Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 May 22.
Published in final edited form as: Health Promot Pract. 2023 Nov;24(6):1117–1123. doi: 10.1177/15248399231190362

Framing an Indigenous Food Sovereignty Research Agenda

Cassandra J Nguyen 1, Rachel E Wilbur 2, Austin Henderson 3, Jennifer Sowerwine 4, Megan Mucioki 5, Daniel Sarna-Wojcicki 4, Gary L Ferguson 3, Tara L Maudrie 6, Harleigh Moore-Wilson 7, Kyle Wark 8, Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan 9
PMCID: PMC12097726  NIHMSID: NIHMS2082047  PMID: 37877643

Abstract

Access to healthy and appealing food is essential for individuals to be able to live a healthy and quality life. For decades, food security has been a priority issue for public health professionals. Food sovereignty expands upon the concept of food insecurity (i.e., having access to nutritious and culturally relevant food) by incorporating people’s rights to define their own food system. The expanded focus of food sovereignty on food systems prioritizes public health professionals’ role in supporting environmental- and systems-level initiatives and evaluating their implications for health, economics, and the natural environment. Food sovereignty is of particular importance for Indigenous peoples (i.e., American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities). Colonization had demonstrable consequences, with many Indigenous communities being forcibly relocated from traditional lands, alongside the destruction of traditional food sources. Indigenous food sovereignty aligns with the sovereign nation status that American Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities have with the United States. Furthermore, the worldviews that incorporate Indigenous communities’ relational responsibilities to care for their food systems, according to their traditional practices and beliefs (Coté, 2016; Morrison, 2011), uniquely positions Indigenous peoples to lead food sovereignty initiatives. In this article, we explore what is currently known regarding food sovereignty and health. We then discuss opportunities to expand the evidence on Indigenous food sovereignty’s relationships with (1) health and well being, (2) economics, (3) the natural environment, and (4) programming facilitators and barriers.

Keywords: food sovereignty, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, health equity, environmental health, traditional Indigenous knowledge, climate change, chronic disease, community based participatory research

Access to healthy and appealing food is essential for individuals to be able to live a healthy and quality life. For decades, food security has been a priority issue for public health professionals. Food sovereignty expands upon the concept of food security (i.e., having access to nutritious and culturally relevant food) by incorporating people’s rights to define their own food system. The expanded focus of food sovereignty on food systems prioritizes public health professionals’ role in supporting environmental- and systems-level initiatives and evaluating their implications for health, economics, and the natural environment.

Food sovereignty is of particular importance for Indigenous peoples of the United States (i.e., American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities). Colonization had demonstrable consequences, with many Indigenous communities being forcibly relocated from traditional lands, alongside the destruction of traditional food sources (Gurney et al., 2015), and involuntary reliance on historically sub-standard commodities (Mucioki et al., 2018). Indigenous food sovereignty aligns with the sovereign nation status that American Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities have with the United States. Furthermore, the worldviews that incorporate Indigenous communities’ relational responsibilities to care for their food systems, according to their traditional practices and beliefs (Coté, 2016; Morrison, 2011), uniquely positions Indigenous peoples to lead food sovereignty initiatives.

WHAT DO WE kNOW AbOUT INDIGENOUS FOOD SOVEREIGNTY?

Indigenous food sovereignty has grassroots origins, existing long before colonialism, with community members developing and leading programs to address their communities’ priorities. As initiatives grew, various conferences and summits have been hosted where leaders shared lessons learned with other interested communities. In response, many Native American organizations have offered funding opportunities and provided materials and resources online. In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the Indigenous Food Sovereignty Initiative as a new hub for resources to support activities nationwide.

Despite growing activity related to Indigenous food sovereignty, published literature documenting U.S.-based programs, their development, and their outcomes are limited. In recent years, a handful of smaller scale or case studies, essays, and qualitative investigations have provided a foundational description of Indigenous food sovereignty conceptualization and programming (Angnaboogok, 2019; Bird Jernigan et al., 2019; Hilchey, 2019; Jernigan et al., 2021; Martens et al., 2016; Maudrie et al., 2021). The articles presented in this focus issue of Health Promotion Practice expand on this foundation to discuss recent work that illustrate the ways in which Indigenous food sovereignty supports community health. Yet there remain many opportunities to grow within this research area. In this article, opportunities to expand the evidence on Indigenous food sovereignty’s relationships with (1) health and well-being, (2) economics, (3) the natural environment, and (4) programming facilitators and barriers are described.

