In the ongoing work of facilitator and organizer adrienne maree brown, she invites us to imagine. Time and again she writes that justice work is science fiction work because activists take on the task of building a future that does not exist yet.

Because if we can’t imagine that future – personally or collectively – how will we make it a reality?

Truthfully, it can be hard to picture a world without hunger or poverty. When I first tried to, I could only come up with the desire to dismantle existing systems of violence: capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy. And don’t get me wrong, we should all be and stay committed to dismantling those systems. But in that exercise, it was clear that I had little practice training my imaginative muscles.
​
So with deeper reflection, my dream for us is to live in a world that is treated with abundance, where land, power, and resources are returned to indigenous peoples’ stewardship, where accountability is so high that everyone answers to community needs, and where conflict is embraced with maturity, love, and mutual understanding. The only surviving structures are those that protect, uplift and heal.

In the anti-hunger advocacy world, we know that people who are forced to face food insecurity cannot wait for the policy changes (or better yet, the revolution) that promise to end hunger one day. Hungry people need to be fed, and not just with any food. In line with naming the possibilities we dare to imagine, those foods need to be culturally appropriate and fully nourishing to the body and soul. Agency in food choice has to be restored. And there should be robust opportunities to consume locally sourced food as well as space to build a healthy relationship to food. I find tremendous hope in working from a place not of wishing that were true, but in every small way possible practicing it until it is true.

 Let’s live and work wholeheartedly into the possibilities of our most radical dreams. 

Check out adrienne maree brown’s books and her blog for more wisdom & inspiration.

Liv Brashears
Farmers Market Nutrition Programs Coordinator

When someone says change is hard…believe them.

Here we are, more than a year into our commitment as an organization to center anti-racism and equity in our practice. We’ve been bringing these hard conversations and questions into our work by asking ourselves and our partners to explore how our own identities work to uphold these power structures. Simply, self and system analysis, with the acknowledgment that this alone is not enough, and with increased humility, hard changes, power shifts and action should follow. Sounds good, right?

​Well, if it were that easy….

Here we are today, ready, and willing to share some honest reflections and lessons learned…thus far. We say thus far because we have much to do to continue to challenge our own perceptions, norms, and white conditioning. The reality is that this kind of work is lifelong, never-ending, often pain-staking slow…and full of humanness…errors, and hardship.

Change is hard. We all know this. People will say this, agree to this, and sign up for the thought of change…in theory. The reality? That’s when things get tricky. And, if I’m being honest, I don’t think it’s even possible to truly, really, actually, understand just how messy diving into this work can be, even when theoretically you get that it is supposed to be tough.
​
The truth is, most of us avoid it or distract ourselves from the hard realities of this discomfort by focusing on surface-level work. Easy projects that keep us busy, but do not actually touch the hard root of the center. When we push away from the fluff toward reality (uh ourselves), well, the reactions in yourself and others can be surprising. In short, it is disruptive.

So, why are we writing this? We want to acknowledge that talking about doing this work can be performative, and in essence, is virtue signaling. But, we wanted to name it for our own network, as peers in this work. We know that there is no way to be “perfect”, but fears of making mistakes often lead to inaction, much like in this article about the Culture of White Supremacy.

Friends, we are not perfect.

 We might be sort of screwing this up, but we know we aren’t alone either. We hope to normalize talking about the reality of systems change for organizations like ours, and those working in public health and service fields. The more we talk, the more who join, will help grow the critical mass. There is no way to dismantle this system without facing this mess. We are hoping that by talking about it, we can help strengthen our own sense of community, to help us all tackle ourselves. It’s easier when you know you’re not alone.

So, for those wanting to join this work of self-analysis, growth, and dismantling of power structures in the very systems they work in, here is what we have to share so far:

• Expect Emotional Fall Out

Friends, when you take this work to your institution. Expect emotions. Challenge yourself by examining the concepts of White Tears and White Fragility. Expect them to show up in yourself and others. There is no way to plan for what will come up, so preparing support for those in need may be warranted.

Our mentors have taught us that the biggest portion of this work is the work we do within ourselves.  The reality of that is it brings up a lot. Some of that needs support outside of the container you are working in, and other issues might be a signal that we’ll need to work on our relationships with each other. Patience, time, trust, and awareness of it will help get to the real issues.

