Food insecurity is a critical global issue affecting approximately 735 million people who are in severe levels of hunger, according to the FAO (2023). This situation is characterized by the lack of access to any type of food for one or more days, significantly affecting individuals’ health and well-being. On the other hand, moderate food insecurity, while less severe than acute hunger, also has serious consequences. This level is manifested as skipping one meal a day and is associated with a nutrient-deficient diet, high in calories from sugars, fats, and carbohydrates (Ramírez et al., 2022). Although these foods may temporarily alleviate hunger, they contribute to nutritional deficiencies that negatively impact human development.

As noted by FAO (2019), inadequate nutrition compromises physical, social, and mental well-being, affecting individuals’ daily performance, quality of life, and future well-being. In the context of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), SDG 2, “Zero Hunger,” seeks to eradicate global hunger (Naciones Unidas, 2018). This objective proposes strategies based on an unequal understanding of food access, aiming to address the issue through transformations in food system management, investments, and sustainable agricultural practices.

Among the proposed strategies are the dynamics of food sovereignty. According to Romero et al. (2021), food sovereignty not only focuses on the availability and quality of food but also integrates aspects such as what is produced, how it is produced, and who is involved in production and consumption. This perspective is based on the right to culturally appropriate and sustainably produced food, allowing communities to determine their own food and agricultural policies, promoting local production and control.

If the goal is to confront the structural inequity imposed by the neoliberal food system, food sovereignty emerges as a space for both critique and decisive action (Edelman et al., 2014), where food sovereignty practices incorporate agroecology as a cornerstone for ensuring community control over their own food systems, thereby strengthening their organizational processes and autonomy (Clapp and Isakson, 2018). However, these initiatives unfold in contexts shaped by food security policies that, while addressing food availability and recognizing the importance of community autonomy in production and distribution, fail to acknowledge that the answers to who produces food and for whom are determined by power relations (Patel, 2010).

Furthermore, the widespread use of biotechnologies in agriculture largely poses a threat to the transmission and preservation of ancestral knowledge. It fosters the integration of multinational corporations into the food market by introducing materials and machinery that drive food production and processing, thereby securing control over land, food, and agri-food trade while threatening the planet’s biodiversity and the sustainability of life itself (Shiva, 2016).

In parallel, the food sovereignty literature derived from systematic reviews makes it possible to identify both the advances in the field and the specific contribution of the present review. These discussions address, among other aspects, the relationship between the right to food and outcomes in food and nutrition security (Sampson et al., 2021); the identification and comparison of research traditions in food sovereignty and food security through conceptual and epistemological frameworks shaped by the fields of health and public policy, using a meta-narrative mapping approach (Weiler et al., 2015); as well as analyses of the food–nature relationship that categorize agroecological production practices and discourses while advancing critiques of extractivist agro-industrial models.

Regarding population focus and methodological approaches, the literature includes the identification of successful food sovereignty interventions largely restricted to Indigenous communities in Canada and the United States (Gutierrez et al., 2023); analyses of the alignment between food security and food sovereignty principles and nutrition-related intervention practices in Indigenous communities (Maudrie et al., 2021); and assessments of Indigenous food sovereignty evaluation approaches that lack dialog with collective practices (Abdul et al., 2024).

Although this body of literature is extensive, it does not sufficiently examine the patterns, tensions, and gaps involved in the explicit materialization of food sovereignty within peasant and Indigenous communities at a global scale. This omission is particularly significant given that these communities are producers of historically situated, counter-hegemonic knowledge rooted in agro-food practices intertwined with cultural, spiritual, and political fields. This gap represents an opportunity for advancement in the epistemological field of food sovereignty by contributing robust discussions to context-mediated research–action agendas. In this regard, the present review advances the field through the systematization of situated collective food sovereignty practices across multiple regions, articulating four critical, structural, and analytical axes of discussion.

Therefore, developing an ethical food framework within the construction of food sovereignty—one that, from the standpoint of community autonomy, recognizes the collective struggle for social and ecological justice while keeping the debate on food sovereignty open (Pimbert, 2018)—is imperative. This cannot be achieved without strengthening territorial and community-based food sovereignty practices, nor without observing how food sovereignty is debated, addressed, conceptualized, and enacted on a global scale for peasant, Indigenous, and vulnerable communities.

In this context, the hunger problem underscores the need to recognize and analyze the practices and debates that can contribute to creating conditions for food sovereignty. Therefore, this systematic review seeks to understand what is meant by food sovereignty and what recurring food sovereignty practices have been implemented and studied globally to address hunger, social and community organization around food, and emerging discussions on this concept and its forms of action.

This systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA 2020 methodology (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) due to its ability to provide a critical, transparent, and reliable assessment, reducing publication bias and providing a balanced view of the results. The review is guided by the question: What are the practices and discussions on food sovereignty in community, peasant, and Indigenous settings that have been implemented and studied globally to address hunger over the past 5 years? This review adopts a qualitative, thematic–interpretive approach, which allows for the systematic characterization of practices and the analytical identification of critical conceptual frameworks shaping debates on food sovereignty in peasant and Indigenous communities.

To define the results and meet the criteria, it is important to clarify that this study began with a manual review of the articles and then used the automation tool Elicit to cross-check abstracts and the critical and detailed evaluation of each document performed. Accordingly, the use of this tool assisted in the organization and prioritization of potentially relevant elements within the articles in relation to the objectives of the review; however, it did not determine the inclusion or exclusion of studies, nor did it influence the delimitation of the final corpus.

Regarding the matrix of collected and analyzed data, the following elements were considered:

These elements were identified by specific characteristics that enabled their inclusion in the review, allowing their reading with predefined and understood variables as follows:

Decoloniality: This concept refers to a school of thought originating in South America that critiques Eurocentric epistemic models and their ways of being in the world. This perspective seeks to break away from power-knowledge hierarchies inherited from the colonialist system, the basis of contemporary capitalism, and advocates for epistemic alter-natives that integrate and legitimize other narratives, social subjects, technologies, and moralities beyond the grand narrative of Western culture (Quijano, 2000; Lozano, 2020; Arámbulo, 2021). Eight articles were identified related to critiques of Eurocentric epistemic models and the search for epistemic alternatives.

Indigenous community: This notion is primarily defined by the central role of the territory, which acts as an archetype shaping collective cultural identity, merging material and spiritual elements. The territory embodies the ancestors’ lives, the surrounding nature, cosmology, and the community’s social relations (Alayza, 2024). In this context, the territory becomes a hybrid platform that integrates the intersubjective social fabric and the landscape, providing meaning to the diverse life trajectories of its members. Nine articles related to practices and discussions regarding Indigenous peoples’ food autonomy were identified.

Peasant community: Traditionally, the concept of “peasant” has been associated with Indigenous practices and self-subsistence modes centered on independent labor and family-run farming or livestock operations, with a specific cultural identity. However, in the third decade of the 21st century, we have seen increasing social exclusion and territorial displacement of those who have not integrated into new capitalist accumulation logics. This phenomenon has led to the de-agriculturalization of rural environments, where agricultural production is no longer the predominant activity. Instead, a transition toward service activities and the labor market has emerged, resulting in a shift in rural worldviews and identities, characterized by informal labor and the dissolution of symbolic connections with the land. This transformation has exacerbated socioeconomic and health conditions, intensifying rural poverty and destitution (Colla and Valverde, 2024). Six articles examining the relationship between territory and collective cultural identity from an organized peasant group perspective were identified.

Community group: This can be defined as a collective of individuals sharing common horizons of meaning, an ethical structure, similar territorial relations, and customs that foster collaborative practices and mutual support. According to Ramos (2023), the community acts as an agent of social transformation, formed by a network of relationships that promotes inclusion, equity, symmetry, and participation. Roberto Esposito (2012) challenges the static view of the community, proposing it as a dynamic and transformative process that influences individuals through their interactions and connections. Michel Maffesoli (González Montero and Uribe Lopera, 2023) emphasizes the emotional and esthetic aspects of the community, highlighting the importance of experiential living and emotional bonds that shape the collective experience. Twenty articles focused on collectives sharing common horizons of meaning, ethical structures, and collaborative practices were identified.

Food sovereignty: The evaluation criteria for food sovereignty were based on key definitions provided by various organizations. According to La Vía Campesina, food sovereignty is defined as the “right of peoples, communities, and countries to control their own seeds, land, and water, and to establish their food policies without external threats” (La Vía Campesina, n.d.). In a complementary manner, FAO (2023) describes it as the “right of countries and communities to protect their food production capacity and ensure access to adequate food for all.” Unlike food security, which focuses mainly on food availability, food sovereignty is based on the rights of people and self-organization to ensure clean, appropriate, and accessible food through collective and community practices (Altieri and Nicholls, 2012).

The foregoing categorization is grounded in a consensual methodological decision that integrates criteria related to the democratization of knowledge, particularly open access, and is supported by contemporary epistemological discussions in the field of food sovereignty that conceptualize it as an epistemological, political, and community-based project. Within this framework, territory and the reproduction of life are intrinsically linked to situated collective practices deeply embedded in local and popular forms of knowledge (Altieri and Toledo, 2011; Rosset et al., 2011; McKeon, 2021; Saquet, 2020a).

This approach is aligned with the global academic literature that emphasizes the inclusion of social groups and, accordingly, delimits the study to Indigenous communities, peasant populations, and community groups. From a food sovereignty perspective, these actors consolidate their epistemological foundations through political, community-based, and self-organized processes that resist increasingly aggressive and hostile agro-industrial dynamics of food production and consumption, grounded in decolonial and agroecological approaches.

This aligns with the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) definition, which considers food security as “physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food at all times” (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2020), and with Maxwell and Smith’s description of food security as “a situation where all members of a household have access at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life” (Maxwell and Smith, 1992). Thus, the systematic review focuses on these approaches to analyze practices and organizations linked to food sovereignty.

Thirty-five articles addressed food sovereignty through practical food cultivation processes, while five articles combined theoretical and practical approaches to the same topic. Finally, 12 articles examined the critique of access to food and resources, and 22 articles explored the economic aspects of food sovereignty. Below is the geographic location of the studies:

La Vía Campesina movement introduced food sovereignty as a center piece in conversations about reimagining rural development, in the context of food security, at the 1996 World Food Summit. Today, food sovereignty is still being discussed critically in regards to a community’s internal organizational structure surrounding the production and consumption of food. Food sovereignty also integrates the right to food within the lens of culture and sustainability (Altieri and Toledo, 2011). From a governance standpoint, this approach needs to consider the issue of land, water, and seed access, as pointed out by Schanbacher (2010). This also includes the need to promote health-focused nutritional interventions that guarantee full access to clean, balanced, diverse, and high quality foods, in order to address the global challenge of malnutrition (Otero et al., 2018).

A food sovereignty approach is intimately associated with the agroecological paradigm, which attempts to blend more and less industrialized forms of community, peasant, and indigenous production system known as “non-neo-liberal” food systems (Altieri and Toledo, 2011). In this case, it evolves through ‘participative and decentralized governance systems which strengthen control by citizens over resources’ (Patel, 2010, p. 89). To solve the external deficit of nutriments and the internal deficit of food, movements that claim food sovereignty emerged that draw attention to the local, rural, and community integration.

These strategies include agroecological community gardens and social horticulture, which emphasize the importance of communitarian work. Out of 35 articles focusing on food cultivation practices, 35 of them approach it from an agroecological viewpoint. These practices are sustainable and resilient because they make use of organic inputs, crop rotation, and crop diversification.

A central idea is that the family gardens and horticulture as agroecological practices reinforces historical community and family relationships. In particular, the practice of agroecological production with the cultivation of cucurbits and grasses in certain regions demonstrates the agroecology principle of “giving,” as local knowledge is utilized for the betterment of all.

They reveal the organization of communities that encompasses neighborhoods, collective labor, and agroecology, which are all integrated into educational domains from a critical lens that is concerned with food issues. Furthermore, discussions about food sovereignty practices invite some communities to enhance their planting, organizational, and knowledge skills, linking them to the commercialization of food products. This not only allows them to survive but also to expand their access to other foods through exchange and sales. Simultaneously, researchers and academics must collaborate to promote forms of association that contribute to creating fairer food systems.

However, there are well-known and serious barriers to an extended framework of food sovereignty. Some studies highlight obstacles such as the war, land destruction, and the scattering of communities. Moreover, land grabbing, whether through the usurpation of Indigenous or peasant lands, the loss of agricultural land due to private interests, or the aftermath of war, highlights the disconnect between government policies and food realities. This poses a challenge regarding land tenure and its return, which are crucial issues for the future of food sovereignty based on clean production and community practices that combat the eviction of peasants from their land.

Additionally, one of the chronic problems relating to global food systems is the inability to develop local food sources, which undermines food sovereignty and has adverse health implications due to reliance on industrially produced items. Such reliance facilitates the entry of large multinational agribusiness corporations that market genetically modified foods. Additionally, the coupling of poor innovation and extensive imports has also undermined the effectiveness of small-scale food sovereignty initiatives.

Structural and systemic reflection places the need for decolonial practices at center stage and presents critiques of dominant international food models. A key aspect of food production is respect for nature, as seen in the organizational practices of Indigenous communities. These communities share their relationship with the land and how they maintain their traditional food practices. However, they also emphasize the need to expand the debate on Indigenous peoples’ right to food, linking this right to cultural empowerment and the recognition of ancestral food-related wisdom.

Communities, through their connection with the land, promote a normative structure in the form of five Indigenous food sovereignty foundational principles: relationality, respect, reciprocity, responsibility, and rights. The structure is interconnected with the food sovereignty movement through the “5 Ds of Redistribution,” which include decolonization, decarbonization, diversification, democratization, and de-commodification. These articles argue that food sovereignty should not only consider community access to edible products but also avoid forms of extended commodification.

The panorama revealed through the selected studies suggests that food sovereignty can be understood as a decolonial epistemological action that requires the integration of autonomous cultural and territorial processes, linking environmental conservation with social justice (Saquet, 2021), and structured around four analytical axes. The first is agroecological reterritorialization, which positions food sovereignty within both the material and symbolic dimensions of local agricultural practices. The second axis, autonomy and reciprocity, sustains the food systems of peasant and Indigenous communities through cooperative, trust-based, and self-managed relationships. The third, peasant and Indigenous feminisms, highlights the pivotal role of women in reshaping food systems and advancing agroecological and justice-based practices. Finally, the fourth axis, epistemic decolonial governance, emphasizes the democratization of knowledge and the recognition of ancestral wisdom as a foundation for food sovereignty. Each axis is discussed below, followed by an analysis of key risks threatening food sovereignty and a dialog with recent and emerging research in the field.

Across the studies analyzed, the review identified patterns and contrasts that reveal underlying tensions within the field of food sovereignty. A recurrent pattern is the displacement of the focus from food production toward the construction and maintenance of social fabric, which, in turn, largely determines the sustainability of practices. Likewise, a persistent dissonance between legitimized discourse and the material conditions required to operationalize it is evident in studies characterized by institutional dependency. Finally, the prevailing tendency to foreground “successful” cases often renders conflicts within food sovereignty practices invisible or marginal, thereby constraining a deeper understanding of internal tensions shaping these processes.

With regard to the contrasts identified, the review shows that Indigenous communities tend to prioritize the symbolic value of land, whereas community-based groups more frequently integrate food sovereignty practices within contemporary economic and social dynamics. Additionally, discursive differences between studies that approach food sovereignty from an epistemological development perspective and those that focus exclusively on practical dimensions generate analytical tensions. Similarly, distinctions between food sovereignty practices in self-managed communities and those dependent on external institutions highlight divergent dynamics of control and long-term sustainability, further underscoring the heterogeneous configurations through which food sovereignty is enacted.

Building on these identified patterns, contrasts, and tensions, this research, aimed at identifying practices and discussions on food sovereignty, has revealed a wide range of strategies, critiques, and reflections that offer a deeper understanding of the achievements made by communities concerning food, as well as the path that is followed or suggested to be followed in this area.

First, the difficulties of access to food are addressed, particularly in impoverished sectors where access is limited and often lacks effective support policies or adequate food redistribution. In response, many of these communities have opted for forms of association, such as the creation of food networks, cooperatives, and community work, emphasizing the importance of small-space cultivation with species diversification.

Food sovereignty also stimulates discussion about the use of chemicals and their negative effects, which are associated with rising health problems and environmental degradation, particularly of soils. The communities, in a bid to manage the problems, adopt strategies such as crop rotation and exchange that focus on enhancing the soil quality. Other methods such as infiltration trenches and live barriers that help retain water and boost agricultural productivity are employed. Fertilization methods involve using nettles, fish offal, and, most frequently, composting with animal excreta.

It is crucial to emphasize that food sovereignty cannot be understood from an imposed or colonial perspective that ignores community realities. In this sense, recognizing local and ancestral knowledge, fostering interaction between academia, farmers, and civil society, is fundamental to building inclusive and effective food sovereignty. Indigenous knowledge plays a central role, contributing sustainable practices and rituals associated with cultivation and harvest. These practices not only promote a harmonious relationship between humans and nature but also offer a forward-looking vision that considers nature as a living being with its own spirit. At the same time, the importance of women in planting processes and food sovereignty efforts must be recognized, not only in terms of caring for nature and humans but also in their social and community organizational roles that enable integration and social fabric building around food.

In this sense, food sovereignty does not merely respond to the construction of alternative models of food production and management; rather, it redefines, from within community-based foundations, the ways in which food systems are understood, reflected upon, and produced, thereby dismantling Eurocentric and normative universal paradigms. This perspective contributes to the development of a decolonial epistemological project articulated through the four analytical axes discussed and grounded in collective and multi-actor agency that revalorizes communal, ancestral, popular, and local knowledge. Such agency transforms the autonomous production of knowledge, which is not limited to epistemic creation itself but extends toward sustainable models founded on epistemic and social justice and on care—not only care for the other as a subject, but also for nature as the integrative axis of sovereignty practices.

Finally, it is important to highlight that community processes oriented toward food sovereignty can be linked to other local initiatives, such as commerce. Local trade serves as a basis for food subsistence, allowing cultivated products to be sold and exchanged for other necessary goods. These activities form part of a solidarity economy, where products are traded on a small scale in fairs, markets, and local shops, thus consolidating a community-based network of exchange and subsistence.

As the systematic review points to, various sources, practices, and opinions highlight tackling food sovereignty on a global scale, revealing persistent tensions, patterns, and contrasts within its practical implementation. In order to advance discussions, there is a need to talk directly to grassroots organizations and record their practices. However, traditional academic writing does not typically capture these experiences adequately.

From the early 21st century, food sovereignty debates have been intensified due to the heightened demand for community autonomy, particularly in peasant and indigenous settings. Increasingly, debates highlight the need for building food sovereignty models that strengthen sustainable and autonomous agro-food systems, with access to clean seeds and foods adapted to local conditions and traditional knowledge. From a reviewer’s perspective, it is imperative to recommend greater caution regarding the uncritical transferability of such models. The field of food sovereignty develops in situated ways, integrating specific territorial, social, economic, and organizational elements, as evidenced by Indigenous practices in Canada and Peru and by European community experiences oriented toward alternative economic circuits. This suggests the need to critically revisit current debates on the modeling of food sovereignty and to avoid universalized frameworks that overlook contextual specificity.

This finding highlights the need to critically revisit current debates on the modeling of food sovereignty and to avoid universalized frameworks that overlook contextual specificity. In this regard, the review shows that the agroecological practices underpinning food sovereignty are expressed as forms of collective experimentation, oriented toward the recovery and intergenerational transmission of knowledge, which directly shape community decision-making processes within indigenous and peasant groups.

Additionally, the review indicates the importance of expanding discussion on the implications of incorporating governmental arrangements into community food sovereignty practices. While such arrangements may enhance access and coverage, they also entail risks related to long-term continuity and dependency. Future research and policy-oriented recommendations should therefore critically assess the conditions under which institutional involvement supports or undermines community autonomy and sustainability within food sovereignty processes.

Likewise, based on a significant number of studies within the corpus that frame food sovereignty practices through short food commercialization processes, it is recognized that most of these initiatives are strengthened through multiactor alliances involving peasant movements, peasant cooperatives, social organizations, institutional actors, and academic partners. These alliances enable technical understanding and action without undermining or replacing community autonomy, nor displacing autonomous community processes and community-based territorial knowledge in collective decision-making.

One of the most critical recommendations from this analysis is the necessity of replicating food sovereignty practices. This calls for intergenerational transmission strategies that: (1) reinforce foundational reflections on food sovereignty, (2) preserve and pass down traditional knowledge related to sowing, maintenance, and harvesting, and (3) promote cultural appropriation of these practices to address food-related challenges in communities (Desmarais, 2007).

Finally, additional recommendations derived from the systematic review underscore the importance of creating and strengthening cooperative networks and alliances. Such networks should not only incorporate localized food models but also foster broader policy-oriented discussions on food production and access at the local level (Akram-Lodhi and Kay, 2008). They should also promote the protection and conservation of native seeds, which are fundamental to the preservation of biodiversity (Rosset et al., 2011), and open spaces for research agendas that expand discussions around conceptual and practical tensions, patterns, and contrasts within the field. This includes the incorporation of regionally circulating and restricted-access scientific studies, with the aim of enabling open, critical, and contextually grounded debates.