Health and Well-Being

Recent promising findings suggest that engagement in traditional food systems contributes to holistic well-being for Indigenous peoples (Kitka 2019; Satterfield et al., 2016; Sowerwine et al., 2018). Indeed, many of the health inequities, such as malnutrition, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, which currently plague tribal nations, are rooted in historical removal and involuntary reliance on governmental commodities (Mucioki et al., 2018). Policies of dispossession and dislocation had direct impacts on people’s ability to steward and eat traditional foods (Coté, 2016; McLaughlin, 2010; Reading, 2015; Whyte, 2017). The revitalization of traditional food systems, and the physiological, psychological, and spiritual benefits of associated practices, have long been recognized by Indigenous peoples, and are being increasingly acknowledged within public health.

In consideration of physical health, traditional foods are often higher in micronutrients, protein, and healthy fats, and lower in simple carbohydrates and saturated fats (Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium [ANTHC], 2015; Kuhnlein et al., 2009; Sheehy et al., 2015). In one study in urban Alaska, intake of traditional foods was associated with greater diet quality (Walch & Bersamin, 2020). In addition, a scoping review of 20 interventions found that positive impacts on diet quality were related to intervention’s employment of Indigenous food sovereignty principles (Maudrie et al., 2021). In addition to the direct dietary benefits, procuring traditional foods through activities, such as hunting, fishing, and farming often involve physical activities that are conducive to the maintenance of cardiovascular health. Similarly, processing of foods can be physically exerting. Documenting how Indigenous people engage in these practices, their place in broader physical activity patterns, and how traditional foods contribute to diet quality are of great interest for their potential physical health benefits.

While physical health impacts are of importance, many of the most salient benefits to well-being associated with food sovereignty are likely psychological and spiritual. For many Indigenous peoples, traditional foods and food ways are intimately intertwined with who we are and where we come from through culture, language, spiritual practices, and connection to the lands and waters around us (Damman et al., 2008; Salmón, 2012). Thus, freedom to engage in traditional food systems may contribute to positive identity formation, connection to community, culture, and spirituality (Hensel, 1996; Robin & Cidro, 2020; Wolfe, 2006), all of which have significant positive impacts on psychological well-being. Conversely, disconnection from traditional foods and food insecurity are associated with psychological distress and depression (Bodirsky & Johnson, 2008; Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998; Masotti et al., 2020).

Key health and well-being research questions:

  1. What are the relationships between traditional stewardship practices and intake with diet quality and physical activity among Native peoples in diverse settings?

  2. What are the ways by which Native peoples’ psychological and spiritual health are supported by Indigenous food sovereignty?

Economics

Economic analyses can support food sovereignty in part by demonstrating feasibility and cost-effectiveness. By identifying the costs and benefits associated with food sovereignty programs, policy makers can determine whether it is practical and cost-effective to allocate resources to create and sustain them. While food sovereignty programs are not always inexpensive, and often compete for funding in constrained budgets, economics research can demonstrate the value of food sovereignty in concrete, dollar-denominated terms. Furthermore, economics can help demonstrate that food sovereignty programs impact, and thus should be considered, in the budgets of nontraditional funding sources such as health care systems. These new funding sources, therefore, may become stakeholders in developing food sovereignty, even if they are not yet aware of potential synergies.

Consider a hypothetical food sovereignty program that supports Native farmers in growing traditional foods. Economic analyses can demonstrate that the program has a positive impact on the food security, mental well-being, and physical health of community members. These analyses can then be used to estimate the potential health care cost savings of the program. Primary data on health care spending could also be collected and analyzed to further substantiate these estimates. In this way, economic analyses can help demonstrate that a food sovereignty program is not only an agricultural concern but also an effective use of health system resources. While economic analyses can be conducted on preexisting food sovereignty research programs, integrating economic considerations early in the design phase can broaden the range of economic questions posed (such as health and economic development) and enhance data quality.

