Food and Environment as Intersecting and Overlapping Policy Issues

Welcome to the RPR Special Issue on Food and Environment Policy. This issue contains a series of groundbreaking research articles that highlight the intersection of food and environmental policy, using a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches to enhance our substantive knowledge about this important area of policy research. These articles not only take on important challenges in environmental and food policy, but they also focus on a variety of global contexts, allowing for international comparison and pushing the boundaries of both fields. Environmental policy currently occupies a robust position in the field of policy studies. Researchers have written extensively about climate change, carbon emissions, conservation, resource extraction, and water use and management. These substantively valuable topic areas also provide case studies for understanding theoretical models such as social construction (Koski and Manson 2024), policy diffusion (Jordan and Huitema 2014), subsystem dynamics (Olofsson 2022), and more. There remains, however, a comparative dearth of scholarship within a substantial field of policymaking: food policy. Current research on food production and outcomes is often oriented around individual-level behaviors and outcomes. Scholars of food policy have more commonly focused on agricultural policymaking processes at the governmental level e.g., (Bosso 2017; Brock 2023; Hansen 1991; Sheingate 2003), or on nutrition and health outcomes (Fisher 2017; Nestle and Pollan 2013; Whitesell and Fitch 2022). Scholars have also looked at food's environmental impacts through a lens of how consumers and producers can reduce harm (Poore and Nemecek 2018), while others have considered how government policies and weak regulation lead to particular consumption behaviors (Pacheco-Vega 2019). The intersection between food and agriculture and environmental policy nonetheless remains an under-attended area for study, despite the enormous link between these topics. Globally, food production accounts for over a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, and half of the world's habitable land is employed in agriculture, while 70% of the world's freshwater withdrawals are for agricultural purposes (Ritchie et al. 2022). In short, the policy choices and processes that shape agriculture and food production globally have enormous impacts on short-term environmental outcomes and on long-term climate change. Farming and ranching contribute to water usage, waste and runoff, erosion, deforestation, monoculture, oil usage, and more, but farming practices can also be regenerative and restorative under some conditions. These practices are driven by political processes and governance structures that occur across multiple institutions and at multiple levels: from goals set by the United Nations to decisions made by the European Union, decisions made by national governments, and down to local food ways and cultures. This special issue fills the gap by exploring topics at the nexus of food and environment and the processes surrounding these policies. The articles contained in this issue are grouped around three main themes. The first theme centers on how policy discourses can shape agricultural and sustainability policies; the second moves our focus to policy instruments and sustainability, while the third theme highlights the impact of pesticides in agriculture and suggests where regulatory