• Don’t Take The Bait

White Supremacy Culture shows up everywhere. Others will try to pick at the work, throw up roadblocks, and threaten the movement by using the punitive and shaming aspects of the cultural norm of whiteness. Don’t take the bait. There is no prescription for how to do this work, there is no way to do it without mistakes, there is no way out but through. And remember, this is nothing compared to the oppression faced by so many, for so long. Keep going.

We hope you’ll walk along with us.

Jaclyn Chamberlain, MPH, RDN, CSP
Director of Community Engagement, Pinnacle Prevention

 Join our community on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
​

The feature article of Stanford Social Innovation Review’s (SSIR’s) spring 2021 issue, Philanthropy’s Rural Blind Spot, made a clear and compelling case for why grant makers, even when focused on equity, have historically overlooked distressed suburban and rural communities in favor of their urban counterparts. While investing in densely populated, economically disadvantaged areas has often been regarded as the supposed “best bang for the buck”, the authors of the SSIR article made the case that this traditional system of funding leaves many communities across the country invisible, throwing equity out of the window.

Interestingly, it is not just that funders are not paying attention to smaller communities, but also that many of the communities lack the human capital to apply and make the case for their own needs and innovative solutions.

“…many smaller communities and organizations applying for grants experience a resource cost problem,
wherein the administrative effort required to get a grant outweighs the value of the grant.”

Therefore, cities like Newark and Harlem, boasting high numbers of anchor institutions and non-profit organizations per capita, receive more funding than cities like Bridgeton and Flint, despite similar challenges. Conclusions of SSIR’s research run parallel to the findings captured in Pinnacle Prevention’s recently launched assessment report: Active Living in Arizona’s Rural Communities: A Call to Action.
​
In 2019, with funding from the Vitalyst Health foundation, we interviewed and surveyed stakeholders across the state to gain a better understanding of how nonprofit and government agencies can work together with rural and tribal communities to improve opportunities for active living. Through the process, we heard that despite a phenomenon of crumbling infrastructure juxtaposed with a growing desire for safe recreation and transportation facilities, local staff in rural and tribal communities are stretched thin and lack the time to apply or even be aware of grant opportunities. Moreover, local champions lack the capacity to navigate complex grant applications on their own. As a result, local community members continue to lack access to safe places to play, gather, and relax. A stakeholder even asked that an organization step up to serve as a “Match.com” for funders and projects.  
​
Thankfully, last year, Pinnacle was also the recipient of a Vitalyst Health Foundation Systems Change grant to develop a collaborative effort focused on improving quality of life across the state through driving active living infrastructure investments into Arizona’s rural and tribal communities. 

The Plan of Action has been to:

• Foster partnership and collaboration around built environment, active living, recreation, trails and land use issues/opportunities;
• Identify assets, needs and wants through listening to community and by engaging with stakeholders;
• Equip local champions and community members to become involved in community planning and development processes;
• Identify and assist with grant applications, and;
• Engage in advocacy and help to develop policy that paves the way for additional funding sources for rural and tribal communities.

Many of these steps are already off the ground. Help us shine the light on some of our state’s Blind Spots. To learn more and get involved, visit: https://www.pinnacleprevention.org/active-living
​​

​April 16, 2021: Please keep reading for updates on BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) grower debt relief made possible through the American Rescue Plan.
 
USDA has published a Frequently Asked Question document (LINK to attached PDF – can this be hosted as an upload on our website?) which answers some of the most common questions farmers have raised so far regarding eligibility, notification, and process for receiving debt forgiveness.
 
USDA has additional information on their website. Here is a recording and link from a recent listening session: ppt slides here.

​A few key takeaways from that listening session:

• Farmers should contact their local USDA office to ensure they have a completed form AD 2047 on file to designate their race / ethnicity and status as a socially disadvantaged farmer. This is the single most important thing to address right now, as USDA will rely on these records to figure out which loans to forgive.
• Farmers will not be required to apply for debt forgiveness – it will be automated.
• Over the next week or so, farmers with a completed AD 2047 on file should receive a direct notification of their eligibility for debt forgiveness. They will likely need to verify the total amount and return to FSA.

A detailed FSA page can be found here, which includes several resources on debt relief, including the FAQ doc and eligibility: Eligible borrowers include those who identify as one or more of the following: Black/African American, American Indian, Alaskan native, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, or Pacific Islander. The American Rescue Plan Act uses Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 as the definition of Socially Disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
 
For important context about the impact of this overdue news on Black agrarian history, check out these two articles:

1. Civil Eats: https://civileats.com/2021/03/29/tracy-mccurty-has-worked-a-long-time-to-see-historic-wrongs-righted-for-black-farmers/
2. The Counter: https://thecounter.org/black-farmers-discrimination-debt-vilsack-american-rescue-plan-covid-19/

 
Please share this post across your networks to ensure that BIPOC producers across Arizona have information about this new resource.
 
###

Have you heard? The new 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) were recently released this past month. As we move into 2021, the timeliness and, also the irony, of the release of the guidelines is not lost on us. Timely, in that they were released just in time as 2020 turned to a close. And ironic, that the urge to focus on an ideal diet in midst of an awful pandemic - that is intimately intertwined with the longstanding injustices that are part of our food and health systems – with increased food insecurity, disruptions to our food system, political strife, and food worker injustices. The light of this context make the DGAs feel like a being offered a five-dollar coupon for an on-flight beverage after your luggage was lost and your flight was canceled. But, yet, despite these realities, our understanding of how we all SHOULD eat marches on.
​
The evolution of the science that goes into the DGAs is nothing to scoff at. This most recent guidance marks the 9th edition of the DGAs which have been released every five years since 1980. The process of what goes into the final document is extensive.  Final guidelines are made following an extensive scientific review. The committee’s expertise and understanding of the dietary guidelines is well researched, understood, and evidence based, though it is worth noting that concerns related to food industry bias have been raised in the field.

It is also worth noting that the intent of the DGAs are in the interest of public health. The new DGAs state that key tenants of writing the guidelines are that it must: represent the totality of the evidence examined, address the needs of federal programs, reduce unintended consequences, follow best practices for developing guidelines, and use plain language. For many, these DGAs are useful for making functional food choices. In reality, humans don’t just eat for nutrition. Nobody will argue that nutrition matters; however, food is also a source of pleasure, of community, of family, of history and tradition, and life. Context also includes social and historical constructs and systems that influence choice, availability, and relationships with food. We hold in equal regard the context of eating as we do the nutrition the food provides. The complexities behind the reality of our relationships with food, and why we champion certain foods and vilify others are deep.

And there are consequences, unintended or not, from failing to include these contexts.  From solely an individual behavior lens, research is continuing to mount on the impact of restriction and feeling restricted on our relationships with food with expectations that individuals should meet nutrient guidelines and patterns. Even expecting individuals to make nutrition the priority of every meal, greatly ignores the reality of life and role of psychology and environment in eating. Add in the context of poverty, food insecurity, trauma and loss of food traditions lecturing about healthy eating starts to feel like victim blaming. Our health, our diet, and wellbeing are intimately and intricately intertwined with larger systems that shape us. Things beyond individual responsibility and control. Deep rooted systems tied to historical and ongoing forms of racism, oppression, and poverty. There is design behind what is available to us and what shapes why we eat what we eat.

We are happy to see that there is recognition of the importance of reducing unintended consequences, but do these words have meaning or just a placation? The truth is, despite 40 years of increasingly detailed guidance, Americans are no closer to achieving them. The guidelines acknowledge that over time, eating patterns in the United States have remained far below the dietary guidelines recommendations. These trends are evident across all socioeconomic levels. So why are we offering slightly modified guidelines over and over every five years and expecting a different result?

What about holding the industry and systems that shape food choices accountable? Despite clear understanding of how increased sugar intake, salt and saturated fat impact health, food environments are no closer to matching the guidance. How can we expect Americans to prioritize nutrition when they are battling for basic needs, coping with injustice, and living in environments designed to add harm?

Obviously, this context matters.  So, when sharing and interpreting this information, in the face of the many reasons behind why people eat what they eat, let us resist the urge to double down and smugly argue “eat less, move more.”  Perhaps it is time to instead, look deeper into the contexts not included, to listen and revise our approach. In the context of moving into 2021, with the light on systemic racism, structural issues, and systemic traumas, it is time to shift power. Maybe folks aren’t meeting the guidelines because our food system is unjust. How about we stop putting the burden of meeting the guidelines on the individual when the guidelines are better targeted to the system itself.

​We won’t see trends improve in meeting the dietary guidelines until the emphasis of meeting these guidelines is targeted back at not focusing on changing the individual, but rather changing the system.