Key economic research questions:

  1. Do food sovereignty programs reduce health care spending, and if so, how?

  2. How can food sovereignty programs develop tribal economies?

  3. What evidence from food sovereignty research is most effective in supporting tribal or other policy makers to implement their own food sovereignty programs?

Environment

When considering environmental components of Indigenous food sovereignty and health more broadly, it is important to consider the diverse ways in which Indigenous communities procure their food, whether in rural or urban environments, by farming, gardening, or hunting/fishing/gathering, and the nature and extent of their landholdings and ability to steward them. Environmental factors that can influence food sovereignty include climate change, habitat condition, environmental contamination, and regulations and policies related to conservation and development. Above all else, secure access to steward and engage in reciprocity with land is of paramount importance to food sovereignty and health.

For Indigenous communities still residing in their ancestral lands, strengthening community capacity for environmental restoration and intergenerational learning is an approach that researchers can take to support sustained connection to place, continuity of Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and fulfilling responsibilities. Intergenerational ties to lands generate long-term landscape histories and rich observations on changes in phenology and harvest, population health and abundance, and other environmental events. Indigenous ecological place-based knowledge can inform restoration efforts, generate research questions and hypotheses, and inform directions for collaborative approaches to environmental and human health synergies. Place and environment can also serve as living classrooms for youth and adults through ongoing stewardship and activities that encourage intergenerational knowledge exchange and learning through different temporal scales of harvesting cycles and lifetimes. See Johnson et al. (2014) for a discussion of how Indigenous science has been used to sustain resilient landscapes.

Indigenous peoples whose homelands are now urban centers or have voluntarily or forcibly been moved into urban spaces are taking unique paths to self-determination of food and land that should be recognized and supported as well. Indigenous restoration of rural and urban landscapes and wild and cultivated native plants can be supported through land rematriation, seed banking, propagation and transplanting, soil nutrients and aeration, implementing cultural burns, and more. Opportunity for rematriation of lands and seeds, as well as exchange of knowledge, seeds, and practices among Indigenous communities is important for active conservation and biocultural diversity. Many tribes already lead and implement such efforts.

Environmental health is another important component of Indigenous health, particularly with food safety risks associated with soil and water toxicity in urban and industrial or postindustrial environments. As climate change opens up wildlands and oceans further north for development, resource extraction, transportation, and commodity agriculture, a decline in water and soil quality in these environments can threaten individual and community health through exposure to toxins in marine and terrestrial foods.

Approaching food sovereignty through assessing climate and land management impacts on cultural use species and their environments generates knowledge about the current condition of, and threats to, these food environments (e.g., forest structure, understory diversity, water quality, pests, invasives, and pathogens), as well as the effects of post-stewardship or disturbance (e.g., cultural burn, thinning, pruning, wildfire, and flood). For one in-depth example of the complex ways two Alaska Native communities from the Tlingit region traditionally managed salmon harvesting, see Langdon et al. (2006). Assembling a range of cultural knowledge holders who can explore holistic connections between plants, animals, fish, water, climate, and soil can improve our understanding of biocultural ecosystem synergies and inform stewardship approaches that are climate mitigating. This approach is inherent to Indigenous views and landscape stewardship but not always to academic disciplinarity. Cross-disciplinary and mixed-methods research, rooted in community-engaged and Indigenous-led approaches to both natural and social sciences can strengthen insights and beneficial outcomes among environment, people, food sovereignty, and health.

Key environment research questions:

  1. What is the condition of cultural use species and biological diversity in tribal lands and how are tribes approaching restoration and adaptation to various social, environmental, and economic pressures (both urban and rural spaces)?

  2. How does long-term stewardship of a place, by a family or community, support household or community food security, food sovereignty, and holistic tribal community health and well-being?

  3. What are the cultural ecosystem services and health benefits that emanate from restoring Indigenous stewardship of place?

