. (2020). Sistemas alimentares para o desenvolvimento sustentável: propostas para uma profunda transformação em quatro partes (pp. 25–50). In Preiss, P. & S. Schneider (Eds.), Sistemas alimentares no século XXI: debates contemporâneos. UFRGS. https://www​.lume.ufrgs​.br/bitstream/handle​/10183/211399/001115756.pdf
23. Carrasco, M., & Pautassi, L. (2015). Diez años del “Plan Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria” em Argentina. Una aproximación desde el enfoque de derechos. De prácticas y discursos, 4(5). 10.30972/dpd.45805 [CrossRef]
24. Castro, M. A. C., Castaño, L. C., & Correa, L. M. M. (2013). Descripción de la ingesta de alimentos y nutrientes en niños expuestos y no expuestos al programa de complementación alimentaria Mana Infantil en el municipio de Envigado, Colombia 2006–2010. Perspectivas en Nutrición Humana, 15(1), 83–96. https://revistas​.udea​.edu.co/index.php/nutricion​/article/view/17907
25. Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo Rural Sustentable y la Soberania Alimentaria (CEDRSSA). (2015). El sector agropecuario de Mexico en sus tratados comerciales vigentes. http://www​.cedrssa.gob​.mx/files/b/13/47El​%20sector%20agropecuario​%20de%20México​%20en%20sus%20tratados.pdf
26. Chapela, G., Menéndez, C., & Robles Berlanga, H. (2015). México: políticas para la agricultura campesina y familiar: un marco de referencia (pp. 233–259). In Sabourin, E., Samper, M., & O. Sotomayor (Eds.), Políticas públicas y agriculturas familiares en América Latina: nuevas perspectivas. Rede PPAL, CIRAD, Cepal, IICA.
27. Chavez, M. F., & Muller, A. (2020). Procesos de innovación tecnológica en la agricultura familiar: análisis de dos modelos de salas queseras implementadas en Amblayo, Salta, Argentina. Revista Americana de Empreendedorismo e Inovação, 2(1), 115–125. http://periodicos​.unespar​.edu.br/index.php​/raei/article/view/3257
28. Cheib, A. S. (2020). As políticas públicas de redução do consumo de proteína animal e de substituição por uma alimentação à base de vegetais: uma análise de atores, instrumentos e objetivos (Monograph, Graduação em Administração Pública, Escola de Governo Professor Paulo Neves de Carvalho da Fundação João Pinheiro). Fundação João Pinheiro. http://monografias​.fjp​.mg.gov.br/handle/123456789/2691
29. Chile, Dirección de Presupuestos. (2020). Evaluación Programa Nacional de Alimentación Complementaria y Programa de Alimentación Complementaria del Adulto Mayor. División de Control de Gestión Pública. https://www​.dipres.gob​.cl/597/articles-205709_informe_final​.pdf
30. Chile, Ministerio de Salud. (2017). Política nacional de alimentación y nutrición.
31. Chile, Ministerio de Salud. (2018). Informe de evaluación de la implementación de la ley sobre composición nutricional de los alimentos y su publicidad. https://www​.minsal.cl​/wp-content/uploads​/2018/05/Informe-Implementación-Ley-20606-febrero-18-1.pdf
32. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. 10.2307/2392088 [CrossRef]
33. Concejo de Santiago de Cali. (2019). Acuerdo n° 0470. Por el cual se adopta la política publica de soberanía y seguridad alimentaria y nutricional del Distrito especial de Santiago de Cali y se dictan otras disposiciones. http://www​.concejodecali​.gov.co/descargar.php?idFile=18584
34. Costa Rica, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE). (2015). Estrategia para la ganadería: Baja en carbono en Costa Rica. Informe final: estrategia y plan de acción. http://www​.mag.go.cr​/bibliote-cavirtual/L01-11006.pdf
35. Costa Rica, Ministerio de Salud. (2011). Política nacional para la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional 2011–2021. https://www​.ministeriodesalud​.go.cr/index​.php/biblioteca-de-archivos​/sobre-el-ministerio​/politcas-y-planes-en-salud​/politicas-en-salud​/1106-politica-nacional-de-seguridad-alimentaria-y-nutricional-2011-2021/file
36. Cruz, F. T., Marques, V. P. M., & Haas, J. M. (2020). Os selos da agricultura familiar no Mercosul: implicações e desafios para valorização de produtos agroalimentares. Revista Brasileira de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento, 9(5), 757–798. http://hdl​.handle.net/10183/224187
37. Cunha, A. R. A. A. (2014). Las centrales mayoristas de abasto y los circuitos cortos en America Latina. In UN/CEPAL, Agricultura familiar y circuitos cortos: nuevos esquemas de producción, comercialización y nutrición. (pp. 69–74). United Nations. http://hdl​.handle.net/11362/44258
38. David, K. A. G. (2016). Campesino paneleros higienizados por la biopolítica: sabers locales y biopolíticas en la molienda campesina panelera. Un estudio de caso de productores paneleros de la vereda San Miguel, municipio de Quebradanegra, Cundinamarca, 1990–2015 [Master’s thesis, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana]. Repositorio Institucional UPB. http://hdl​.handle.net/20.500.11912/4253
39. Daviron, B., Perin, C., & Soulard, C. T. (2017). History of urban food policy in Europe, from the ancient city to the industrial city. In Brand, C., Bricas, N., Conaré, D., Daviron, B., Debru, J., Michel, L., & C.-T. Soulard (Eds.), Designing urban food policies (pp. 27–51). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-13958-2 [CrossRef]
40. Davis, K. F., Gephart, J. A., Emery, K. A., Leach, A. M., Galloway, J. N., & D’Odorico, P. (2016). Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Global Environmental Change, 39, 125–132. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.004 [CrossRef]
41. Delgado, G. C. (2012). Do capital financeiro na agricultura à economia do agronegócio: mudanças cíclicas em meio século (1965–2012). UFRGS.
