Cited by 272Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 57 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

“Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States

Open access
Coté, Charlotte·2016·Humanities

Abstract

The food sovereignty movement initiated in 1996 by a transnational organization of peasants, La Via Campesina, representing 148 organizations from 69 countries, became central to self-determination and decolonial mobilization embodied by Indigenous peoples throughout the world. Utilizing the framework of decolonization and sustainable self-determination, this article analyzes the concept of food sovereignty to articulate an understanding of its potential for action in revitalizing Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledge in the United States and Canada. The food sovereignty movement challenged the hegemony of the globalized, neoliberal, industrial, capital-intensive, corporate-led model of agriculture that created destructive economic policies that marginalized small-scale farmers, removed them from their land, and forced them into the global market economy as wage laborers. Framed within a larger rights discourse, the food sovereignty movement called for the right of all peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right to define their own food and agricultural systems. “Indigenizing” food sovereignty moves beyond a rights based discourse by emphasizing the cultural responsibilities and relationships Indigenous peoples have with their environment and the efforts being made by Indigenous communities to restore these relationships through the revitalization of Indigenous foods and ecological knowledge systems as they assert control over their own foods and practices.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article argues that “Indigenizing” food sovereignty moves beyond a rights-based discourse to emphasize Indigenous cultural responsibilities, relationships, and the revitalization of Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledge in Canada and the United States. Using decolonization and sustainable self-determination frameworks, it ends with the Nuu-chah-nulth case of restoring ancestral homelands and food policies.

Key findings

  • Food sovereignty was initiated in 1996 by La Via Campesina, representing 148 organizations from 69 countries, and challenged the globalized, neoliberal, industrial, corporate-led agricultural model; “Indigenizing” it shifts emphasis from rights to cultural responsibilities and relationships with the environment.
  • Colonial and boarding/residential school policies disrupted Indigenous food systems: by the late 1800s, Indigenous youth ages five to 15 were removed to schools; from fall 1948 over five years, nutrition experiments involved close to 1000 Indigenous children at six residential schools; “store foods” made up 85 percent of diets; Indigenous adults are reported as four times more likely to suffer type 2 diabetes than non-Indigenous populations.
  • Indigenous resurgence includes the 1994 Zapatista uprising, 2007 UNDRIP, and 2012 Idle No More; the Working Group on Indigenous Food Sovereignty, created in 1996, developed four principles of Indigenous food sovereignty: sacred sovereignty, participatory, self-determination, and policy.
  • The Nuu-chah-nulth case involves 15 independent communities, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council formed in 1979, a November 2009 legal win after a decade to control fisheries, and the March 2005 launch of uu-a-thluk, guided by hishuk’ish tsawalk, uu-a-thluk, and iisaak.

Methods

  • Conceptual and analytical article utilizing decolonization and sustainable self-determination frameworks to analyze food sovereignty and its potential for revitalizing Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledge in the United States and Canada.
  • Draws on secondary literature, Indigenous scholarship, and narratives—including Robin Kimmerer, Ian Mosby, and Nuu-chah-nulth elders—rather than collecting original empirical data.
  • Concludes with a case discussion of Nuu-chah-nulth environmental and food policies, including uu-a-thluk and traditional governance principles.

Limitations

  • The paper states no limitations.
  • Evident from the text: it is a conceptual synthesis rather than a systematic empirical study, with no described sampling, measurement, or comparative analysis.
  • Evident from the text: the case discussion centers on the Nuu-chah-nulth and on Canada and the United States, and it relies on selected secondary sources and narratives, so broader generalization is not established.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/h5030057

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

3 of 57 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 21 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 34
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 46
59 of 59
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Revitalizing Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledge systems will restore Indigenous peoples' relationships with their environment and improve their health and wellbeing.

    “The decolonial praxis entails decreasing dependence on the globalized food system and revitalizing Indigenous foods systems and practices through the reaffirmation of spiritual, emotional and physical relationships to the lands, waters, plants, and all living things that have sustained Indigenous communities and cultures.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Restoring autonomy over Indigenous lands and food systems will improve Indigenous health and support Indigenous survival as peoples.

    “Diseases such as type-2 diabetes, hypertension, and obesity are at epidemic levels, making autonomy over Indigenous lands and food systems crucial to their very survival as people.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The current global food model, based on a concentration of wealth and power, threatens global food security, cultural diversity, and the ecosystems that sustain life.

    “This model, based on decentralization, challenges the current model, based on a concentration of wealth and power, which now threatens global food security, cultural diversity, and the very ecosystems that sustain life on the planet...”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Food sovereignty became a uniting call to small-scale farmers and Indigenous peoples throughout the world.

    “This notion of food sovereignty became a uniting call to small-scale farmers and Indigenous peoples throughout the world.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Before non-Indigenous arrival on the B.C. coastline, the Nuu-chah-nulth-aht derived most of their subsistence from the marine space with salmon at the core of their identity.

    “Before the mamalhn'i (non-Indigenous people) arrived on the B.C. coastline, the Nuu-chah-nulth-aht derived most of their subsistence from the marine space with salmon being at the core of our identity.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Nuu-chah-nulth autonomy over their marine space is crucial to their survival as a people.

    “Nuu-chah-nulth autonomy over our marine space is crucial to our survival as a people.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Nookemus left the school before the food experiments began

    Major

    Nookemus attended the Alberni school from 1942 to 1947, but the paper says the residential-school experiments began in fall 1948. He therefore could not have been among the children in those experiments or have witnessed starvation there while they were being conducted.

  • Indigenous Food Systems Network citation points to a different source

    Minor

    The text identifies reference 41 as the Indigenous Food Systems Network website, but entry 41 is a publication by Jeff Corntassel. Later citations also appear one entry ahead of their corresponding sources.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 27 references

5 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Adams, David Wallace (1995). Education for Extinction. American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875–1928, University of Kansas Press.
  2. Rodger Miller, James (1996). Shingwuak’s Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools, University of Toronto Press.
  3. Barman, Jean, Hébert, Yvonne, and McCaskill, Don (1986). Indian Education in Canada, Vol. 1: The Legacy, University of British Columbia Press.
  4. Reyner, Jon, and Eder, Jeanne (2004). American Indian Education: A History, University of Oklahoma Press.
  5. Also see, Alfred Taiaiake Peace, Power, Righteousness. An Indigenous Manifesto rev. ed. Oxford University Press Oxford 2009
  6. Mihesuah, Devon Abbot, and Wilson, Angela Cavender (2004). Indigenizing the Academy. Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities, University of Nebraska Press.
  7. Corntassel, 2012, Practicing Sustainable Self-Determination, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 18, 151
  8. Moe, 2013, Mother Earth at the Heart of It, Yes!, 66, 31
  9. Waziyatawin, 2012, The Paradox of Indigenous Resurgence at the End of Empire, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1, 68
  10. Barker, Joanne (2005). Sovereignty Matters. Locations of Contestation and Possibility in Indigenous Struggles for Self-Determination, University of Nebraska Press. · DOI
  11. Richard Atleo, Umeek E. (2004). Tsawalk. A Nuu-Chah-Nulth Worldview, University of British Columbia Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–268 of 268

Metadata

Authors
Coté, C.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Coté, Charlotte
Venue
Humanities
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-07-15
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
57
ISSN
2076-0787 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2470974333
Cited by
272
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 3
FWCI
37.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Humanities (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Development › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Keywords
food sovereignty, indigenous food practices, ecological knowledge, decolonization, self-determination (international law), La Via Campesina, indigenous peoples, smallholder farmers, Canada, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-26, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-26 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review