  4. How can tribes and tribal communities be supported by public land management agencies and academic institutions to meaningfully engage in land back and/or comanagement of public lands to advance climate resilience?

Facilitators and Barriers

In 2021, Jernigan et al. identified seven key indicators supporting community capacity for Indigenous food sovereignty: access to resources, production, trade, food consumption, policy, community involvement, and culture (Jernigan et al., 2021). Collectively, these indicators provide guidance for communities seeking to promote sovereign food status, while identifying potential barriers to achieving their goals. While each indicator delves into unique elements of attaining “the right of people to have access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods, while defining their own food systems” (Global Small-Scale Farmers’ Movement Developing New Trade Regimes, 2005), they share an emphasis on community resistance, empowerment, and autonomy.

In this way, facilitators of food sovereignty mirror other Indigenous sovereignty movements in that they emphasize opportunities for Indigenous peoples to practice ways of being that are internally rather than colonially defined. Thus, uninterrupted access to physical, cultural, and spiritual resources innate to the traditions, stories, and practices of food systems enables food sovereignty and encourages food security (Woodley et al., 2006). Similarly, practices that encourage sustainability in food systems serve as markers of gratitude to those who nurtured our shared environment in the past, and ensures the continuation and thrivance of all our relations into the future.

While emphasizing opportunities to promote food sovereignty, the inverse of each indicator illuminates potential barriers that communities may encounter. In relation to trade (Indicator 3) for example, equity, affordability, and sustainability of food production and dissemination systems are identified as key components of successful sovereign food systems (Freedman & Bell, 2009). Failure to achieve equitable balance between producer and consumer may undermine sovereignty efforts. Many of the examples provided for facilitating food sovereignty engage policy on one level or another. Indeed, the free practice of Indigenous food systems has been systematically stymied for more than 500 years by policies aimed at the intentional destruction of the culture and practice of nourishment. The perpetuation of many of these policies, such as reservations and associated commodity foods, serve as daily barriers to achieving food sovereignty for many Indigenous communities.

Key facilitators and barriers research questions:

  1. In what ways does Indigenous food sovereignty contribute to food security for Indigenous communities and families?

  2. There are innumerable examples of ways in which federal policy has historically interrupted Indigenous food systems. What are some of the ways that federal policies may support Indigenous food sovereignty and food systems today?

WHAT ADDRESSING THE INDIGENOUS FOOD SOVEREIGNTY EVIDENCE GAPS WIll ACCOMPlISH

There are rich opportunities for Indigenous food sovereignty research to address the current gaps in evidence, as highlighted by the key research questions (Table 1). Having a better understanding of the ways in which Native peoples’ holistic health are supported by access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods is of utmost importance. A priority of policy makers is the cost of health care; if we can see not only improved food security but also a reduction in health disparities, it’s a win-win situation for both tribal communities and funding streams devoted to addressing health equity. Aligned with Indigenous value systems, inquiry into how climate resilience and long-term stewardship of place are connected will assist in prioritizing food sovereignty as a possible mitigation strategy for the health of future generations.

TABLE 1.

Future Research Questions to Support Indigenous Food Sovereignty Relationships With Health and Well being, Economics, Environment, and Programming Facilitators and barriers

Research domain Key research questions
Health and well-being What are the relationships between traditional stewardship practices and intake with diet quality and physical activity among Native peoples in diverse settings?
What are the ways by which Native peoples’ psychological and spiritual health are supported by Indigenous food sovereignty?
Economics Do food sovereignty programs reduce health care spending, and if so, how?
How can food sovereignty programs develop tribal economies?
What evidence from food sovereignty research is most effective in supporting tribal or other policy makers to implement their own food sovereignty programs?
Environment What is the condition of cultural use species and biological diversity in tribal lands and how are tribes approaching restoration and adaptation to various social, environmental, and economic pressures (both urban and rural spaces)?
How does long-term stewardship of a place, by a family or community, support household or community food security, food sovereignty, and holistic tribal community health and well-being?
What are the cultural ecosystem services and health benefits that emanate from restoring Indigenous stewardship of place?
How can tribes and tribal communities be supported by public land management agencies and academic institutions to meaningfully engage in land back and/or comanagement of public lands to advance climate resilience?
Programming facilitators and barriers In what ways does Indigenous food sovereignty contribute to food security for Indigenous communities and families?
There are innumerable examples of ways in which federal policy has historically interrupted Indigenous food systems. What are some of the ways that federal policies may support Indigenous food sovereignty and food systems today?
Open in a new tab