policies can help protect vulnerable communities and watersheds. The first set of articles in this issue centers on agricultural policy and discourse. These articles emphasize how policy actors engage in both formal and informal narrative shaping to improve sustainability and food security through the policymaking process. Beginning with an article by Mengxiao Tang (2025), “(Re)securitizing Food Policy in Vietnam: The Mekong Delta Plan and the Discourse Metamorphosis” illustrates that food security and climate policy discourses are distinctly related to government legitimacy concerns. Through thematically analyzing the Vietnam government's food-related policy documents, Tang shows that food security is a high salience issue that requires elites to “fine-tune” their “authoritarian environmentalism” approach in ways that address food security and sustainability. This has allowed some new ideas and priorities to infiltrate the policy space. These findings also suggest that authoritarian governments can be susceptible to policy translation (rather than direct transfer) when searching for ways to shore up regime legitimacy. Discourses and idea movement are also essential in democratic systems, particularly in nascent subsystems where coalitions are still forming and shifting. In “A New Beef: An Analysis of Discourse Coalitions in the Nascent Cellular Agriculture Policy Subsystem,” Nadeau and Berardo (2025) draw on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to explore nascent policy subsystem dynamics, an under-explored area of theoretical development. To drive theory forward, the authors explore the discourse coalitions surrounding an emerging food production technique. They systematically analyze 134 newspaper articles using an analysis approach originally developed by Muller (2015). Nadeau and Berardo establish some significant characteristics of nascent subsystems, namely marked bifurcation of beliefs between coalitions and strong internal belief cohesion within coalitions, almost to an exaggerated extent in the early stage of the subsystem. This work is valuable for theoretical development in the ACF and also brings awareness to subsystem dynamics as well as opportunities for policymakers and regulators. In a different approach to understanding stakeholder engagement and policy solutions, “Implementing Innovative Climate Change Procedural Instrument to Mitigate Livestock Farming Foodprint in Colorado State, United States of America” considers stakeholder feedback and responsive policy design. In this article, Lecuyer and Verrier (2025) look at local policymaking as it pertains to Colorado cattle farming. Cattle farming is the state's leading agricultural sector and a source of significant methane emissions, and the state has implemented a variety of policy solutions targeted at mitigating the effects of climate change and promoting more sustainable practices. This article assesses the local implementation efforts of these policy interventions and identifies institutional and fiscal barriers to their full realization. Lecuyer and Verrier also uncover ways that local stakeholders can be brought into the policy design process, leading to more responsive and practical systems of food production and sustainability. Lecuyer and Verrier's approach to understanding the dynamic relationship between stakeholders and policy intervention also acts as a bridge to the second primary theme found in this issue: policy instruments and sustainability. We have