42. De Molina, M. G., García, D. L., & Casado, G. G. (2017). Politizando el consumo alimentario: estrategias para avanzar en la transición agroecológica. Redes, 22(2), 31–55.
43. De Pablo, M. (2015). Buenas prácticas: inocuidad de los alimentos y su relación con el acceso a mercado de la agricultura familiar. In A. Flores (Ed.), Boletin de agricultura familiar para América Latina y el Caribe, 13 (pp. 13–15). FAO. https://www​.fao.org/3/i5192s/i5192s.pdf
44. Duarte, L. M. G., Guéneau, S., Diniz J. D. A. S., & Passos, C. J. S. (2021). Valorización de los patrimonios alimentarios y productos agroextractivistas del Cerrado brasileño en la gastronomía: un estudio sobre el Festival Gastronómico Cerrado Week. In Rebaï, N., Bilhaut, A-G., De Suremain, C-E., Katz, E., & M. Paredes (Eds.). Patrimonios alimentarios en América Latina: recursos locales, actores y globalización (pp. 109–136). IFEA/IRD.
45. Eugenio, A. C. (2018). Participação e caracterização da agricultura familiar na Pedra do Produtor da Ceasa-GO [Master’s dissertation, Universidade Federal de Goiás]. Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçōes. http://repositorio​.bc​.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/8424
46. European Commission. (2020). Comunicação da Comissão ao Parlamento Europeu, ao Conselho, ao Comitê Econômico e Social Europeu e ao Comitê das Regiões: Estratégia do Prado ao Prato para um sistema alimentar justo, saudável e respeitador do ambiente [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system] (COM/2020/381 final). https://eur-lex​.europa​.eu/legal-content/PT​/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0381
47. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2016). Análisis y diagnóstico de políticas agroambientales en Cuba. https://www​.fao.org/3/i5559s/i5559s.pdf
48. FAO & FLAMA (Federación Latino-Americana de Mercados de Abastecimiento). (2020). Los mercados mayoristas: acción frente al covid-19 (Boletín nº 3, 13-07-2020). FAO. https://www​.fao.org/3/cb0218es/CB0218ES​.pdf
49. FAO & SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación). (2012). Agricultura familiar con potencial productivo en México. FAO. https://www​.fao.org/3/bc944s/bc944s.pdf
50. FBSSAN (Fórum Brasileiro de Soberania e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional). (2016). Biofortificação: as controvérsias e as ameaças à soberania e segurança alimentar e nutricional. https://fbssan​.org.br​/wp-content/plugins​/download-attachments/includes/download​.php?id=1277
51. Fierro, M. P. P (Ed.). (2019). Los precios de garantía: avances y retos en la implementación (Cuaderno de investigación nº 4). DGDyP/IBD, CDMX. http:​//bibliodigitalibd​.senado.gob.mx/handle/123456789/4704
52. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.x [CrossRef]
53. Fouilleux, E. (2000). Entre production et institutionnalisation des idées: la réforme de la politique agricole commune. Revue Française de Science Politique, 50(2), 277–305. http://www​.jstor.org/stable/43119730.
54. Fouilleux, E. (2003). La politique agricole commune et ses réformes. L’Harmattan.
55. Fouilleux, E. (2011). Analisar a mudança: políticas públicas e debates num sistema em diferentes níveis de governança. Estudos, Sociedade e Agricultura, 19(1), 88–125. https://revistaesa​.com/ojs/index​.php/esa/article/view/337
56. Fouilleux, E., Bricas, N., & Alpha, A. (2017). “Feeding 9 billion people”: global food security debates and the productionist trap. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(11), 1658–1677. 10.1080/13501763.2017.1334084 [CrossRef]
57. Fouilleux, E., & Jobert, B. (2017). Le cheminement des controverses dans la globalisation néo-libérale: pour une approche agonistique des politiques publiques. Gouvernement et action publique, 6(3), 9–36. 10.3917/gap.173.0009 [CrossRef]
58. Fouilleux, E., & Michel, L. (Eds.). (2020). Quand l’alimentation se fait politique(s). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
59. Gasselin, P., Lardon, S., Cerdan, C., Loudiyi, S., & Sautier, D. (Eds.). (2021). Coexistence et confrontation des modèles agricoles et alimentaires: Un nouveau paradigme du développement territorial? Quae. 10.35690/978-2-7592-3243-7 [CrossRef]
60. Gazola, M. (2017). Cadeias curtas agroalimentares na agroindustria familiar: dinâmicas e atores sociais envolvidos. In Gazolla, M., & S. Schneider (Eds.), Cadeias curtas e redes agroalimentares alternativas: negócios e mercados da agricultura familiar (pp. 175–194). Editora da UFRGS.
61. Gerten, D., Heck, V., Jägermeyr, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Fetzer, I., Jalava, M., Kummu, M., Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Schaphoff, S., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 3, 200–208. 10.1038/s41893-019-0465-1 [CrossRef]
62. Gilardon, E. O. A. (2016). Una evaluación crítica de los programas alimentarios en Argentina. Salud Colectiva, 12(4), 589–604. 10.18294/sc.2016.935 [PubMed: 28273265] [CrossRef]
63. Golay, C., & Özden, M. (2012). Le droit à l’alimentation. Un droit humain fondamental stipulé par l’ONU et reconnu par des traités régionaux et de nombreuses constitutions nationales. Centre Europe-Tiers Monde (CETIM). http://agirledroit​.clmayer​.net/IMG/pdf/DroitAlimentation​_CETIM.pdf
64. González, S. M. (2019). La seguridad alimentaria de México y la renegociación del TLCAN: oportunidad para una estrategia de desarrollo rural y de combate a la pobreza. Portes, Revista Mexicana de Estudios Sobre la Cuenca del Pacífico, 13(26), 27–60. http://www​.portesasiapacifico​.com.mx/revistas​/epocaiii/numero26/2.pdf
65. Grisa, C., & Fornazier, A. (2018). O desperdício de alimentos e as políticas públicas no Brasil: entre ações produtivistas e políticas alimentares. In Zaro, M. (Ed.), Desperdício de alimentos: velhos hábitos, novos desafios (pp. 363–383). EDUCS. https://www​.ucs.br/site​/midia/arquivos/e-book-desperdicio-de-alimentos-velhos-habitos.pdf
66. Grisa, C., Wesz, Jr., V. J.; Buchweitz, V. D. (2014). Revisitando o Pronaf: velhos questionamentos, novas interpretações. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 52(2), 323–346. https://www​.scielo.br​/j/resr/a/FfGVnNCzjyTK6JgDCrqFfGg​/?format​=pdf&lang=pt
67. Guatemala, Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación. (2018). Estrategia nacional de ganadería bovina sostenible con bajas emisiones. https://www​.maga.gob​.gt/download/estrategia-ganado.pdf
68. Guilherme, N. O. S., & Portilho, F. (2018). Ecochefs, tapiocas e a gastronomização da agricultura familiar. In Garson M., & S. Torquato (Eds.), Alimentação e ciências sociais: Perspectivas contemporâneas (pp. 93–119). Autografia.
69. Gurgel, A. D. M., Santos, C. C. S. D., Alves, K. P. D. S., Araujo, J. M. D., & Leal, V. S. (2020). Estratégias governamentais para a garantia do direito humano à alimentação adequada e saudável no enfrentamento à pandemia de Covid-19 no Brasil. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 25, 4945–4956. 10.1590/1413-812320202512.33912020 [PubMed: 33295513] [CrossRef]
70. Hassanein, N. (2003). Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 77–86. 10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00041-4 [CrossRef]
71. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). (2014). Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. Committee on World Food Security. https://www​.fao.org/3/i3901e/i3901e.pdf
72. IMAFLORA (Instituto de Manejo e Certificação Florestal e Agrícola). (2017). 10 anos da moratória da soja na Amazônia: história, impactos e a expansão para o Cerrado. https://www​.imaflora​.org/public/media/biblioteca​/IMF-10-anos-moratoria-da-soja-WB.pdf
73. IPES-FOOD (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems). (2019). Towards a common food policy for the European Union: the policy reform and realignment that is required to build sustainable food systems in Europe. https://www​.ipes-food​.org/_img/upload/files/CFP_FullReport​.pdf
74. ISAGS-UNASUR (Instituto Suramericano de Gobierno em Salud-Unión de Naciones Suramericanes). (2019). Interferencia de la industria de Alimentos en las políticas etiquetado gráfico innovador de alimentos procesados en Suramérica. https://www​.rets.epsjv​.fiocruz.br/sites/default​/files/arquivos​/interferencia-de-la-industria-en-etiquetado-isags.pdf
75. Jara, C. E., Sperat, R. R., Manrique, L. F. R., & Herrera, A. G. (2019). Desarrollo rural y agricultura familiar en Argentina: una aproximación a la coyuntura desde las políticas estatales. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 56(2), 339–352. 10.1590/1806-9479.2019.191195 [CrossRef]
76. Jarosz, L. (2011). Defining world hunger: scale and neoliberal ideology in international food security policy discourse. Food, Culture & Society, 14(1), 117–139. 10.2752/175174411X12810842291308 [CrossRef]
77. Jobert, B. Y., & Muller P. (1987). L’Etat en action: politiques publiques et corporatismes. Presses universitaires de France.
78. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown.
79. Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009) Food policy: integrating health, environment and society. Oxford University Press.
80. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2012). A ação pública abordada pelos seus instrumentos. Revista Pós Ciências Sociais, 9(18), 19–43. http://www​.periodicoseletronicos​.ufma.br/index​.php/rpcsoc/article/view/1331
81. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). Como as democracias morrem [How democracies die] (R. Aguiar, Trans.). Zahar.
82. Linhares, M. Y. L. (1979). História do Abastecimento: uma problemática em questão (1530–1918). Binagri.
83. Linhares, M. Y. L., & Silva, F. C. T. (1979). História política do abastecimento (1918–1974). Binagri.
84. Mahoney, J. (2001). Path-dependent explanations of regime change: Central America in comparative perspective. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1): 111–141. 10.1007/BF02687587 [CrossRef]
85. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In Mahoney, J., & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511806414.003 [CrossRef]
86. Maldonado, E. F. (2016). Impactos de los acuerdos comerciales internacionales adoptados por el Estado peruano en el cumplimiento y promoción de los derechos humanos en el Perú. RedGE.
87. Marques, P. E. M., & Moal, M. F. L. (2014). Le Programme d’Acquisition d’Aliments (PAA) au Brésil: l’agriculture locale et familiale au cœur de l’action publique en vue de la sécurité alimentaire. VertigO-la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement, 14(1). https://id​.erudit.org/iderudit/1027951ar
88. Martinelli, S. S., Cortese, R. D. M., & Cavalli, S. B. (2020). Contribuições de guias alimentares para uma alimentação saudável e sustentável. In Preiss, P. V., Schneider, S., & G. Coelho De Souza (Eds.), A contribuição brasileira à segurança alimentar e nutricional sustentável (pp. 53–68). UFRGS. https://www​.ufrgs.br​/agrifood/images/2020​/07-julho/001115755.pdf
89. Martinez, J. Z., Ramírez, A. M., Zamora, R. G. L., & Rodríguez, M. L. H. (2017). Política agrícola neoliberal: el caso del programa de modernización sustentable de la agricultura tradicional en Tlaxcala. Globalización: Revista Mensual de Economía, Sociedad y Cultura, Mayo. http://rcci​.net/globalizacion​/2017/fg2955.htm
90. Martinez-Lomeli, L. (2020). «Manger dehors» dans les villes de Mexico et de Guadalajara: de quelques tensions entre les dimensions sanitaires et patrimoniales au Mexique. In Soula A., Yount-André C., Lepiller O., & N. Bricas (Eds.), Manger en ville: regards socio-anthropologiques d’Afrique, d’Amérique latine et d’Asie (pp. 57–69). Quae. 10.35690/978-2-7592-3091-4 [CrossRef]
91. Mathé, T., Pilorin, T., Hébel, P., & Denizeau, M. (2008). Du discours nutritionnel aux représentations de l’alimentation (Cahier de recherche n. 252). CRÉDOC, Centre de Recherche pour l’Étude et l’Observation des Conditions de Vie. https://www​.credoc.fr​/publications/du-discours-nutritionnel-aux-representations-de-lalimentation
92. Matta, R. (2012). El patrimonio culinario peruano ante UNESCO: algunas reflexiones de gastropolítica (Working Paper Series n. 28). desiguALdades​.net Research Network on Interdependent Inequalities in Latin America. 10.17169/refubium-23227 [CrossRef]
93. McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 139–169. 10.1080/03066150902820354 [CrossRef]
94. McMichael, P. (2016). Regimes alimentares e questões agrarias. Editora da Unesp/Editora da UFRGS.
95. MERCOSUR/REAF (Reunión Especializada sobre Agricultura Familiar). (2014). Sellos de identificación de la agricultura familiar (Mercosur/CMC/Rec. Nº 02/2014). http://www​.reafmercosul​.org/biblioteca-reaf
96. Montoya, L. M. A., & Giraldo, F. A. F. (2012). Significado de la alimentación y del complemento alimentario MANA en un grupo de hogares de Turbo, Colombia. Perspectivas en Nutrición Humana, 14(2), 171–183. https://revistas​.udea​.edu.co/index.php/nutricion​/article/download/16487/14311/
97. Moraes, J. G., & Pires, M. L. L. S. (2019). Agricultura familiar e mercados atacadistas: dinâmicas sociais da Central de Comercialização da Agricultura Familiar (Cecaf/Ceasa) em Recife–Pernambuco. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 57(2), 309–325. 10.1590/1806-9479.2019.181152 [CrossRef]
98. Muller, P. (1995). Les politiques publiques comme construction d’un rapport au monde. In Faure, A., Pollet, G., & P. Warin (Eds.), La construction du sens dans les politiques publiques. Débats autour de la notion de référentiel (pp. 153–179). L’Harmattan.
99. Muller, P. (2019). Référentiel. In Boussaguet, L., Jacquot, S., & P. Ravinet (Eds.), Dictionnaire des politiques publiques (pp. 533–540). Presses de Sciences Po. 10.3917/scpo.bouss.2019.01.0533 [CrossRef]
100. Niederle, P. A. (Ed.). (2013). Indicações geográficas: qualidade e origem nos mercados alimentares. UFRGS.
101. Niederle, P., & Wesz, Jr., V. J. (2020). Agrifood system transitions in Brazil: new food orders. Routledge.
102. Observatorio Feria Libre. (2013). Características económicas y sociales de ferias libres de Chile: encuesta nacional de ferias libres. Proyecto de Cooperación Técnica FAO-ODEPA-ASOF TCP CHI/3303. https://www​.fao.org/3/as114s/as114s.pdf
103. Paraguay, UTGS (Unidad Técnica del Gabinete Social). (2018) Programa Alimentario Nutricional Integral (PANI). https:​//gabinetesocial​.gov.py/archivos/documentos​/PANI-docu-eva_uhfqt18i.pdf
104. Paré, F. (2012). Pour la sécurité alimentaire: restaurer la responsabilité d’État. Revue internationale de droit économique, 26(4), 87–97. 10.3917/ride.258.0087 [CrossRef]
105. Parrado Barbosa, A., & Molina Ochoa, J. P. (2014). Mercados campesinos: modelo de acceso a mercados y seguridad alimentaria en al región central de Colombia. OXFAM, Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
106. Patrouilleau, M. M., Taraborrelli, D., & Alonso, I. (2018). La trayectoria de la “agricultura familiar” en la agenda agroalimentaria Argentina y las rigideces de la política nacional. Raízes: Revista de Ciências Sociais e Econômicas, 38(1), 22–35. 10.37370/raizes.2018.v38.36 [CrossRef]
107. Peru, Comisión Multisectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional. (2013). Estrategia nacional de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional 2013–2021. Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego. https://siteal​.iiep.unesco​.org/sites/default​/files/sit_accion_files​/estrategia_nacional​_de_seguridad​_alimentaria_2013-2021.pdf
108. Peru, CEPLAN (Centro Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico). (2012) Gastronomía peruana al 2021: lineamentos para un programa de desarrollo de la gastronomía peruana en el marco del Plan Bicentenário (2nd ed.). https://www​.ceplan.gob​.pe/wp-content/uploads​/files/Documentos​/gastronomiaperuana.pdf
109. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. 10.2307/2586011 [CrossRef]
110. Pinto, M., Ticona, J. F., & Rojas, W. (2016). Bolivia: Bancos comunitários de semillas en el área del Lago Titicaca (A. Walter, Trans.). In Vernooy, R., Shrestha, P., Sthapit, B., & M. Ramírez (Eds.), Bancos comunitarios de semillas: orígenes, evolución y perspectivas (pp. 74–79). Bioversity International. (Original work published 2015). https://www​.bioversityinternational​.org/fileadmin​/user_upload​/BANCOS_COMUNITARIOS​_DE_SEMILLAS_Vernooy.pdf
111. Porras, F. I. E., Villalobos, R. A., Fonseca, J. C. H., & Umaña, K. M. (2016). Costa Rica: Unión de Semilleros del Sur (A. Walter, Trans.). In Vernooy, R., Shrestha, P., Sthapit, B., & M. Ramírez (Eds.), Bancos comunitarios de semillas: orígenes, evolución y perspectivas (pp. 99–103). Bioversity International. (Original work published 2015). https://www​.bioversityinternational​.org/fileadmin​/user_upload​/BANCOS_COMUNITARIOS​_DE_SEMILLAS_Vernooy.pdf
112. Portilho, F. (2020). Ativismo alimentar e consumo político – duas gerações de ativismo alimentar no Brasil. Redes, 25(2), 411–432. 10.17058/redes.v25i2.15088 [CrossRef]
113. Poulain, J. P. (2011). La gastronomisation des cuisines de terroir: sociologie d’un retournement de perspective. In Adell, N., & Y. Pourcher, Transmettre, quel(s) patrimoine(s)? Autour du Patrimoine Culturel Immatériel (pp. 239–248). Michel Houdiard Editions.
114. Preiss, P. V., & Schneider, S. (Eds.). (2020). Sistemas alimentares no século XXI: debates contemporâneos. UFRGS. https://www​.lume.ufrgs​.br/bitstream/handle​/10183/211399/001115756.pdf
115. Pretty, J. (2020). New opportunities for the redesign of agricultural and food systems. Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 629–630. 10.1007/s10460-020-10056-2 [PMC free article: PMC7232607] [PubMed: 32427207] [CrossRef]
116. Rebaï, N., Bilhaut, A-G., De Suremain, C-E., Katz, E., & Paredes, M. (Eds.). (2021). Patrimonios alimentarios en América Latina: recursos locales, actores y globalización. IFEA/IRD.
117. Repetto, F. (2005). La dimensión política de la coordinación de programas y políticas sociales: una aproximación teórica y algunas referencias prácticas en América Latina. In F. Repetto (Ed.), La gerencia social ante los nuevos retos del desarrollo social en América Latina (pp. 39–100). MagnaTerra Editores. https:​//publications​.iadb.org/publications​/spanish/document/La-gerencia-social-ante-los-nuevos-retos-del-desarrollo-social-en-América-Latina.pdf
118. Repetto, F., & Fernandez, J. P. (2012). Coordinacion de políticas, programas y proyectos sociales. Fundación CIPPEC. https://www​.cippec.org​/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2425.pdf
119. Requier-Desjardins, D. (1999). Agroindustria rural y sistemas agroalimentarios localizados: cuales puestas. In Riveros, H., Salas, I., & S. Mazzotti (Eds.), Revista conmemorativa por el X Aniversario de Prodar, IICA, CIID, CIRAD, CIAT.
120. Ribeiro, H., Jaime, P. C., & Ventura, D. (2017). Alimentação e sustentabilidade. Estudos avançados, 31, 185–198. 10.1590/s0103-40142017.31890016 [CrossRef]
121. Riella, A., & Mascheroni, P. (2015). Gobiernos progresistas, politicas públicas y organizaciones agrarias en Uruguay. Revista IDeAS – Interfaces em Desenvolvimento, Agricultura e Sociedade, 9(2), 98–128. https:​//revistaideas​.ufrrj.br/ojs/index.php​/ideas/article/view/138
122. Rios, F. D. C., & Wesz, Jr., V. J. (2020). Agricultura familiar campesina y cadenas cortas agroalimentarias: la Feria Municipal de Yuty-Caazapá (Paraguay). Interações (Campo Grande), 21(4), 903–914. 10.20435/inter.v21i4.2815 [CrossRef]
123. Riveros, H., Vandecandelaere, E., Tartanac, F., Ruiz, C., & Pancorbo, G. (Eds.). (2008). Calidad de los alimentos vinculada al origen y las tradiciones en América Latina: estudio de casos. FAO-IICA. https://www​.fao.org/3/au691s/au691s.pdf
124. Rocha, C. (2020). Impactos à saúde humana causados pelos sistemas alimentares. In Preiss, P. V., Schneider, S., & G. Coelho De Souza (Eds.), A contribuição brasileira à segurança alimentar e nutricional sustentável (pp. 27–52). UFRGS. https://www​.ufrgs.br​/agrifood/images/2020​/07-julho/001115755.pdf
125. Rockström, J., Edenhofer, O., Gärtner, J., & DeClerck, F. (2020). Planet-proofing the global food system. Nature Food, 1(1), 3–5. 10.1038/s43016-019-0010-4 [CrossRef]
126. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Westview Press.
127. Sabourin, E., Craviotti, C., & Milhorance, C. (2020). The dismantling of family farming policies in Brazil and Argentina. International Review of Public Policy, 2(2:1), 45–67. 10.4000/irpp.799 [CrossRef]
128. Sabourin, E., Grisa, C., Niederle, P., Leite, S., Milhorance, C., Ferreira, A., Sauer S., & Andriguetto-Filho, J. (2020). Le démantèlement des politiques publiques rurales et environnementales au Brésil. Cahiers Agricultures, 29, Article 31. 10.1051/cagri/2020029 [CrossRef]
129. Sabourin, E., Samper, M., & Sotomayor, O. (Eds.) (2015). Políticas públicas y agriculturas familiares en América Latina y el Caribe: nuevas perspectivas. IICA. https://agritrop​.cirad.fr/578797/
130. Sánchez, K. S. V., Santos, R. G., & Aragón-Cuevas, F. (2016). Bancos comunitarios de semillas en México: una estrategia de conservación in situ (A. Walter, Trans.). In Vernooy, R., Shrestha, P., Sthapit, B., & M. Ramírez (Eds.), Bancos comunitarios de semillas: orígenes, evolución y perspectivas (pp. 248–254). Bioversity International. (Original work published 2015). https://www​.bioversityinternational​.org/fileadmin​/user_upload​/BANCOS_COMUNITARIOS​_DE_SEMILLAS_Vernooy.pdf
131. Sánchez, V. S., & Silva, C. V. (2018). El impacto de la nueva ley de etiquetados de alimentos en la venta de productos en Chile. Perfiles Económicos, 3, 7–33. 10.22370/rpe.2017.3.1218 [CrossRef]
132. Schubert, M. N., & Ávalos, D. E. (2020). Sistemas alimentarios globales y ley de etiquetado de alimentos en Chile. Redes. Revista do Desenvolvimento Regional, 25(2), 527–544. 10.17058/redes.v25i2.14850 [CrossRef]
133. SEGOB (Secretaría de Gobernación). 2019. México. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2019-2024. http://www​.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle​.php?codigo​=5565599&fecha=12/07/2019
134. Sierra, P. L. (2018). MasAgro: modernizando la agricultura tradicional en tiempos neoliberais. CECCAM – Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano. https://ceccam​.org/sites​/default/files/Folleto​%20MasAgro%20digital.pdf
135. Sonnino, R., Callenius, C., Lähteenmäki, L., Breda, J., Cahill, J., Caron, P., Damianova, Z., Gurinovic, M. A., Lang, T., Laperriere, A., Mango, C., Ryder, J., Verburg, G., Achterbosch, T., den Boer, A. C. L., Kok, K. P. W., Regeer, B. J., Broerse, J. E. W., Cesuroglu, T., & Gill M. (2020). Research and innovation supporting the farm to fork strategy of the European Commission (Policy brief 3). FIT4FOOD2030. https:​//fit4food2030​.eu/wp-content/uploads​/2020/04/FIT4FOOD2030-Research-and-Innovation-supporting-the-Farm-to-Fork-Strategy-of-the-European-Commission-Policy-Brief.pdf
136. Sonnino, R., Spayde, J., & Ashe, L. (2016). Políticas públicas e a construção de mercados: percepções a partir de iniciativas de merenda escolar. In Marques, F.C., Conterato, M.A., & S. Schneider (Eds.), Construção de mercados e agricultura familiar: desafios para o desenvolvimento rural (pp. 311–330). UFRGS.
137. Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L., de Vries, W., Vermeulen, S. J., Herrero, M., Carlson, K. M., Jonell, M., Troell, M., DeClerck, F., Gordon, L. J., Zurayk, R., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Loken, B., Fanzo, B., … Willett, W. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519–525. 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0 [PubMed: 30305731] [CrossRef]
138. Stassart, P. M. (2010). Le rôle des “consommateurs” dans la construction d’un accord entre agriculteurs et environnementalistes. In Encontro da Rede de Estudos Rurais, 4, Anais eletrônicos. UFPR.
139. Swinburn, B. A., Kraak, V. I., Allender, S., Atkins, V. J., Baker, P. I., Bogard, J. R., Brinsden, H., Calvillo, A., De Schutter, O., Devarajan, R., Ezzati, M., Friel, S., Goenka, S., Hammond, R. A., Hastings, G., Hawkes, C., Herrero, M., Hovmand, P. S., … Dietz, W. H. (2019). The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission report. The Lancet, 393(10173), 791–846. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32822-8 [PubMed: 30700377] [CrossRef]
140. Takeuti, D., & Oliveira, J. M. (2013). Para além dos aspectos nutricionais: uma visão ambiental do sistema alimentar. Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, 20(2), 194–203. 10.20396/san.v20i2.8634597 [CrossRef]
141. Tanaka, J., & Portilho, F. (2019). Ambiguidades da politização do consumo: O caso do Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores (MPA) na cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Raízes, 39(2), 344–358. 10.37370/raizes.2019.v39.114 [CrossRef]
142. Taraborrelli, D. (2017). Políticas públicas rurales y modelos de desarollo em Argentina. El Programa Cambio Rural entre 1993 y 2015. Estudios Sociales del Estado, 3(5), 164–188.
143. Triches, R. M. (2020). Dietas saudáveis e sustentáveis no âmbito do sistema alimentar no século XXI. Saúde em Debate, 44(126), 881–894. 10.1590/0103-1104202012622 [CrossRef]
144. Vernooy, R., Shrestha, P., & Sthapit, B. (2016). Las valiosas pero poco conocidas crónicas de los bancos comunitarios de semillas (A. Walter, Trans.). In Vernooy, R., Shrestha, P., Sthapit, B., & M. Ramírez (Eds.), Bancos comunitarios de semillas: orígenes, evolución y perspectivas (pp. 1–9). Bioversity International. (Original work published 2015). https://www​.bioversityinternational​.org/fileadmin​/user_upload​/BANCOS_COMUNITARIOS​_DE_SEMILLAS_Vernooy.pdf
145. Webb, P., Benton, T. G., Beddington, J., Flynn, D., Kelly, N. M., & Thomas, S. M. (2020). The urgency of food system transformation is now irrefutable. Nature Food, 1, 584–585. 10.1038/s43016-020-00161-0 [PubMed: 37128102] [CrossRef]
146. Wesz, Jr., V. J. (2021). O Pronaf pós-2014: intensificando a sua seletividade? Revista Grifos, 30(51). 10.22295/grifos.v30i51.5353 [CrossRef]
147. Wesz, Jr., V. J., & Grisa, C. (2017). O Estado e a soja no Brasil: a atuação do crédito rural de custeio (1999–2015). In Maluf, R., & G. Flexor (Eds.), Questões agrárias, agrícolas e rurais: conjunturas e políticas públicas (pp. 97–111). E-papers. http://oppa​.net.br/livros​/Questoes_agrarias​_agricolas_e_rurais-Renato​_Maluf-Georges_Flexor.pdf
148. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L. J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J., De Vries, W., Sibanda, L. M., … Murray, C. J. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 [PubMed: 30660336] [CrossRef]
149. World Food Programme. (2013). El estado de la alimentación escolar a nivel mundo [State of school feeding worldwide]. https://www​.wfp.org/publications​/state-school-feeding-worldwide-2013
150. Zaneti, T. B. (2017). Cozinha de raiz: relaciones entre chefs, productores y consumidores a través del uso de productos agroalimentarios únicos en la gastronomía contemporánea [Doctoral dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul]. UFRGS Digital Repository. http://hdl​.handle.net/10183/164708.

Catia Grisa. Professor of the postgraduate programs in rural development (PGDR) and regional dynamics and development (PGDREDES) at the Universidade Federal de Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil. moc.liamg@sgrfuasirgaitac

Paulo Niederle. Professor of the postgraduate programs in sociology (PPGS) and rural development (PGDR) de la Universidade Federal de Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Researcher at the National Scientific and Technological Research Council (CNPq), Brazil. moc.liamg@elredeinoluap

Stéphane Guéneau. Researcher at the French agricultural research and international cooperation organization working for the sustainable development of tropical and Mediterranean regions (CIRAD), Joint Research Unit UMR MoISA (Montpellier Interdisciplinary center on Sustainable Agrifood systems), Montpellier, France. rf.daric@uaeneug.enahpets

Jean-François Le Coq. Researcher at the French agricultural research and international cooperation organization working for the sustainable development of tropical and Mediterranean regions (CIRAD), member of the Joint Research Unit UMR-ART-Dev (Actors, Resources and Territories in Development), and visiting researcher at Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Cali, Colombia. rf.daric@qocelfj; gro.raigc@qocel.fj

Clara Craviotti. Researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Argentina; professor of the Agricultural Social Studies Master’s Program at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO). ra.vog.tecinoc@ittoivarc.c

Graciela Borrás. Researcher in economics and rural sociology, Agricultural Experimental Station in Balcarce (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria – INTA). Professor, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina. ra.bog.atni@aleicarg.sarrob

Daniel Campos R.D. Professor and researcher at the Instituto de Posgrado en Desarrollo (IPD) and Sociedad de Estudios Rurales y Cultura Popular (SER), Paraguay. yp.gro.res@sopmacleinad

Héctor Ávila-Sánchez. Researcher at the Regional Center for Multidisciplinary Research and professor of undergraduate and graduate geography, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. xm.manu@rotceha

Sandrine Freguin-Gresh. Researcher, French agricultural research and international cooperation organization working for the sustainable development of tropical and Mediterranean regions (CIRAD), Joint Research Unit UMR ART-Dev (Actors, Resources and Territories in Development), Montpellier, France. rf.daric@niugerf

Junior Miranda Scheuer. Assistent profesor at the Faculty of Agronomy, Universidad de la República (UDELAR), Montevideo, Uruguay. moc.liamg@rjreuehcs

Jorge Albarracin. Researcher-professor of the postgraduate degree program in development sciences (CIDES), Universidad Mayor de San Andrés (UMSA). Coordinator of the PhD program in rural development sciences, Bolivia. moc.liamg@rekednicarrablaj; ob.ude.sedic@nicarrablaegroj