In this article, opportunities to expand the evidence on Indigenous food sovereignty’s relationships have been described for health and well-being, economics, the natural environment, and programming facilitators and barriers. However, it is likely (and expected) that Indigenous food sovereignty initiatives will have impacts beyond the areas discussed here. Thus, funding holistic mixed-methods evaluations that are cross-disciplinary and community-engaged will be integral. This approach, particularly when led by Indigenous scholars and rooted in traditional ways of knowing, shows a hopeful path forward for generations to come.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Office of Minority Health Grant # 1 CPIMP211317-02-00.

Footnotes

Supplement Note: This article is part of the Health Promotion Practice focus issue titled, “Indigenous Food Sovereignty as a Path to Health Equity.” The issue presents community-academic partnerships that advance health guided by a decolonizing and Indigenous framework. We are grateful to the Center for Indigenous Innovation and Health Equity, funded through the Office of Minority Health (CPIMP211317), for providing support for the issue. The entire issue is available open access at: https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/hppa/24/6.

REFERENCES

  1. Angnaboogok V (2019). Alaskan inuit food sovereignty summit: Nome, AK—Summit report [Report]. Inuit Circumpolar Council. https://iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/FINAL-Alaskan-Inuit-Food-Sovereignty-Summit-Report-3.pdf [Google Scholar]
  2. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. (2015). Traditional food guide for Alaska native people (2nd ed., Cancer program; ). [Google Scholar]
  3. Bird Jernigan VB, Salvatore AL, Williams M, Wetherill M, Taniguchi T, Jacob T, Cannady T, Grammar M, Standridge J, Fox J, Owens JAT, Spiegel J, Love C, Teague T, & Noonan C (2019). A healthy retail intervention in Native American convenience stores: The THRIVE community-based participatory research study. American Journal of Public Health, 109(1), 132–139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bodirsky M, & Johnson J (2008). Decolonizing diet: Healing by reclaiming traditional Indigenous foodways. Cuizine: The Journal of Canadian Food Cultures, 10(1). 10.7202/019373ar [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brave Heart MYH, & DeBruyn LM (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8(2), 60–82. 10.5820/aian.0802.1998.60 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Coté C (2016). “Indigenizing” food sovereignty revitalizing Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledges in Canada and the United States. Humanities, 5, Article 57. 10.3390/h5030057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Damman S, Eide WB, & Kuhnlein HV (2008). Indigenous peoples’ nutrition transition in a right to food perspective. Food Policy, 33(2), 135–155. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Freedman DA, & Bell BA (2009). Access to healthful foods among an urban food insecure population: Perceptions versus reality. Journal of Urban Health, 86, 825–838. 10.1007/s11524-009-9408-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Global Small-Scale Farmers’ Movement Developing New Trade Regimes. (2005). Food first news and views. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gurney RM, Caniglia BS, Mix TL, & Baum KA (2015) Native American food security and traditional foods: A review of the literature. Sociology Compass, 9, 681–693. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hensel C (1996). Telling our selves: Ethnicity and discourse in southwestern Alaska (Oxford studies in anthropological linguistics). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hilchey D (2019). In this issue: Indigenous food sovereignty in North America. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9(B), 1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jernigan VBB, Maudrie TL, Nikolaus CJ, Benally T, Johnson S, Teague T, Mayes M, Jacob T, & Taniguchi T (2021). Food sovereignty indicators for Indigenous community capacity building and health. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, Article 704750. 10.3389/fsufs.2021.704750 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Johnson JT, Louis RP, & Kliskey A (2014). Weaving Indigenous and sustainability sciences: Diversifying our methods (WIS2DOM) workshop [Report]. National Science Foundation. http://hdl.handle.net/1808/13744 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kitka J (2019). Alaska native community resilience [Report]. Alaska Federation of Natives. https://www.nativefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AFN-AKDayResilience-December2018-ONLINE.pdf [Google Scholar]