several articles that focus on how policy instruments around food production and procurement can improve sustainability, when implemented skillfully. These articles find that policy design and implementation require careful attention to trade-offs and capacity. Only when practical considerations are built into policy design can goals be successfully achieved. In “Innovating Public Food Procurement: A Case Study of Dordogne's Path to Sustainability,” Vola et al. offer insights on how policy instruments can drive sustainable public food procurement in public institutions. The authors demonstrate that, in the case of Dordogne, sustainable food procurement was not an outcome from a single policy but rather was a result of a set of well-structured policy instruments that combine “commitment [to sustainability] and strategic approach, professionalization and capacity building, stakeholder collaboration, digitalization, and optimization” (Vola et al. 2025). In short, a single policy or an add-on to existing policy is insufficient to achieve genuinely sustainable outcomes. Sustainability goals can only be achieved when they are fully integrated across multiple policies; this may mean reconfiguring or realigning existing policies to fit with new sustainability goals in addition to introducing new policy instruments. The authors argue that the case of Dordogne can act as an example to other policy actors who hope to improve the sustainability of their food procurement systems. Sustainability also requires complex thinking about tradeoffs and whole systems, as Berger Bush emphasizes in “Accounting for Structural Change in Climate Policy Research: Lessons From Global Commodities Markets.” Here, Berger Bush looks at the relationship between “green” technologies and raw material reliance in commodity markets. The article argues that, while policy scholars are right to be concerned with dependence on fossil fuels, their attention should not stop there. Scholars and government actors must consider the impact of climate policy interventions across markets, not only in terms of energy production but also in markets for raw materials used to fabricate green energies. This article highlights the relationship between food and energy and emphasizes that food insecurity and energy insecurity go hand-in-hand for millions globally and, further, demonstrates that promoting clean energy technologies often creates a “paradoxical situation” in which reducing climate harm in one area causes new harms in other areas (Breger Bush 2025). Highlighted by the emphasis on challenges facing climate policy, the final theme found in this special issue is the relationship between pesticides, food production, and the environment. In “Conditions Favoring the Reduction of Pesticides: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of EU Member States,” Bazzan et al. (2025) consider the role of political parties, interest groups, and public salience in implementing policies related to pesticide use in the EU. They find that successful policy implementation rests on the policy dynamics occurring at the state level, and particularly, it requires that policymakers consider the practical application of policy at the state level, the diversity of implementing EU member states, and how member states may use discretion when implementing policy. In short, political dynamics, institutional capabilities, and public engagement all have an important impact on the success of pesticide-reduction policy within the EU. Similarly, “The Impact of Sustainable Nitrogen Management on the Health Risks of Unsafe Drinking Water and the Mediating Role of Food Production” emphasizes the importance of building practicality into policy approaches. In this article, Park et al. (2025) examine the complex relationship between sustainable nitrogen management (SNM), food production, and drinking water health risks using data from 143 countries between 1990 and 2015. Using a policy-centric perspective, the research identifies SNM as a means to reduce health risks from unsafe drinking water, but draws on mediation analysis to expose the crucial role of food production. The study underscores the need for policymakers to develop integrated strategies that simultaneously address food security needs and environmental protection. Finally, in “Managing Risk, Reinforcing Environmental Racism: The Biopolitics of Pesticide Regulation in California Agriculture,” Alvarez Noli (2025) uses archival qualitative analysis to explore regulatory oversight of risk exposure to a hazardous pesticide. Drawing on Foucault's biopolitics approach (Foucault 2003) through an environmental justice lens, Alvarez Noli demonstrates that “neutral” regulatory approaches can hide uneven harm experiences, often amplified in communities already experiencing other disproportionate environmental harms. The study develops a rich historical narrative establishing a pattern of risk governance that falls short in some communities and emphasizes the need to demand more integrated exposure analysis. Together, these articles demonstrate the value of stakeholder involvement, thoughtful discourse, practical policy solutions, and additional research into the intersection of food and environment when it comes to policymaking and regulatory implementation. Indeed, not all food policy is top-down; food policy is also made among local governments and municipalities, through urban farming initiatives, labor unions, “eat local” movements, and more. The processes and policy instruments that shape these decisions at each level vary highly and bear more study. Notably, additional research is still needed into the relationship between environmental justice and food justice. Sustainability practices can be incentivized or required by institutions (Carter et al. 2016), and yet, the relative strength of corporations, legacies of colonialism and resource extraction, and national poverty levels shape the political processes that either empower food and environmental justice or result in poor outcomes. We hope to see continued work in this area and look forward to the ways in which social science can lead investigations into, and further knowledge about, sustainability in our food and environmental systems. Clare Brock, Kristin Olofsson 欢迎阅读《政策研究述评》(RPR)杂志之“食品与环境政策”特刊。本期特刊包含一系列开创性的研究文章，重点探讨食品与环境政策的交叉领域，运用多种理论和方法论，以增强我们对这一重要政策研究领域的实质性认识。这些文章不仅探讨了环境和食品政策领域的重要挑战，还关注了各种全球背景，从而能够进行国际比较，并拓展这两个领域的研究边界。 环境政策目前在政策研究领域占据着重要地位。研究人员撰写了大量关于气候变化、碳排放、保护、资源开采以及水资源利用和管理的文章。这些极具价值的主题领域也为理解社会建构(Koski and Manson 2024)、政策扩散(Jordan and Huitema 2014)、子系统动力学(Olofsson 2022)等理论模型提供了案例研究。然而，在食品政策这一重要的政策制定领域，学术研究仍然相对匮乏。当前关于食品生产及其结果的研究通常以个体层面的行为和结果为中心。食品政策学者通常更关注政府层面的农业政策制定过程(e.g. (Bosso 2017; Brock 2023; Hansen 1991; Sheingate 2003)，或营养与健康结果(Fisher 2017; Nestle and Pollan 2013; Whitesell and Fitch 2022)。学者也从消费者和生产者如何减少危害的角度来研究食品对环境的影响(Poore and Nemecek 2018)，而另一些人则思考政府政策和薄弱的监管如何导致特定的消费行为(Pacheco-Vega 2019)。 尽管粮食、农业和环境政策之间存在着巨大的联系，但它们之间的交叉研究领域仍未受到足够重视。在全球范围内，粮食生产占温室气体排放量的四分之一以上，全球一半的可居住土地用于农业，而全球70%的淡水取用量用于农业目的(Ritchie et al. 2022)。简而言之，影响全球农业和粮食生产的政策选择和流程对短期环境结果和长期气候变化有着巨大的影响。农牧业会导致用水量、废物和径流、土壤侵蚀、森林砍伐、单一栽培、石油消耗等等，但在某些情况下，农业实践也具有再生和恢复作用。这些实践受到跨机构、跨层级的政治进程和治理结构的驱动:从联合国设定的目标，到欧盟作出的决定、各国政府作出的决定，乃至当地的饮食方式和文化。 本期特刊旨在填补这一空白，探讨食品与环境之间的关联，以及围绕这些政策的进程。本期特刊的文章围绕三大主题展开。第一个主题聚焦于政策话语如何影响农业和可持续发展政策；第二个主题将重点转向政策工具和可持续性；第三个主题则重点关注农药对农业的影响，并提出监管政策如何能够帮助保护脆弱社区和流域。 本期首批文章聚焦于农业政策和话语。这些文章强调了政策主体如何通过政策制定过程参与正式和非正式的叙事塑造，以改善可持续性和粮食安全。以Mengxiao Tang(2025)的文章《越南粮食政策(再)安全化:湄公河三角洲计划与话语蜕变》为开端，探讨了粮食安全和气候政策话语与政府合法性关切之间的密切关系。通过对越南政府粮食相关政策文件进行主题分析，Tang指出，粮食安全是一个高度突出的问题，需要精英阶层“微调”其“威权环境主义”方法，以应对粮食安全和可持续性问题。这使得一些新的想法和优先事项得以渗透到政策领域。这些发现还表明，威权政府在寻求巩固政权合法性的方法时，更容易受到政策转化(而非直接转移)的影响。 话语和思想运动在民主制度中也至关重要，尤其是在联盟仍在形成和演变的新兴子系统中。在《新的挑战:新兴细胞农业政策子系统中话语联盟的分析》一文中，Nadeau和Berardo(2025)借鉴倡导联盟框架(ACF)探索了新兴政策子系统动态，这是一个尚未得到充分探索的理论发展领域。为了推动理论发展，作者探究了围绕一种新兴粮食生产技术的话语联盟。他们使用Muller(2015)最初开发的分析方法，系统地分析了134篇报纸文章。Nadeau和Berardo确定了新兴子系统的一些显著特征，即联盟之间明显的信念分歧以及联盟内部强大的信念凝聚力，这种凝聚力在子系统的早期阶段几乎达到了夸张的程度。这项研究对于ACF的理论发展具有重要意义，也提高了人们对子系统动态的认识，并为政策制定者和监管者带来了机遇。 《在美国科罗拉多州实施创新气候变化程序工具以减轻畜牧业粮食足迹》一文从不同的角度探讨了利益攸关方的参与和政策解决方案，并探讨了利益攸关方的反馈和响应式政策设计。在这篇文中，Lecuyer和Verrier(2025)探讨了与科罗拉多州养牛业相关的当地政策制定。养牛业是该州的主要农业部门，也是重要的甲烷排放源，该州已实施了各种旨在减轻气候变化影响和推广更可持续实践的政策解决方案。文章评估了这些政策干预措施在当地实施的情况，并指出了全面实施这些政策干预措施所面临的体制障碍和财政障碍。Lecuyer和Verrier还探索了将当地利益攸关方纳入政策设计过程的方法，从而建立更具响应能力和实用性的粮食生产和可持续性体系。 Lecuyer和Verrier理解利益攸关方与政策干预之间动态关系的方法，也为本期第二个主要主题——政策工具与可持续性——架起了桥梁。我们有几篇文章重点探讨了围绕粮食生产和采购的政策工具如何在巧妙实施的情况下提升可持续性。这些文章发现，政策设计和实施需要仔细考虑各种得失和能力。只有在政策设计中融入实际考量，才能成功实现目标。 在《创新公共食品采购:多尔多涅可持续发展之路案例研究》中，Vola等人就“政策工具如何推动公共机构可持续公共食品采购”提出了见解。作者指出，在多尔多涅的案例中，可持续食品采购并非单一政策的结果，而是一系列结构完善的政策工具的结果，这些工具融合了“对可持续性的承诺和战略方针、专业化和能力建设、利益攸关方协作、数字化和优化”(Vola et al. 2025)。简而言之，单一政策或现有政策的附加条款不足以实现真正可持续的结果。可持续性目标只有在多项政策之间充分整合才能实现；这可能意味着除了引入新的政策工具外，还需要重新配置或调整现有政策以适应新的可持续性目标。作者认为，多尔多涅的案例能为其他希望提高其食品采购系统可持续性的政策参与者树立榜样。 正如Berger Bush在《气候政策研究中的结构性变化考量:全球大宗商品市场的经验教训》中所强调的那样，可持续性还需要对各种权衡取舍和整个系统进行复杂的思考。Berger Bush在文中探讨了“绿色”技术与大宗商品市场中原材料依赖之间的关系。文章指出，虽然政策学者关注对化石燃料的依赖是正确的，但他们的关注点不应止步于此。学者和政府行动者必须考虑气候政策干预措施对各个市场的影响，不仅要考虑能源生产方面的影响，还要考虑用于制造绿色能源的原材料市场的影响。文章强调了粮食与能源之间的关系，并强调粮食不安全和能源不安全对全球数百万人来说是相辅相成的，此外，文章还指出，推广清洁能源技术往往会造成一种“矛盾局面”，即减少一个地区的气候危害会给其他地区带来新的危害(Breger Bush 2025)。 本期特刊的最后一个主题是农药、粮食生产和环境之间的关系，重点关注气候政策面临的挑战。在《有利于减少农药使用的条件:欧盟成员国的定性比较分析》一文中，Bazzan、Kuenzler和Vogeler(2025)探讨了政党、利益集团和公众认知在欧盟农药使用相关政策实施中的作用。他们发现，成功的政策实施取决于国家层面的政策动态，尤其需要政策制定者考虑政策在国家层面的实际应用、欧盟成员国的多样性以及成员国在政策实施过程中如何运用自由裁量权。简而言之，政治动态、机构能力和公众参与都对欧盟内部农药减量政策的成功具有重要影响。 同样，在《可持续氮管理对不安全饮用水健康风险的影响及粮食生产的中介作用》一文中，他们强调了将实用性融入政策方法的重要性。在文章中，Park等人(2025)利用1990年至2015年143个国家的数据，考察了可持续氮管理(SNM)、粮食生产和饮用水健康风险之间的复杂关系。该研究以政策为中心，将SNM视为降低不安全饮用水健康风险的一种手段，并利用中介效应分析揭示了粮食生产的关键作用。该研究强调政策制定者需要制定综合战略，同时兼顾粮食安全需求和环境保护。 最后，在《管理风险，强化环境种族主义:加州农业农药监管的生物政治学》一文中，Alvarez Noli(2025)利用档案定性分析，探讨了对危险农药风险暴露的监管监督。Alvarez Noli借鉴福柯(Foucault)的生物政治学方法(2003)，从环境正义的视角论证了“中性”监管方法可能会掩盖不均衡的危害体验，而这些体验往往会在已经遭受其他严重环境危害的社区中被放大。该研究构建了丰富的历史叙事，确立了某些社区存在的风险治理模式，并强调需要进行更综合的暴露分析。 et al. Clare Brock, Kristin Olofsson RPR social (Koski 2024), (Jordan 2014), 2022), a a 2017; Brock, 2023; 1991; 2003) 2017; 2013; Whitesell 2022). a (Poore 2018), a 2019). a A habitable a a (Ritchie et 2022). a a a a a a a formal a Mengxiao Tang (2025), Vietnam: Plan Delta Mekong Tang ideas a ideas particular Nadeau Berardo (2025) (ACF) a 134 Muller (2015). Nadeau Berardo a ACF Lecuyer Verrier (2025) sector a Lecuyer Verrier a a Lecuyer Verrier a a Vola et al. (Vola et al. 2025). a a Berger Bush Berger Bush a (Breger Bush 2025). final (2025) a a Park et al. (2025) 143 1990 2015. crucial Noli (2025) Noli a a (Carter et