“We shouldn’t always have to be resilient”

In recent years, resilient food systems have become a policy priority for municipal governments, especially given concerns about climate change, the impacts of COVID-19, and rising food insecurity in Canada. The term resilience is often used to describe the ability of individuals, communities, nations and systems to recover from disruptions. However, resilience is frequently employed within policy discourse without clear definition or communication as to who or what should be resilient. The ambiguous use of the term can lead to inadequate policy and often fails to address systemic issues that create food system and social inequities in municipalities. Our analysis examines how the City of Toronto has framed resilience within food system policy discussions and compares these framings with the perceptions of resilience held by local community-based food system actors. Through an analysis of sixteen (n=16) municipal documents and twenty-eight (n=28) key informant interviews, our findings suggest that the rhetoric of resilience has little actual influence on food policy. Instead, it is often used to describe an idealized food system and indirectly places the responsibility on individuals to be resilient amid ongoing and multifaceted crises. The study contributes to critical discussions on resilience in food systems literature, arguing that resilience often reinforces a neoliberal mindset that prioritizes economic system resilience over the well-being of populations. The momentum towards community-driven, culturally responsive, localized food initiatives in Toronto is a positive step. However, we suggest that food system scholars, practitioners and policymakers engage with the concepts of ‘resilience’ more critically and with more intention, being mindful of the systems of oppression and exploitation inherent to the concept.