  16. Kuhnlein HV, Erasmus B, & Spigelski D (2009). Indigenous Peoples’ food systems: The many dimensions of culture, diversity and environment for nutrition and health. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). [Google Scholar]
  17. Langdon S, Austin US Fish Wildlife Service, & Central Council of the Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes. (2006). Traditional knowledge and harvesting of salmon by Huna and Hinyaa Tlingit: Final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Subsistence Management. [Google Scholar]
  18. Martens T, Cidro J, Hart MA, & McLachlan S (2016). Understanding Indigenous food sovereignty through an Indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 5(1), 18–37. [Google Scholar]
  19. Masotti P, Dennam J, Hadani S, Banuelos K, King J, Linton J, Lockhart B, & Patel C (2020). The culture is prevention project: Measuring culture for Native/Indigenous Peoples. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 27(1), 86–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Maudrie TL, Colón-Ramos U, Harper KM, Jock BW, & Gittelsohn J (2021). A scoping review of the use of Indigenous food sovereignty principles for intervention and future directions. Current Developments in Nutrition, 5(7), Article nzab093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. McLaughlin S (2010). Traditions and diabetes prevention: A healthy path for Native Americans. Diabetes Spectrum, 23(4), 272–277. [Google Scholar]
  22. Morrison D (2011). Indigenous food sovereignty: A model for social learning. In Desmarais A-A, Wiebe N, & Wittman H (Eds.), Food sovereignty in Canada: Creating just and sustainable food systems (pp. 97–113). Fernwood. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mucioki M, Sowerwine J, & Sarna-Wojcicki D (2018). Thinking inside and outside the box: Local and national considerations of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Journal of Rural Studies, 57, 88–98. [Google Scholar]
  24. Reading J (2015). Confronting the growing crisis of cardiovascular disease and heart health among Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 31(9), 1077–1080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Robin T, & Cidro J (2020). Rebuilding cultural identity and Indigenous food sovereignty with Indigenous youth through traditional food access and skills in the city. In Settee P & Shukla S (Eds.), Indigenous food systems: Concepts, cases, and conversations (pp. 135–151). Canadian Scholars. [Google Scholar]
  26. Satterfield D, DeBruyn L, Santos M, Alonso L, & Frank M (2016). Health promotion and diabetes prevention in American Indian and Alaska Native communities—Traditional Foods Project, 2008–2014. MMWR Supplements, 65(1), 4–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sheehy T, Kolahdooz F, Roache C, & Sharma S (2015). Traditional food consumption is associated with better diet quality and adequacy among Inuit adults in Nunavut, Canada. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 66(4), 445–451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sowerwine J, Mucioki M, Sarna-Wojcicki D, & Hillman L (2018). Reframing food security by and for Native American communities: A case study among tribes in the Klamath River basin of Oregon and California. Food Security, 11(3), 579–607. [Google Scholar]
  29. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2022, November 14). USDA announces new resources to empower Indigenous food sovereignty [Press release]. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/11/14/usda-announces-new-resources-empower-indigenous-food-sovereignty
  30. Walch A, & Bersamin A (2020). Traditional food intake is positively associated with diet quality among low-income, urban Alaska Native women. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 15(2), 264–272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Whyte KP (2017). Food sovereignty, justice and Indigenous peoples—An essay on settler colonialism and collective continuance: Oxford handbook on food ethics (Barnhill A, Doggett T, & Egan A, Eds.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wolfe RJ (2006). Playing with fish and other lessons from the north. University of Arizona Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Woodley E, Crowley E, de Pryck JD, & Carmen A (2006). Cultural indicators of Indigenous Peoples’ food and agro-ecological systems. SARD Initiative Commissioned by FAO and the International India Treaty Council; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. [Google Scholar]
  34. Salmón E (2012). Eating the landscape: American Indian stories of food, identity, and resilience. University of Arizona Press. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES