8. Haudenosaunee Worldviews of Food Sovereignty, Governance and Security: Towards More Just and Sustainable Food Systems

Abstract

Food sovereignty has emerged as a central framework for advancing Indigenous self-determination, including Haudenosaunee self-determination, cultural revitalization, and reconciliation. This chapter explores Haudenosaunee perspectives on food sovereignty, governance, and food security through interviews with community leaders from Six Nations of the Grand River conducted as part of a broader SSHRC-funded project examining the legacy of the Mohawk Institute Indian Residential School. Using a strengths-based qualitative approach grounded in the Two Row Wampum Research Paradigm as a Haudenosaunee relational framework, and informed by Two-Eyed Seeing within a collaborative Indigenous and non-Indigenous research relationship, we examine how community-led food initiatives contribute to healing, cultural continuity, and self-determined food systems. Findings are organized around the Five Rs of Indigenous research: Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, and Relationship. Participants describe food security as extending far beyond access to sufficient food, emphasizing relationships with land, language, ceremony, knowledge transmission, and collective responsibility. Their experiences reveal how food sovereignty is enacted through grassroots initiatives that revitalize traditional foodways, strengthen intergenerational learning, support community governance, and rebuild relationships disrupted by colonialism and residential schools. Two additional Rs—Resilience and Reclamation- emerged from collaborators’ accounts, extending the analytic framework and highlighting the enduring strength of Haudenosaunee knowledge systems and ongoing efforts to reclaim food, culture, and governance. The chapter argues that Indigenous food sovereignty, as demonstrated through Haudenosaunee food sovereignty, is fundamental to reconciliation because it restores agency, supports Nationhood and self-determination, and challenges deficit-based approaches to food security. These findings demonstrate the importance of Indigenous-led and, more specifically, Haudenosaunee-led, culturally grounded food systems in advancing more just, sustainable, and relational approaches to food policy and community wellbeing.

I – Introduction

Expanding the public dialogue and action on reconciliation in Canada is critical for building a shared future that includes the experiences and aspirations of Indigenous peoples. The 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) itemize the work required to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance Canadian reconciliation (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada [TRC], 2015a).

This chapter explores insights from interviews conducted as part of a larger research project that aims to further understanding of truth and reconciliation in the context of gardens, farming, and food experiences at the Mohawk Institute Indian Residential School in Brantford, Ontario. Our SSHRC-funded Insight Development Grant supported the larger project, “Truth Telling: Gardens, Farming and Food experiences at the Mohawk Institute,” in which we listened to stories shared by survivors, their adult children, and community leaders working on food security initiatives. The research team, composed of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, believes that research as reconciliation is possible when the team takes the time to meaningfully engage with community collaborators to co-create knowledge (Freeman & Van Katwyk, 2020). Community leaders were asked about their food security initiatives and recommendations that encompass truth, reconciliation and self-determination of Indigenous peoples.

The objectives of this chapter are a) to describe, based on interviews with community leaders engaged in food systems work within the community of Six Nations; their perspectives on food security and food sovereignty; experiences and reflections on community food initiatives and systems; and b) to frame their insights according to the five Rs of Indigenous research: Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, and Relationships. Ultimately, this research reveals how food sovereignty from a Haudenosaunee worldview is rooted in grassroots food movements that acknowledge historic truths; engage local producers, knowledge holders, learners and community members; draw on core values around environmental and cultural sustainability – the Seventh Generation vision; and uphold self-determination of Indigenous peoples.

II – Canada’s Dark History

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission documented experiences of Indigenous children forced to work in gardens and farms during their school years in Canada’s Indian Residential schools (TRC, 2015a). These experiences exemplify colonial forces of oppression, including enforced child labour and substandard education. Children worked half a day in on-site gardens and farms or in the kitchen. Testimonials describe how children were denied access to the healthy foods they were tasked with harvesting during the work-hours portion of their “education” (TRC, 2015b; TRC, 2015c). The children were subjected to an inadequate diet that hindered healthy growth and development during their time at Indian Residential School (Mosby & Galloway, 2017; Mundel & Chapman, 2010). The bounty of farming and garden initiatives at Indian Residential School was either used to feed the staff or sold to generate income to support the upkeep of the school itself (Mosby & Galloway, 2017; TRC, 2015b; TRC, 2015c). We reiterate the importance of exploring the perspectives on, and updates on, community gardens within Indigenous contexts, as this history suggests there are painful, complex factors for health promoters and other proponents of community gardens to consider. Knowing these Truths will better equip health promoters in their efforts to support Indigenous-led farming and gardening initiatives that reconcile past harms associated with Indian Residential Schools.

III – Defining Food Security and Food Sovereignty From Indigenous Perspectives

Conventional definitions of food security generally emphasize the availability, access, utility, and stability of food. Most definitions of the topic align with recognized institutional frameworks, such as those of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which define food security as access to safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food at all times (see Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 1996; World Health Organization [WHO], 2022). These definitions convey that food security is based on access and availability; however, they often overlook other critical dimensions such as adequacy, acceptability, and agency. The 5As framework (Availability, Accessibility, Adequacy, Acceptability, and Agency) offers a more holistic understanding of food security (Koç, 2024). It pushes beyond just having food nearby or being able to afford it. It asks, “Is the food nutritious?” Does it align with someone’s culture and values? Moreover, importantly, do people have a say in how their food is grown, accessed, or shared? Agency, in particular, is essential because it considers people’s ability to shape and control their own food systems. This emphasis on agency creates a natural point of connection between food security and food sovereignty, as the latter focuses more directly on communities’ rights to self-determination, governance, and control over their food systems.

Some authors, such as Pachón-Ariza (2013) and Jarosz (2014), note that food security is often framed within global trade policies, focusing on stable food supplies and economic accessibility. Economic disparities are often tied to food security, where those with higher household food expenditures as a proportion of income, or those in remote settings facing inequitable pricing, are more likely to experience greater food insecurity, manifesting in chronic hunger and malnutrition, as emphasized by Ogundiran (2019). Although these definitions capture an important aspect of food security, they do not reflect the full picture or what food security means in different communities.

Several Indigenous scholars centring Indigenous perspectives critique mainstream food security definitions for overlooking traditional food systems. Delormier and Marquis (2019) emphasize that Indigenous food security must include access to traditional foods, land, and intergenerational knowledge transmission. Similarly, Cidro et al. (2015) argue that food security for Indigenous communities involves more than just availability and affordability. It must also include culturally appropriate foods and the capacity to sustain and maintain Indigenous food practices. This does not translate solely into having Indigenous and culturally appropriate foods available for consumption, but also into access to traditional knowledge and practices related to harvesting, preparation, and ceremony associated with food. Works such as Whitlow et al. (2019) and Jonathan et al. (2022) highlight how education and knowledge transmission are integral to Indigenous food security, ensuring cultural continuity and empowering communities to maintain traditional diets and practices.

Canada traditionally measures food security using the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) as part of the national Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), which relies on narrow indicators like income and food access. Moreover, it fails to acknowledge the communal orientation of Indigenous food systems, such as sharing the harvest. Nor does it account for the costs associated with procuring, sorting, and preparing foods from the land, nor the communal orientation of Indigenous food systems, such as sharing the harvest (Domingo et al., 2021). Knowing that HFSSM does not measure traditional food access, the First Nations, Nutrition and Environment study (FNFNES), initiated in 2008, includes indicators related to Indigenous food sovereignty using additional questions that addressed the barriers and enablers to obtaining traditional food and the control over access and sufficiency of traditional food (Batal et al., 2021).

Food Secure Canada (2012) sees food security as a means to fulfil its vision of zero hunger, healthy and safe food, and a sustainable food system, while food sovereignty guides it. Food security and food sovereignty are different in some key ways:

1. Food sovereignty is rooted in grassroots movements;
2. Food sovereignty highlights the need for a democratic food system, one that involves inputs from citizens as well as producers,
3. Food security concerns the protection and distribution of existing food systems, whereas food sovereignty emphasizes self-determination toward more sustainable and equitable alternatives (Food Secure Canada, 2012).

Gordillo de Anda and Méndez Jerónimo (2013) and Júnior (2020) emphasize that food sovereignty is a community right to govern its own food systems, ensuring local control over agricultural policies, food production, and distribution. These practices could help evolve the current framework through which food security is viewed and assessed, especially given that existing policies are usually shaped by neoliberal economic frameworks that prioritize trade liberalization and corporate interests over local food systems (Júnior, 2020). Similarly, Gordillo de Anda and Méndez Jerónimo (2013) argue that food sovereignty prioritizes small-scale food production, sustainability, and local governance as an alternative to corporate-driven food security policies.

Indigenous scholars describe how food sovereignty is deeply tied to land rights, traditional knowledge, and cultural revitalization (Cidro et al., 2015; Coté, 2016; Ferrando et al., 2020; Jonathan et al., 2022). Coté (2016) and Jonathan et al. (2022) discuss how Indigenous food sovereignty involves restoring traditional food systems and reestablishing relationships with the land. Food sovereignty can be framed as a response to the disruption of Indigenous governance and foodways due to colonialism (Ferrando et al., 2020), which is why legislation plays an important role in supporting Indigenous food sovereignty because legal recognition can help protect traditional food practices from external economic pressures (Cidro et al., 2015). From a Haudenosaunee perspective, our chapter describes the self-determined efforts toward food sovereignty by a select group of community members.

IV – Broad Overview of Six Nations

The overarching goal of this strengths-based qualitative study is to further understanding of Truth and Reconciliation in the context of food security issues in Canada’s largest First Nations: Six Nations of the Grand River, a Haudenosaunee community located in southern Ontario.

Six Nations of the Grand River, one of Canada’s largest First Nations reserves by population, houses over 13,000 on-reserve residents, with a total registered population of over 27,000 (Government of Canada, 2025). It is distinct in being home to all six Haudenosaunee nations: Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora (Government of Ontario, 2021). Six Nations governance includes both a traditional council representing the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs and Clan Mothers and an elected federal band council, blending Indigenous governance with colonial-imposed structures (Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, 2018). This dual governance plays a crucial role in Six Nations’ resource management and food sovereignty initiatives.

Haudenosaunee of the Six Nations of the Grand River have long been moving where they need to be regarding accessing sustenance for their Nations. In doing so, they have encountered many other Nations and, later, colonizers such as the British Crown. In a shared spirit, Haudenosaunee ensured that the Crown had an understanding of our relationship to this sustenance, as written by Susan Hill: “Therein the Crown recognized the expansive hunting territories of the Haudenosaunee north of Lake Ontario and surrounding Lake Erie, encompassing all of southern Ontario, most of central Ontario, and much of the Ohio River Valley” (2009). The British Crown conceded the land for use by Six Nations, six miles on each side of the Grand River from the mouth to the source (Six Nations Lands and Resources, n.d.). Hill (2009) documents how colonial incursions disrupted long-standing traditional practices, undermining the community’s connection to its ancestral food sources and contributing to ongoing challenges in sustaining cultural foodways.

The land rights of Six Nations originate from the 1784 Haldimand Treaty, which allocated a tract along the Grand River (Six Nations Lands and Resources, n.d.). Originally spanning approximately 950,000 acres, Six Nations currently retains about 5% of this land due to ongoing infringement and land mismanagement by the Crown, which remains a significant legal and social concern (Antonacci, 2024b; Six Nations of the Grand River, 2019). Ferrando et al. (2020) emphasize that land should be understood as a shared commons integral to cultural and ecological sustainability, and that its mismanagement adversely affects essential resources. Even today, these land issues affect access to water: only a third of households are connected to safe drinking water, forcing many residents to rely on alternative sources that may be contaminated (Acquisto & Bond, 2022; Bernstein, 2024).

Historical Context

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy, also known as the Iroquois or League of Nations, was founded to unify Indigenous nations under the Great Law of Peace (Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, 2018). The Confederacy’s core values, such as the Seventh Generation Principle, emphasize long-term sustainability and resource stewardship, which are central to the Six Nations’ food sovereignty movement (Tait-Neufeld & Xavier, 2022). The focus on sustainable, intergenerational practices is reflected in Exploring Indigenous Foods & Food Sovereignty, which connects cultural continuity with resilient food systems (Jonathan et al., 2022). The Mohawk Institute Residential School, often referred to as the “Mush Hole,” operated from 1828 to 1970 and was Canada’s first residential school (Graham, 1997). The institute significantly impacted Haudenosaunee culture, disrupting family structures and detaching community members from traditional food knowledge and practices, contributing to food insecurity in subsequent generations (National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, 2023). The legacy of cultural disruption continues to inspire community-led initiatives to restore traditional practices and reclaim lost cultural knowledge (Hill, 2009). Such colonial impacts on cultural knowledge underscore the importance of current food sovereignty initiatives to restore Indigenous food practices.

Current Context

The Six Nations community has responded to food insecurity through grassroots food sovereignty projects that address both access and cultural reclamation. Programs like Healthy Roots and Our Sustenance aim to reconnect the community with traditional foods, offering Haudenosaunee-grown produce and educational workshops on traditional farming, foraging, and food preservation (Population Health Research Institute, 2021; Feast House, n.d.). Healthy Roots, established in 2015, promotes a diet based on pre-contact foods, excluding colonial-introduced items such as refined sugar and flour. The initiative fosters health and cultural pride, reflecting the broader movement for Indigenous food sovereignty that aligns food practices with cultural values (Tait-Neufeld & Xavier, 2022). The model presented in Healthy Roots: Building Capacity through Shared Stories (Gordon et al., 2018) illustrates how such grassroots efforts improve health outcomes and reinforce cultural resilience and pride.

Additionally, educational institutions and language revitalization efforts play a pivotal role. Kawenni:io/Gaweni:yo Private School, which offers immersion in the Cayuga and Mohawk languages, reinforces Haudenosaunee cultural identity, which is interwoven with food traditions (Antonacci, 2024a). This cultural education, combined with community-led food projects, empowers Six Nations residents to reclaim their heritage and strengthens intergenerational knowledge transfer (Feast House, n.d.). Moreover, the educational initiatives described in Yehyatonhserayenteri (Whitlow et al., 2019) demonstrate how integrating traditional pedagogies fosters a holistic understanding of food sovereignty, thereby supporting the community’s revitalization efforts.

As Six Nations language revitalization grows, so have the programs and delivery at Mental Health Services and Youth Initiatives in the community. Revitalizing Our Sustenance was founded by a young Indigenous woman, Denise Miller, who, with access to her family’s land and gardening equipment, created a space to guide and develop the next generations of Haudenosaunee farmers on Six Nations of the Grand River. Her alignment with the local Universities, where her friends and colleagues attended, supported cross-cultural initiatives that brought non-Indigenous students to Six Nations to learn from youth and elder Haudenosaunee knowledge keepers. From soil to table, her programs and teachings offered space for Haudenosaunee knowledge keepers, chefs, and farmers to revitalize and care for traditional seeds.

The language of revitalization has also supported programs within the Six Nations Council’s mental health and wellness services. Land-based learning programs such as egawadiyadagenha “they will be helping” (in Cayuga language) bring traditional knowledge sharers from the Six Nations community to lead and model cultural activities such as snow snake, lacrosse, spear fishing and traditional language use throughout all activities (Six Nations Department of Wellbeing, n.d.)

Six Nations’ approach to food sovereignty is a multifaceted response to colonial impacts on land and cultural practices. The community’s initiatives highlight a holistic vision of health, embracing both physical sustenance and the preservation of Haudenosaunee identity through sustainable food systems. Collectively, these efforts, rooted in traditional governance, resilient historical memory, community-led food programs, and culturally grounded education, reinforce the critical importance of Indigenous-led initiatives in reclaiming and sustaining food systems (Hill, 2009; Monture, 2020).

V – Methods

The 5As of food security define agency as: The policies and processes that enable the achievement of food security (Centre for Studies in Food Security, n.d.). Menezes (2001) and Jarosz (2014) discuss agency, or self-determination, as an essential element of food security. This speaks to an individual or community’s ability to respond to their own food needs in ways that align with their cultural and personal preferences. For example, for Indigenous peoples, agency could be defined as freedom from dependence on a colonial, market-based food system and the transition to traditional Indigenous food systems (Coté, 2016; Robin, 2019). When engaging in strengths-based research focused on agency or self-determination, we used the 5Rs in Indigenous research within our overarching framework: Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, and Relationship (see University of British Columbia, 2021, 2023). To be elaborated on later in this section in our sense-making process.

The overarching theoretical approach encompasses a Two-Eyed Seeing perspective, which is described by Martin (2012) as a challenge to researchers (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) to understand the larger dimensions (physical, emotional, spiritual) of our knowledge systems and the limitations and challenges that accompany any single approach to viewing the world (p. 36). This framework is particularly relevant in research involving the legacies of residential schools and the reclamation of foodways at Six Nations, where spiritual and land-based knowledge systems remain central to community healing (Peltier, 2018; Roher et al., 2021).

Aligned with the Two-Eyed Seeing perspective, the Two Row Wampum paradigm provided a foundational guide throughout the research as a Haudenosaunee-specific framework emphasizing the importance of relational accountability, coexistence, and parallel paths between Indigenous and settler knowledge systems, each travelling side by side, neither interfering nor assimilating the other (Freeman & Van Katwyk, 2020). Using Haudenosaunee principles was especially significant when navigating the intersection of traditional food knowledge and institutional histories, such as those surrounding the Mohawk Institute Residential School (Freeman & Van Katwyk, 2020)

The theoretical orientation is grounded in Indigenous relationality; the methodological design draws on Kovach (2009), who outlines how tribal-centred Indigenous methodology is rooted in story, protocol, and community-specific contexts. Kovach (2009) emphasizes:

Research resulting from an Indigenous paradigm should include a strong narrative component in both the method and the presentation of findings. At times, Western analytic tools such as coding or thematic grouping may be used alongside narrative approaches, with full transparency about their epistemological limitations and acknowledgment that they do not represent Indigenous ways of knowing (p. 35).

The concept of skanikonhra, or “coming to be of one mind,” as described by Sunseri (2011), further shaped the theoretical commitment to consensus-building and collective wellbeing. Within the Haudenosaunee worldview, this involves more than agreement; it is an ethical process of aligning with Creation, responsibilities, and each other—particularly in contexts of cultural disruption and reclamation.

An Indigenous epistemological approach to research is the Two Row Wampum research paradigm. Since the project involves a Haudenosaunee community, it is appropriate to employ a Two Row Wampum Research paradigm. Dr. Bonnie Freeman further developed the Two Row Wampum Research paradigm while working with Indigenous communities alongside non-Indigenous colleagues, resulting in both researchers acknowledging their respective positionalities while merging into a joint space of critical consciousness through reflective communication and expression (Freeman & Van Katwyk, 2020). The Two Row Wampum Research Paradigm allows us to honour how we as a research team ‘come to being again of one mind’ (see Sunseri, 2011) in the context of research that is framed by respecting Haudenosaunee foundational principles of alliance building by upholding peace, friendship and respect for one another (Freeman & Van Katwyk, 2020; Hill & Coleman, 2019). While the original intent of the Two Row Wampum is a treaty agreement between nations to coexist in peace, friendship and respect for one another as they travel down the river of life together, this same intent can be applied to any relationship, in particular among researchers (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) who are working together to find solutions to problems identified by the community (Freeman & Van Katwyk, 2020). Conducting research using an Indigenous paradigm benefits the community by promoting cultural protocols, respectfully recentering Indigenous knowledge, and aligning with Indigenous ethical codes (Getty, 2010). Centring culture is a strong starting point, as it reconfigures the research approach to privilege the agency of all things relational (Martin, 2017).

Research can be reconciliatory when it acknowledges historical injustices, centres Indigenous voices, and builds relationships grounded in mutual respect, trust, and shared benefit. Indigenous communities have long been thinking about the issues that affect them. Therefore, the researchers involved in the project must engage meaningfully with the Indigenous community throughout all stages of the project, from research design to dissemination of the results (Brant Castellano & Reading, 2010; Ermine et al., 2004; Schnarch, 2004; Vogel, 2015). This creates a paradigm shift in present-day research practices, in which Indigenous communities are demanding participatory, community-based, and action-oriented approaches to health research. They also call for research processes and methodologies that reflect the needs, issues, and concerns of community members themselves (Bull, 2010; Kovach, 2009; Maar et al., 2011). As such, community collaboration is central to this project’s methodology.

Interview Guide

The research team of Haudenosaunee (BF, TLM, SJ) and non-Indigenous members (RH, JY) developed a semi-structured interview guide with input and approval from community advisors: Rick Hill, Chandra Maracle and Sherlene Bomberry (who is a residential school survivor and active member of the Survivors Secretariat and board member). The Survivors Secretariat was established in 2021 to organize and support efforts to uncover, document, and share the truth of what happened at the Mohawk Institute during its 140+ years of operation. Chandra Maracle and Rick Hill are food activists in the Six Nations community. Bonnie Freeman is a Six Nations member and Associate Professor at McMaster University, and Teri Morrow is a master’s-trained registered dietitian. Teri is also a member of Six Nations, and with her in-depth knowledge of the community, she was instrumental in purposely sampling collaborators. Sandra Juutilainen is a Oneida Nation of the Thames member and Assistant Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University with a longstanding working relationship with Six Nations as a registered dietitian and researcher. Rhona Hanning and Jennifer Yessis are faculty members at the University of Waterloo. The community advisory committee approved the final interview guides for residential school survivors, adult children of survivors, and community stakeholder interviews.

Ethics approvals were obtained from the Six Nations Band Council, University of Waterloo (ORE # 40637), McMaster, and Toronto Metropolitan University.

Collaborators (i.e., those we interviewed) were purposively selected by members of the research team who reside in the community of Six Nations (BF, TM) based on people known to be actively engaged in the local food systems at Six Nations. Of the eight collaborators interviewed, all are Indigenous with a long-standing history of work in the Six Nations community related to food; seven of the collaborators live in the community, and one has long-standing employment within the community. The different roles collaborators have in the community food systems include: a knowledge guardian^[1], managing community health programs, developing and running culture-based education/school programming, land-based cultural programming for youth, community gardening, a chef who focused on using Haudenosaunee foods, and the Six Nations Farmers Association.

Interviews were conducted at Six Nations between January 2020 and February 2020 by SJ and TM, using a conversational approach (Kovach, 2009). Interviews were guided by questions approved by the community advisors and audio-recorded with each participant’s permission, then transcribed by the Flying Fingers transcription service.

The first step of our analysis was for all members of the research team to complete a close reading of all eight collaborator interview transcripts. Two members of the analysis team (JY and RH) used the semi-structured interview guide to frame coding deductively. For example, questions regarding food security and food sovereignty from the script served as initial codes. Members of the analysis team (RH and JY) also used an inductive coding strategy, also known as an “open coding” or a “data-driven” process, while respectfully reviewing the transcripts (Creswell & Creswell, 2008; Braun & Clarke, 2012). This highlighted the importance of representation and centring collaborators through their transcriptions to speak on their own behalf. “Representation of Indigenous communities empowers them to identify and share what is relevant and important to their people. It allows the voice of the community and each participant to be heard (Tsosie et al., 2022, p. 3).”

After reviewing the open codes, alignment with the 5 Rs of Indigenous research (Peterson, 2023; Saskatchewan NEIHR, 2023) became apparent; therefore, we used this to frame the themes emerging from the inductive coding. Based on our process, we used the 5Rs as a guide (University of British Columbia, 2023) and then redefined what each R meant according to how collaborators described their experiences. See below each “R” and its definition:

• Respect: Honour cultural practices, worldviews, and protocols (respect for people, traditions, culture, land)
• Relevance: Ensure alignment with community needs
• Reciprocity: Foster mutual benefits and exchange of knowledge (future generations)
• Responsibility: Ethical research practices and accountability (responsibility to future generations – that is the community perspective)
• Relationship: Build trust and meaningful partnerships (relationships include with other community members, land, culture)

Where overlap appeared between the 5 Rs, content was identified as the most dominant theme or attached to more than one R. Further discussion based on the revealed themes and quotes selected to support each theme then occurred with three members of the research team (RH, JY, SJ). Quotes chosen were reviewed and accepted or changed (BF, TM)

The perspective of TM informed final decisions regarding the inclusion and framing of participant quotes; TM is a Haudenosaunee researcher and community member from Six Nations who maintains lived, familial, and governance relationships with the land, waters, and people of the territory. This relational positioning strengthened the analysis by grounding it in community-specific cultural knowledge, values, and responsibilities. TM’s understanding of the participants and the broader context in which their stories were shared enabled a careful selection of quotes that reflected not only thematic alignment but also the integrity and resilience of community voices. This approach ensured that the narrative emphasized strength, continuity, and self-determination, thereby countering extractive or deficit-based framings that often dominate research involving Indigenous communities. The selection process was guided by a commitment to ethical storytelling, cultural continuity, and respect for participants’ lived realities.

VI – Findings: Collaborators’ Perspectives on Food Security and Food Sovereignty

In each interview, collaborators were asked to define what food security meant to them. While participants were not asked directly about food sovereignty, they were asked about food programming that would encompass self-determination. Food sovereignty aligns with self-determined food programming. In the eight interviews, ideas about “enough food”, “access”, “readily available food”, and “you don’t have to ask anybody for anything” were mentioned as important aspects of food security. However, beyond availability, many responses also emphasized the importance of healthy and sustainable relationships around food.

One of the collaborators provided more depth to their response by saying that “food security would be like me passing on my knowledge to my younger ones and trying to show them the ways that I was taught. Like through…gardening and how we look after our animals and respect them. And just trying to keep that alive pretty much” (Collaborator A).

Another noted that “food security to me is how we feed our nations and our families, and how we’re using culture in food security to revitalize and build on our connection with the land. Um, because food isn’t just food. Food is like I have a responsibility” (Collaborator E).

Another collaborator said:

Well, for food security, for me, it’s you don’t have to ask anybody for anything. You have everything you need. It’s not that you have to have everything that you need, but you have a source for everything you need. Right? Like, I might grow two kinds of corn, but if I want this third one, I know so-and-so grows it, and I would trade them. Right? Everything we do, we barter. Like we don’t just give people stuff (Collaborator G).

Collaborators described food sovereignty as concepts related to understanding and teaching others about the origins of Haudenosaunee food, making informed, culturally rooted food selections, revitalizing Indigenous methods and traditional food, and sharing the spiritual connection to food and self/community sufficiency. Collaborator D describes the actions she is involved in for “gathering like on the land, hunting, harvesting, food preparation, food preservation, using Haudenosaunee foodways to emphasize traditional teachings.” Another collaborator emphasizes that their role is to “promote best practices in creating edible food that goes into people and animals and helps to maintain the land so that it stays fertile for the next crop season and the next generation.” They also want to “pass on [my] knowledge to other younger people. And the preservation of white corn and beans and edible foods that we can grow on the territory” (Collaborator C).

Another describes the ease with which she teaches her community members about traditional food preparation: “I’m like, ’ I’m going to show you how to do it like in a pot on your stove for enough that that’s what you’re going to need. You might have some leftover, and you can freeze it.’ Right? Because everybody makes it this big, intimidating thing and it’s like, well, that’s why we lost it because everybody thinks it’s a big deal” (Collaborator G).

Table 1 summarizes what was mentioned across collaborator interviews, highlighting their perspectives on food security and food sovereignty.

Table 1: Summary of Community Collaborator Perspectives of Food Security and Food Sovereignty

 Challenges to Food Sovereignty: Acknowledging the Truth

The residential school system fundamentally altered Indigenous people’s relationship with land. As Collaborator B notes: “It fundamentally changed Indigenous people’s relationship with land and our understanding of our responsibilities to land.” This disconnection transformed what was once a reciprocal, ceremonial relationship into exploitative labour where Indigenous people, she adds, “were not seeing any of the benefits of that hard work.”

Residential schools created traumatic associations with food production. Collaborator B observes: “gardening or home gardening kinda dropped off… Is it because they were almost like slave labourers in those gardens that we don’t see a lot of gardening happening around here?” The forced labour in residential school gardens created lasting aversions to agricultural practices, as “you get a negative impact from something and you just don’t want to do it” (Collaborator B).

Trauma has led to protective behaviours around cultural knowledge, including food practices. Collaborator E points out: “A big thing is access. Um, because of the residential school legacy, so much of our cultural information is guarded and protected.” This protection, while necessary, can limit knowledge transfer needed for food sovereignty. Residential schools disrupted family structures and food provision systems across generations. Collaborator E describes how a survivor’s approach to family care was reduced to minimal food provision: “They would come once a month, drop off, um, a box of food. And that’s what they had to manage for the month, um, at 7 years old.” These patterns of food insecurity and an erosion of agency became intergenerational.

Food sovereignty challenges are amplified by “ongoing oppression and lack of access to, um, like food, and good employment,” as Collaborator E notes. Historical trauma, combined with contemporary socio-economic barriers, creates complex obstacles to food sovereignty. Bridging traditional and modern food production knowledge is challenging. As Collaborator G asks: “Like why are we not starting another community garden? We got people or somebody building one right that has the seed, has the knowledge, has the gardening techniques; modern and traditional.” The loss of traditional knowledge coupled with limited access to resources creates significant barriers. Dependency on external food systems disconnected from Indigenous values presents a fundamental challenge to food sovereignty.

Community collaborators’ experiences included the above-mentioned challenges, as well as reflections on what works in their community and how community members and community partners could work together to strengthen local food systems. Insights were framed according to the five Rs of Indigenous research: Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, and Relationships. Each “R” is detailed below and includes quotes from our collaborators.

Respect: Honour Cultural Practices, Worldviews, and Protocols (respect for people, traditions, culture and land)

Respect encompasses cultural practices, including efforts to maintain continuity amid cultural disruption of Haudenosaunee worldviews, as well as respect for land and food, and protocols. Collaborators discussed how food has stories and their connectedness to those stories. They provided details on how the language and cultural connections to Indigenous food ways were interrupted by colonial policies such as Indian Residential Schools: “Like, I said my great-grandparents were the ones that were directly affected by it. And then, it would be my grandparents didn’t really have the knowledge or couldn’t speak the language like my great-grandparents could” (Collaborator A). Collaborators further reflect on the colonial disruption and respect for cultural continuity: “I just tried to fight to keep what I had anyway. And what I could absorb” (Collaborator A). A sense of respect emerged from discussions of the interconnectedness of food and land based on which territory it came from. Collaborator G talked about how she likes to learn about food from other territories and is in particular interested in the stories associated with those foods/ingredients. “It’s important that not only do we learn how to work with those ingredients from those territories but to remember and honour, and not forget where those came from: the stories that come along with them. Because that to me is just as important as having access to that food.”

Respecting cultural practices in relation to agriculture and growing/harvesting food was highlighted by some collaborators as a norm, passed down from generation to generation: “It was normal for us to be working in the garden, to be sent out to the garden to get something for supper” (Collaborator B). Moreover, when it has not been the norm, there are opportunities to introduce agriculture, growing and harvesting to youth who spend time with Elders in the fields. Collaborator C elaborates on the impact of youth learning alongside Elders:

When they’re able to participate in those things. When there is an openness to going to someone’s property and do it respectfully…So, in the past you would see damage done to people’s crops that sometimes the kids didn’t know what they were damaging.  But now, they actually can identify the corn; the white corn. So, I have never experienced in the last few years any damage done by vehicles to the crop.

Respect for seeds and ways in which seeds are shared is an embedded Haudenosaunee practice; Collaborator G spoke about her experience attending a seed exchange and how there should be an intention to plant when being given or taking seeds:

…even through seed exchanges… they’re really thinking about how is this seed being treated? Like, don’t just take it to have it. Take with the intention to grow it. And they’re changing the way that they do seed exchanges because normally they just..you know, they’ll put them out where you have the tray where you can walk around and take what you want. But, it kind of got, I guess, like, frenzied. It seemed like. And that’s not respectful. Right?

Our collaborators talked about respect as a Haudenosaunee principle when sharing stories about growing, procuring, sharing and consuming foods from the land. Connectedness to land, learning from Elders, re-learning practices that the impacts of Indian Residential School have disrupted, and deep respect for a commitment to cultural continuity.

Relevance: Aligns with Community Needs

A collaborator spoke about the importance of aligning programming with the Six Nations Community Plan (see Six Nations of the Grand River, 2019), a comprehensive, community-driven roadmap designed to guide the development of the Six Nations of the Grand River toward a sustainable and culturally grounded future. She further described the Community Plan and how it is used to align work with community needs:

The Community Plan in each of our work plans in the…like through our indicators and through the actions in which we’re doing: which Community Plan goal does it align with. Right? So, is it supporting, building the environment, Mother Earth? Is this like a health and wellness [initiative]? So, how does that come into play? And, I think those are conversations that have recently started with the new Community Plan rolled out in the fall of 2019” (Collaborator D).

In several cases, collaborators expressed that being asked to reflect on the intersection of food security, governance, and the legacy of residential schools prompted new insights. For example, Collaborator G noted that “no one has ever asked me about these issues,” revealing a broader disconnect between institutional actors and grassroots food leaders in how services are provided to the community. She further reiterated her concerns about programming run by non-Indigenous staff at Six Nations:

How are we going to teach sustainability when we’re teaching it in a western method? Right. So that’s the big thing that we need to get outside of western thought.  Not just western teaching but western thought. And, I don’t want to go to health promotions and have some non-Native chick tell me about Indigenous foods when they probably haven’t even eaten them before.

Collaborator D, similarly, expressed that the interview made her realize gaps in strategic alignment for program planning: “In our program planning, where I think we can do better, is by having more voice of community presence.” Another grassroots collaborator talked about how there were some challenges to accessing funding from the band Council for programming: “At the beginning of bringing this to the elected Council’s ears…they weren’t really seeing the benefits of it [agriculture, growing and harvesting food]. So, we had to go a number of times to discuss it. And probably a number of those times there was more chances of not getting the help that we needed to make this a reality, than there was getting it” (Collaborator C).

Our collaborators who work at the grassroots level feel that sometimes community-funded programming is not relevant to their needs, or that their grassroots initiatives are not funded at the levels requested. Six Nations has a Community Plan as of 2019, and conversations are beginning regarding guiding programming toward a culturally grounded future; however, it was expressed that more work is needed to include community voice.

Reciprocity: Foster Mutual Benefits and Exchange of Knowledge (future generations)

Reciprocity is a multifaceted concept that works in diverse ways according to our collaborators. One key way reciprocity is shown is through the passing of knowledge between generations. One collaborator indicated, “I’m 80 now, and I want to pass on my knowledge to other younger people” (Collaborator C). This quote demonstrates the Elder’s commitment to sharing accumulated wisdom, ensuring cultural continuity and intergenerational knowledge exchange. This collaborator also mentioned preserving “white corn and beans, and edible foods that we can grow here on the territory,” indicating the transfer of practical food-systems knowledge (Collaborator C).

Collaborators also described how they work collectively with others. One example is institutional reciprocity where those involved in food preparation also have input into the decisions in the Everlasting Tree school philosophy and way of working: “The school made all the employees a part of the food programs…brought into be part of the decision-making around recipes or food programming” (Collaborator B).

Collaborators document a reciprocity that extends to the natural world. One collaborator articulates, “I have a responsibility to the land to go and tap those trees… that relationship between food and nation is reciprocal, and it goes both ways” (Collaborator E). This profound understanding of reciprocity reaches beyond human relationships to include obligations to the natural world.

The reference to one collaborator’s mother’s basement being “the food bank” shows how reciprocity is built into traditional community support systems. “She knew what was there and she knew how long it was going to last, and she’d provide it” indicates thoughtful management and distribution of resources for community members (Collaborator C).

Reciprocity continues in Six Nations today through bartering and trading as described by our collaborators. “We barter a lot for different things… for time and for supplies” (Collaborator A). They also shared detailed examples of trading homegrown produce (tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers) for turkey and exchanging with a cousin who makes “applesauce and pies,” demonstrating a living practice of reciprocity. “So, it’s just like a big circle pretty much… It works out pretty good, and everybody eats well” (Collaborator A). This beautifully captures the cyclical, sustainable nature of reciprocal relationships.

Our collaborators have shared that reciprocity is not transactional but represents a holistic worldview that encompasses responsibilities to community members, future generations, and the land itself. It manifests through knowledge sharing, food growing and preparation, collaborative decision-making, and resource distribution.

Responsibility: Ethical Research Practices and Accountability (responsibility to future generations – that is the community perspective)

Responsibility is a foundational principle that connects individual actions to collective well-being within Indigenous food contexts. Rather than treating food as a commodity, these perspectives frame food relationships as sacred obligations that sustain cultural identity, ecological health, and community resilience. This holistic approach to responsibility offers important insights for developing more just and sustainable food systems that honour the relationships between people, land, and future generations.

One way responsibility was emphasized was related to maintaining Indigenous food sovereignty by ensuring that traditional agricultural knowledge, harvesting practices, and food preparation techniques are passed to younger generations. Collaborator E spoke to this: “As a Mohawk woman, I have a responsibility to be teaching these kids. I have knowledge. I have skill. I have land. I have access.” This responsibility is positioned as essential to cultural continuity and food independence. Related to this dimension of responsibility, equipping future generations with practical skills needed for food sovereignty emphasizes autonomy and reduced dependence on external food systems. Collaborator B stressed this idea: “I want to show my grandchildren how to grow food and feel like they are capable of looking after themselves.”

The responsibility to maintain traditional food security networks is seen in various local food distribution systems that either are or were part of the Six Nations community and were viewed positively. Collaborator B described how the idea of a local food bank worked:

Take what you need and don’t take more than what you need… Leave some for the next guys to come in and get what they need… That type of understanding is, at the end of the day, whether it’s white corn, uh, flint corn, tomatoes, potatoes, whatever it is.

Targeted donations by those involved in food systems reflect responsibility for ensuring food security for vulnerable community members, particularly Elders and school children, demonstrating how responsibility manifests through prioritizing those with specific nutritional needs. Sharing food with community and organizations was described as: “Most of it we donate to the Elders’ dinners. And then, we donate some food to the Everlasting Tree School… And then, I usually donate some food to the baby food making person” (Collaborator A).

Collaborators described the importance of responsibility for systemic change in how food knowledge is transmitted institutionally, connecting individual food practices. Collaborators emphasized the responsibility to teach children through active participation, which relates to cultural continuity; they identified a responsibility to maintain cultural practices around food, particularly regarding traditional foods like white corn.

Collaborators noted that food systems work is integral to broader healing, demonstrating a responsibility to address historical trauma by reestablishing Indigenous food relationships. Collaborator E described that “for us it was an opportunity to rebuild nations… which fundamentally is about beginning or continuing the work of undoing that residential school legacy.”

We also heard from our collaborators that responsibility for ensuring food-related teaching and community food systems operate through non-hierarchical models contrasts with colonial approaches to food management. Collaborator B indicated that “Some responsibility that we carried to show them a good relationship. Like, what good relationships were about and supposed to be. So like it wasn’t, um, authoritarian or authoritative and for sure there was no…like you know, that’s another thing is, um, we really strayed from punitive punishment”

Relationship: Build Trust and Meaningful Partnerships (relationships with community and other community members, land, culture)

Relationship underscores the importance of building trust and maintaining meaningful, long-term partnerships, as relationships are central to Indigenous ways; for Haudenosaunee peoples, this extends to relationships with other community members, other nations, land, creatures, culture, and beyond. This is celebrated with Ohen:ton Karihwatehken, the Thanksgiving address, which is integral to social and sacred meetings. “Food in a Haudenosaunee context is wrapped up in everything” (Collaborator H).

Collaborator perspectives reveal how food practices create, sustain, and heal relationships across multiple domains. This relational understanding suggests that addressing food security requires attention not just to food access, but to the quality and nature of relationships that food practices either strengthen or undermine. The emphasis on trust-building, long-term partnerships, and interconnectedness provides a framework for developing food systems that honour Indigenous ways of knowing while meeting contemporary community needs.

The concept of relationships integrally links food with cultural identity and views food practices as a path toward cultural revitalization, recognizing food as a way to strengthen identity. Collaborators emphasized quality and sharing as central food values.

Relationship with Community and Other Community Members

In contrast to the individual-first orientation of the colonial culture, Indigenous culture centres around community: “need to build quality and sharing into this” discourse on food security (Collaborator H). One respondent exemplified this sharing through her mother supplying the corn she grows and processes ceremonially and communally (Collaborator F). For another, it involved looking out for those with less: “We’re providing the…well, just me alone and my daughters, we’re providing food for at least five or six families. ……and we donate food to different programs within Six Nations too” (Collaborator A).

Within Six Nations, many community members work collectively to raise food standards and bring families and the community together around food. The Everlasting Tree School Nutrition Program is a model of healthy food and community-building.  “….classes eat around table, little rituals. Thanksgiving built into the whole school day….I find that with Haudenosaunee people, like we do things together” (Collaborator H).

Community and organizational relationships are central to food programming. There are some positive examples. “We’re [Six Nations Health Services] newly re-engaging with the new Six Nations Food Bank. So, I think how we can expand that partnership is something we’re exploring” (Collaborator D). A desire was also expressed for Health Services to work with others as part of a community food strategy:

I think there could be more effort to extend and expand to work more collaboratively with other community orgs. So, I think that’s sort of the initiative with the food bank: like how can we support, engage, involve? But also, how do we do that, um, broader as well. And how that can kind of feed into, you know, gaining feedback and input from community on what it is that we’re currently doing? What do we need to improve upon? And, how do we grow that to better adjust to the needs and kind of come to some sort of strategy, um, within the community because I think that’s a gap right now (Collaborator D).

When asked in the interview, ‘How can Six Nations develop food programs that encompass truth, reconciliation and self-determination of Indigenous peoples?’, one response was, “I think we need to do a much better job of partnerships and working together because there’s a lot of really amazing programs in the community. Um, and I think we need to create more community space for learning” (Collaborator E).

Several respondents talked about intergenerational knowledge transmission. For example, food security was expressed as “knowledge handed down from mom and grandmother” (Collaborator F). Another shared:

And being involved in the cooking and I carry that on in my daycare. That if they want to help me with the food, they help me with the food because I cook with them. So, it’s all about relationship and developing a good relationship with the food. Yeah, they can be part of it. And, in the summertime, they’ll be doing garden work with me or be with me when I do garden work. And they can participate if they want to (Collaborator B).

Relationships with the Land

Several respondents talked about how good stewardship of the land and resources is critical to one’s relationship to it: “From a Haudenosaunee perspective, land is what you do with it – grow, trap, fish” (Collaborator H). Collaborator C added: “My role is to help promote best practices in creating edible food that goes into people and animals. And, help to maintain the land so that it stays fertile for the next crop season and for the next generation”

There is also a desire to establish relationships within the community with food providers who share those values:

I’m just trying to, um, be a part of building that system where I can like, you know, I know you’re here. So, I’m going to use your food. And plus, I see, you know, how he raises his animals. I know who he is. So, and he comes from generations of raising animals. There’s nothing new for him, and they’re all just field animals and field chickens; yard chickens. You know what I mean? They don’t have an industrialized version of, you know, the animal, um, upbringing, raising them (Collaborator B).

Relationships with Culture

Food is an extension of culture. This is reflected in the reclamation of traditional food and foodways. They are now teaching language in early childhood education: “Cuz it wasn’t just about food. It was about language. It was about, you know, the way we were as teachers towards the children. So, everything was in reverse; countered from what happened to them at the residential schools” (Collaborator B).

Our Findings Led Us to Two Extra Rs: Resiliencies & Reclamation

Resiliencies

Food activity examples shared by collaborators demonstrate resilience and self-determination among community members who maintain traditional knowledge. These initiatives show how food practices support nation-building by reconnecting community members with their cultural responsibilities. As Collaborator E powerfully articulates, food security initiatives represent “an opportunity to rebuild nations” and are fundamentally about “continuing the work of undoing that residential school legacy.” This perspective frames food sovereignty not merely as addressing hunger, but as a deliberate act of cultural and political reclamation. By revitalizing traditional food systems, communities are actively reconstructing nationhood that residential schools attempted to dismantle.

The open-access approach to community gardens reflects Indigenous values around food sharing and collective responsibility. Collaborator E describes that “anybody in the community can just come and pick whatever is in the garden,” demonstrating how these initiatives embody traditional principles of resource sharing while addressing contemporary food security challenges. This model directly counters the individualistic food systems imposed through colonization by reestablishing communal approaches to food production and distribution. Collaborator G observed that:

My ma had a garden. You know, it’s just something that you did. And a lot of people down here do it. I’m really encouraging it. I see it every spring; almost every house has a little garden, and that’s amazing. Right? You’re not going to see that often. You’re never going to see that anywhere else. And, I’m encouraged by it because, like, you sit there and drive around the Rez and every year those gardens are getting a little bit bigger.

This speaks to the grassroots nature of food sovereignty reclamation and highlights how small, household-level acts of growing food collectively contribute to broader community resilience. The expanding gardens represent visible symbols of cultural continuity and resistance.

Initiatives help reconnect community members, particularly youth, with their cultural responsibilities toward food and land. The ongoing practice of gardening as ‘just something that you did’ illustrates how traditional food knowledge continues to be enacted despite attempts to sever these connections. By maintaining these practices and expanding their reach, knowledge holders fulfill their responsibility to ensure these traditions continue for future generations. Through these initiatives, we see how communities are actively transforming historical trauma into opportunities for cultural reclamation and nation-building, with traditional knowledge holders playing crucial roles in this process of collective healing and revitalization.

Reclamation

Reclamation of traditional ways and culture is a movement felt across Indigenous communities. This includes reclaiming traditional foods and foodways and is inherently linked to food sovereignty. Collaborator B describes the change as intentional:

You know, even though my mother, um, raised us to know who we were, what was our culture and, you know. But, I…you know, food was never framed in that way in my upbringing like it is now. I think it’s more important now because of the revitalization efforts that’s happening, um, way before the TRC came along. Because, you know, in the civil rights movement time in the 60s and in the 70s, when you know, people started to stand back up and say this is who we are and this is who we’re going to be.

The negative impacts of Indian Residential Schools for some meant a shaming of culture and a move away from traditional ways. However, this pattern seems to be changing. It is manifest in the Everlasting Tree School in Six Nations, which emphasizes fresh local and traditional foods:

You know, um, we’re like the residential school in reverse. So, the children were fed so poorly, and I got great descriptions of how they were fed. And now, like again, the polar opposite for which we approach food is, you know, with utmost love. And making sure that you put that energy of love and compassion into the food. And, to make sure it’s nutrient dense (Collaborator B).

VII – Discussion

This research affirms that food sovereignty initiatives at Six Nations are deeply intertwined with the community’s efforts to heal from the intergenerational trauma of residential schools and broader colonial disruptions. Central to this healing is the recognition that food is not only a physical necessity, but a cultural, spiritual, and relational practice rooted in Haudenosaunee ways of knowing. The findings demonstrate how community-driven food initiatives serve as forms of cultural resurgence, intergenerational knowledge transmission, and political self-determination. The initiatives described by collaborators reframe food security beyond a question of access towards an act of nation-building and reclamation of land, language, and governance.

The research also reveals the powerful role of Haudenosaunee women and youth in revitalizing foodways, emphasizing that cultural education, language immersion, and mentorship are core components of Indigenous food sovereignty. Community-based projects such as Healthy Roots, Revitalizing Our Sustenance, and Everlasting Tree School provide nourishment and spaces for identity formation, skill-building, and healing. These programs illustrate how Haudenosaunee values, such as sharing, relationality, and respect for Creation, are being practiced in everyday acts of planting, cooking, and feeding.

The Agency component of the 5As framework for discussing food security serves as a bridge to food sovereignty or Indigenous self-determination and complements the 5Rs we used to report our findings. By structuring the findings around the 5Rs of Indigenous research (Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, and Relationships), the project reinforces the importance of relational accountability in research and across food systems (University of British Columbia, 2023). The addition of two more “Rs”: Resilience and Reclamation emerged organically from the collaborators’ stories and speak to the strength of the community in the face of sustained colonial violence. These expanded principles challenge Western deficit-based frameworks and instead highlight Indigenous brilliance, adaptability, and continuity. Reflecting on the interconnectedness of Indigenous ways of knowing, the 5 Rs framework, as interconnected constructs, reveals the respect for culture that drives reclamation (Saskatchewan NEIHR, 2023; Tsosie et al., 2022; Peterson, 2023).

National tools like the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM)^[2] have helped identify income-based food security in Indigenous communities. However, the use of the tool to define food security in Canada has not represented the worldview of Indigenous peoples, where food is a part of relationships beyond the household, and how food procurement extends beyond having enough money to buy food and the importance of food goes beyond nutrition prioritizing sharing, ceremony, and collective responsibility (Shafiee et al., 2023; Skinner et al., 2014). These tools do not capture the relational costs and efforts associated with harvesting, preparing, and sharing traditional foods. By contrast, the First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study (FNFNES) offers a culturally grounded approach, though further innovations are needed. Aligning measurement tools with Indigenous definitions of food security is a necessary step toward justice-oriented food policy and reconciliation (Batal et al., 2021).

Six Nations is proactive in cultural reclamation and food sovereignty; however, it is essential to underscore allies’ role in reconciliatory efforts. Reconciliation must also involve settler and institutional accountability for the original harms through acknowledgment, reparations, and meaningful shifts in power and practice. As collaborators noted, the absence of band council engagement or external inquiry into community-driven food knowledge reveals a broader systemic detachment. Centring Indigenous perspectives is not reconciliation, but it is a critical starting point that must be followed by reciprocal, justice-oriented action by those who hold institutional power.

Our research highlights how respectful, community-driven research methods can themselves serve as a form of relational accountability, actively sparking new thought and direction for community-based work. Improving food security hinges on achieving Indigenous Food Sovereignty, the key to long-term conservation and stewardship of the land and its co-management by Indigenous Peoples (Batal et al., 2021). Studies investigating the feasibility of increasing access to traditional foods from an Indigenous perspective are required.

VIII – Conclusion

Food sovereignty at Six Nations is not just about growing food. It is about growing relationships, responsibilities, and rights. It reflects the enduring strength of Haudenosaunee teachings, which emphasize sustainability, care for the land, and collective wellbeing. Community-based food initiatives reveal the transformative potential of culturally grounded programming to address trauma, support healing, and restore balance. In reclaiming foodways, Six Nations is also reclaiming its governance, languages, memories, and future. This research underscores that true reconciliation is rooted in respect for Indigenous knowledge systems and support for Indigenous-led solutions. Food, when grounded in culture, becomes a powerful vehicle for resistance, resurgence, and renewal.

References

Acquisto, S., & Bond, M. (2022, August 30). Many residents of Six Nations of the Grand River have been living without easy access to clean water for years. CityNews.

Antonacci, J. P. (2024a, August 26). Indigenous language school on Six Nations will finally have a home. The Hamilton Spectator.

Antonacci, J. P. (2024b, September 28). “We’re not asking to break Canada”: Six Nations says Crown could owe trillions over mismanagement of Grand River lands. Cambridge Today.

Batal, M., Chan, H. M., Fediuk, K., Ing, A., Berti, P. R., Mercille, G., Sadik, T., & Johnson-Down, L. (2021). First Nations households living on-reserve experience food insecurity: Prevalence and predictors among ninety-two First Nations communities across Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 112(Suppl. 1), 52–63.

Bernstein, J. (2024, September 12). There is a community outside Toronto where most people can’t drink their tap water. Patience is running out. CBC News.

Brant Castellano, M., & Reading, J. (2010). Policy writing as dialogue: Drafting an Aboriginal chapter for Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 1(2), Article 1.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

Bull, J. R. (2010). Research with Aboriginal peoples: Authentic relationships as a precursor to ethical research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4), 13–22.

Centre for Studies in Food Security. (n.d.). 5As of food security. Toronto Metropolitan University.

Cidro, J., Adekunle, B., Peters, E., & Martens, T. (2015). Beyond food security: Understanding access to cultural food for urban Indigenous people in Winnipeg as Indigenous food sovereignty. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 24(1), 24–43.

Coté, C. (2016). “Indigenizing” food sovereignty: Revitalizing Indigenous food practices and ecological knowledges in Canada and the United States. Humanities, 5(3), Article 57.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

Delormier, T., & Marquis, K. (2019). Building healthy community relationships through food security and food sovereignty. Current Developments in Nutrition, 3(Supplement 2), 25–31.

Domingo, A., Charles, K.-A., Jacobs, M., Brooker, D., & Hanning, R. M. (2021). Indigenous community perspectives of food security, sustainable food systems and strategies to enhance access to local and traditional healthy food for partnering Williams Treaties First Nations (Ontario, Canada). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), Article 4404.

Ermine, W., Sinclair, R., & Jeffery, B. (2004). The ethics of research involving Indigenous peoples: Report of the Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre to the Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre.

Feast House. (n.d.). Revitalizing Our Sustenance Project.

Ferrando, T., Vispo, I. Á., Anderson, M., Dowllar, S., Friedmann, H., Gonzalez, A., & McKeon, N. (2020). Land, territory and commons: Voices and visions from the struggles. Globalizations, 17(7), 1276–1290.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action.

Food Secure Canada. (2012). What is food sovereignty?

Freeman, B., & Van Katwyk, T. (2020). Navigating the waters: Understanding allied relationships through a Tekéni Teyohà:ke Kahswénhtake Two Row research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 9(1), 60–76.

Getty, G. A. (2010). The journey between Western and Indigenous research paradigms. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 21(1), 5–14.

Gordillo de Anda, G., & Méndez Jerónimo, O. (2013). Food security and sovereignty: Base document for discussion. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Gordon, K., Lickers Xavier, A., & Tait Neufeld, H. (2018). Healthy Roots: Building capacity through shared stories rooted in Haudenosaunee knowledge to promote Indigenous foodways and well-being. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l’alimentation, 5(2), 180–195.

Government of Canada. (2025, March 18). Reserve details for Six Nations (Part) 40.

Government of Ontario. (2021). About the Six Nations of the Grand River.

Graham, E. (1997). The Mush Hole: Life at two Indian residential schools. Heffle Publishing.

Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council. (2018, April 17). The League of Nations. Haudenosaunee Confederacy.

Hill, R. W., Sr., & Coleman, D. (2019). The Two Row Wampum-Covenant Chain tradition as a guide for Indigenous-university research partnerships. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(5), 339–359.

Hill, S. M. (2009). Conducting Haudenosaunee historical research from home: In the shadow of the Six Nations–Caledonia reclamation. American Indian Quarterly, 33(4), 479–498.

Jarosz, L. (2014). Comparing food security and food sovereignty discourses. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(2), 168–181.

Jonathan, S., Maracle, K., & Wild, S. (2022). Exploring Indigenous foods and food sovereignty. Six Nations Polytechnic.

Júnior, H. de A. (2020). The politics of food: The global conflict between food security and food sovereignty [Review of the book The politics of food: The global conflict between food security and food sovereignty]. Journal of Consumer Culture, 20(3), 366–370.

Koç, M. (2024, March 17). Post 6: The Centre for Studies in Food Security and the 5As of food security. Substack.

Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.

Maar, M. A., Lightfoot, N. E., Sutherland, M. E., Strasser, R. P., Wilson, K. J., Lidstone-Jones, C. M., Graham, D. G., Beaudin, R., Daybutch, G. A., Dokis, B. R., Lesage, M. T., Raymond, M., & Williamson, P. (2011). Thinking outside the box: Aboriginal people’s suggestions for conducting health studies with Aboriginal communities. Public Health, 125(11), 747–753.

Martin, B. (2017). Methodology is content: Indigenous approaches to research and knowledge. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(14), 1392–1400.

Martin, D. H. (2012). Two-Eyed Seeing: A framework for understanding Indigenous and non-Indigenous approaches to Indigenous health research. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 44(2), 20–42.

Menezes, F. (2001). Food sovereignty: A vital requirement for food security in the context of globalization. Development, 44(4), 29–33.

Monture, R. (2020). Resurgence at Six Nations: Haudenosaunee governance and community food initiatives. In N. J. Reo & D. Daigle (Eds.), Decolonizing food systems in Indigenous territories (pp. 135–152). Indigenous Land and Life Series.

Mosby, I., & Galloway, T. (2017). “The abiding condition was hunger”: Assessing the long-term biological and health effects of malnutrition and hunger in Canada’s residential schools. British Journal of Canadian Studies, 30(2), 147–162.

Mundel, E., & Chapman, G. E. (2010). A decolonizing approach to health promotion in Canada: The case of the urban Aboriginal community kitchen garden project. Health Promotion International, 25(2), 166–173.

National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. (2023, January 4). Mohawk Institute. 

Ogundiran, A. (2019). Food security, food sovereignty, and Indigenous knowledge. African Archaeological Review, 36, 343–346.

Pachón-Ariza, F. A. (2013). Food sovereignty and rural development: Beyond food security [PDF]. Agronomía Colombiana, 31(3), 362–377.

Peltier, C. (2018). An application of Two-Eyed Seeing: Indigenous research methods with participatory action research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–12.

Peterson, S. S. (2023). The Five Rs of Indigenous research as a framework for early childhood research. In Decisions and dilemmas of research methods in early childhood education (pp. 63–77). Routledge.

Population Health Research Institute. (2021, January 25). Return to a traditional Haudenosaunee diet.

Robin, T. (2019). Our hands at work: Indigenous food sovereignty in Western Canada. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9(B), 85–99.

Roher, S. I. G., Yu, Z., Martin, D. H., & Benoit, A. C. (2021). How is Etuaptmumk/Two-Eyed Seeing characterized in Indigenous health research? A scoping review. PLOS ONE, 16(7), Article e0254612.

Saskatchewan NEIHR. (2023, December 14). The 5 Rs of Indigenous research. University of Saskatchewan.

Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(1), 80–95.

Shafiee, M., Lane, G., Szafron, M., Hillier, K., Pahwa, P., & Vatanparast, H. (2023). Exploring the implications of COVID-19 on food security and coping strategies among urban Indigenous peoples in Saskatchewan, Canada. Nutrients, 15(19), Article 4278.

Six Nations Department of Wellbeing. (n.d.). Egowadiya’dagenha’ “They will be helping” land-based healing center.

Six Nations Lands and Resources. (n.d.). Haldimand Treaty of 1784.

Six Nations of the Grand River. (2019). Six Nations community plan. Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation.

Skinner, K., Hanning, R. M., & Tsuji, L. J. (2014). Prevalence and severity of household food insecurity of First Nations people living in an on-reserve, sub-Arctic community within the Mushkegowuk Territory. Public Health Nutrition, 17(1), 31–39.

Sunseri, L. (2011). Being again of one mind: Oneida women and the struggle for decolonization. UBC Press.

Tait-Neufeld, H., & Xavier, A. (2022). The evolution of Haudenosaunee food guidance: Building capacity toward the sustainability of local environments in the community of Six Nations of the Grand River. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l’alimentation, 9(1).

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015a). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to action.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015b). Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: Summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015c). The survivors speak: A report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Tsosie, R. L., Grant, A. D., Harrington, J., Wu, K., