On top of this, we also must continue fighting against the privatization of our oceans and protecting them as a public commons — read more in our toolkit!

True sustainability requires looking at the full picture. It is clear that vegan diets can lead to dramatic reductions in emissions and biodiversity loss. But if people following these diets don’t eat diverse protein sources like beans and legumes, they can also rely on crops – like soy – that are grown unsustainably. And in terms of animal agriculture, animal products differ in how much they affect the environment, while organic methods and regenerative grazing can reduce their climate change impacts.

For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples and other traditional land stewards around the world have fed their communities while also enriching soils, protecting water, and helping other species to thrive. But through the colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia over the past 500 years, white Europeans have sought to replace these systems with private property ownership and exploit land, water, and other beings as resources. In the US, white colonizers have stolen the land collectively stewarded by Indigenous peoples, bringing it under intensive cultivation systems that have released huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Through colonization, genocide, and enslavement, white landowners and corporations have come to control the majority of land and property, while creating laws and structures that prohibit others from accessing it. They have reaped profits and generational wealth by taking land that was made fertile through generations of care by Indigenous peoples, and by enslaving or underpaying those who worked, or work, the land. This system is based on extraction: the exploitation of working people, the depletion of soil and water, the use of fossil fuels, and the widespread theft of land. 

We cannot transition to sustainable and regenerative food systems without the return of land to Indigenous people and other land stewards. In many cultures, land is viewed not as a resource to be exploited, but as relations and kin. And it is often stewarded collectively, considering the diverse needs of human and ecological communities – not through private forms of ownership that can intensify resource exploitation and land degradation. Increased land access for people of color enables those who have long relationships of care with the land to recover cultural traditions and implement practices that restore soils and repair landscapes. At the same time, we need policies and programs to strengthen land tenure, to ensure that people can invest money and time in their farms without facing threats of eviction or removal. This is why many groups are currently pushing for the Justice for Black Farmers Act, recognition and support for heirs’ property, and movements for Land Back to Indigenous peoples. When done in more transformative ways, the return of land can also move away from destructive Euro-American frameworks of private ownership, democratizing food production and stewardship and protecting the rights of water bodies, land, and other beings in our ecosystems.

Technology enthusiasts often suggest that new innovations can solve problems in our food system. They suggest that these technologies can reduce the use of land, water, and chemicals and can make farming more efficient and productive. Technology is political. Decision-makers weigh the dangers and benefits of creating or using a given technology, and they determine who owns it and how people can access it. When politicians allow corporations to make these decisions, technology ends up serving the interests of the wealthy few, rather than benefiting all of us and the earth.  

Let’s take a closer look at a few of the commonly proposed technological solutions in agriculture:

• Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms whose DNA has been altered in a lab to produce certain traits. GMOs go against many communities’ cultural values and the important role of native and heirloom crop varieties in food sovereignty and self-determination, especially among Indigenous peoples around the world. They have also been a source of intense scientific debate. Although these debates are numerous and complex, it is worth noting a few key findings. Studies have shown that GMOs often do not have higher yields than conventional or organic crops. Most GMO crops are destined as feed for factory-farmed animals, and they are grown in industrial agriculture systems that are bad for soil health and wider sustainability. GMOs can also contaminate non-GMO and organic crops. And farms that grow GMOs often end up applying more chemical herbicides. Furthermore, a handful of agribusiness corporations and labs produce and sell GMOs. This takes more control over seeds away from farmers and communities, while further reducing the variety of seeds and foods that we can grow. As we confront the realities of climate change, it is essential to have access to diverse heritage seeds, including those that are adapted to drought, flooding, or extreme heat.
  
  
• Biodigesters (also known as methane digesters or anaerobic digesters) convert animal manure into fuel and fertilizer. To function properly, biodigesters need huge amounts of manure and additional materials. Because of this, they are mostly suitable for very large farms, like concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), aka “factory farms.” (Learn more about the problems with CAFOs and efforts to eliminate them!) Rather than solving the climate crisis, biodigesters can actually release more toxins and greenhouse gases into our air. When the government provides funding support for these expensive systems, this can take away from proven solutions among small-scale growers and growers of color. Biodigesters can contribute to sustainability if used on community-run or collective farms for which they are appropriately scaled. Some community groups and large institutions (like universities) have already installed and operate biodigesters. 
  
  
• Digital agriculture refers to the use of technologies like Artificial Intelligence, drones, Blockchain, and software applications and platforms to digitize various aspects of food production. A key element of this is precision agriculture. Precision agriculture uses geospatial data, automation, and software to monitor field conditions on site. Some people claim that these technologies will make agriculture more sustainable by allowing for more precise doses of fertilizers and pesticides and better resource management. However, many of these technologies come with other problems. While larger operators with more money and infrastructure can take advantage of these innovations, they are too expensive and impractical for most farmers. In addition, some technologies rely on big data and algorithms to make farming decisions, devaluing farmers’ knowledge and skills. Through these technologies, corporations and data managers are able to collect huge amounts of data about farmers’ practices and land. They can often then sell that data to other corporations, insurance companies, or banks. This raises concerns about privacy, data ownership, and implications for credit and land tenure. From an environmental perspective, digital agriculture relies on massive data centers and other technologies that have very high levels of emissions and other environmental impacts. When used in very specific ways aligned with food sovereignty principles, some digital technologies can benefit small-scale growers and contribute to sustainable and regenerative practices. For example, many farmers and community groups use GPS and other digital technologies to advance land rights. 
  
  
• Vertical farming uses stacked layers to grow food (and sometimes even raise fish) in indoor environments, like warehouses. In the early 2000s, some community groups used  vertical farms to produce healthy food without requiring large tracts of land. This is especially important in urban areas and reclaimed brownfield sites where the land itself may contain toxins from past industrial activity. But in recent years, corporations, tech start-ups, and investors have been creating high-tech, AI-run vertical farms that require vast greenhouses and artificial lighting – all of which requires a lot of energy. In these cases, vertical farming is not socially, economically, or environmentally sustainable. Many of these vertical farms are already starting to go bankrupt. Additionally, vertical farming does nothing to improve the quality of soil and is limited in its ability to provide other ecosystem benefits.
  
  

We have already seen the negative effects of relying on technology alone to solve social problems. From the 1940s to the 1980s, the Green Revolution promised to end hunger in Asia and Latin America through chemical inputs, new crop varieties, irrigation systems, and mechanization. But as a result of the Green Revolution, farmers found their water and soils contaminated with toxic chemicals, and cancer rates have skyrocketed. Privately-owned seeds squeezed out Indigenous crop varieties, reducing diversity in what people grew and ate. Larger and more privileged farmers took over land from small farmers (especially women and marginalized racial or ethnic groups) who could not afford expensive inputs. Farmers have been forced to go into debt, paying more and more for inputs. In India, debt-related farmer suicide rates have increased as a result of the Green Revolution. And in many cases, even when more food was produced, it remained inaccessible to many people who needed it.

We must remember that technology is never value-neutral. At present, many technological innovations serve the billionaires and corporations who design them, sell them, and use them to collect data. For new technologies to advance sustainability and benefit the people who grow our food, we need to ask tough questions about who owns them (and their data), what purposes they’re serving, and whether and how they can advance food sovereignty and liberation.

The US government (and other governments and institutions) have created new initiatives around climate-smart agriculture (CSA). CSA groups together a lot of practices that claim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase agricultural resilience. Some CSA projects are supportive of small-scale and BIPOC growers, agroecology, and sustainability. But others promote carbon markets (which do not work) or high-tech solutions unavailable to most of the people who grow our food. 

It is important to ensure that projects and funding sources are behaving in ethical ways. USDA has not been very transparent about its spending on CSA and often doesn’t have the resources to adequately monitor benefits. Other groups have found that much of the existing CSA funding has not actually gone to farmers using sustainable practices. CSA support should go to true climate solutions, led by small- and mid-scale growers and local communities.

There are many different terms – like sustainable, regenerative, and agroecological – that describe farming practices that nurture and care for land, air, and water. Although many of these terms have been created fairly recently (often by white activists or academics), food growers of the global majority have grown and caught food this way for thousands of years. 

Sustainable agriculture refers to farming practices that ensure that future generations of people and other species can thrive. The term was coined in the 1970s and has since become mainstream. It is used widely by nonprofits, farmers, and government agencies. However, many corporations also use the term to greenwash their activities. (Greenwashing is when corporations use images and narratives that make them seem environmentally friendly, even though they still engage in destructive practices). 

Some people prefer the term regenerative agriculture, which moves beyond simply sustaining food production. Regenerative agriculture is about farming in ways that restore and care for the land, soil, water, and other beings. Indigenous peoples and other land stewards hold worldviews and ethics that have always been regenerative. These communities practice care for multiple generations and diverse species. In many cases, they also hold deep ancestral and sacred connections to specific places and regions. These worldviews go hand in hand with the use of farming methods that create and maintain healthy soils and ecosystems. Indigenous, Black, and farmers of color have been central in shaping the practice of regenerative agriculture. But the regenerative agriculture movement has often excluded them and has failed to sufficiently address discrimination, land tenure, and systemic racism. To address these issues, many organizations and foundations are now working to support the decision-making power of Black, Indigenous, and farmers of color and uplift their long-standing leadership in regenerative agriculture.

Agroecology means modeling farms and fisheries on ecological processes and social principles. People who use agroecology observe and learn from their local ecosystems, and they grow food in harmony with other beings. Agroecology also emphasizes social principles like fairness and participation in decision-making. Although the term agroecology was only created in the 1970s, small-scale farmers, ranchers, and fishers around the world have employed these practices and principles for thousands of years. 

Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) refers to local and Indigenous knowledge, practices, and beliefs. TEK is held by people who are materially and spiritually integrated with land and who have long histories of attentiveness to the landscape. It is important in agriculture and food production, but can also be applied more widely to other issues in environmental stewardship.

There is no single correct term to use across the board. All of these terms and frameworks can be (and are) used by food growers, activists, and allies to build collective power for non-extractive and racially-just agricultural models. At the same time, none of these terms is completely free of problems. Corporations, politicians, and white activists have already co-opted many of them, profiting off of locally-grounded and Indigenous knowledge while erasing the holders of this  knowledge. The terms themselves are less important than the specific practices and frameworks that they describe, the goals in using them, and who is included in the conversation. 

There are also many food growers around the world who don’t use any of these terms, but still employ practices that nurture ecological and human relationships.

Thanks to many years of organizing and policy advocacy, the US government now provides more financial, research, and technical support for sustainable agriculture. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a number of programs for doing this, including the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, the National Organic Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), among others. For Native food growers, support is also available through the Office of Tribal Relations. Funding for these programs is determined by the farm bill, passed by Congress every five years. (Learn more about HEAL’s work on the farm bill!) 

We also need a clear, centralized government agency to support sustainable fisheries. For example, we could have an independent National Seafood Council that represents and includes small-scale and community-based fishers. In the meantime, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) must use its existing resources to support community-based fishers and seafood businesses – starting with the $2.6 billion it received through the Inflation Reduction Act. At present, these groups can apply for grants through the NOAA Saltonstall-Kennedy grant and the USDA Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP). 

In addition to government sources, there are progressive philanthropies that support sustainable agriculture. The Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Funders network is a good place to start when researching foundations that provide this kind of support. 

Food growers can also benefit from engaging with existing peer networks, or creating their own. Through these kinds of networks, growers can exchange information, socialize, and learn from each other. These networks include (but are not limited to) regional networks like the Northeast Farmers of Color Land Trust, Midwest Farmers of Color Collective, and Southeastern African American Farmers’ Organic Network; agricultural collectives like the Agri-Cultura Cooperative Network; and national networks like National Black Food and Justice Alliance, HEAL, and the North American Marine Alliance.

Learn more from our members working on these issues! See the resources list below for a list of publications, trainings, and funding opportunities. 

Help us fight for policy change! HEAL Food Alliance and our members are pushing for policy change to support small-scale, BIPOC-led solutions, and we’d love your support on current initiatives! Even with increased government support for ecological practices in recent years, this is still a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the money supporting industrial agriculture. In order to make a big shift to sustainable food production, we need Congress to increase and expand funding for USDA sustainable agriculture programs. We need additional grant funding for sustainable growers. We need more research funding for agroecology and Indigenous food production methods. We need policies that ensure that BIPOC land stewards can access and remain on their land. And we need the federal government to recognize and fund Traditional Ecological Knowledge, including in the farm bill. At the same time, we have to push for policies that discourage and penalize harmful farming practices – see more about our and our partners’ work on this here! And we have to ensure that well-intentioned policies don’t end up hurting the people they’re meant to help. For example, the Food Safety Modernization Act has ended up hurting small farmers using ecological practices and integrating animal and crop growing, instead of targeting factory farms whose practices are more dangerous for public health and food safety. 

You can help us take action on current policy issues — find out how you can get involved here! 

Support local growers using sustainable practices, by donating in support of our member organizations [link to members list below] and using your voice and your vote in line with our demands. You can also consider contributing money, land, or other resources in support of the return of land to Indigenous peoples, who have stewarded land sustainably for many generations. (Some Native Nations and Tribes offer opportunities for settlers to pay land taxes or donate land.)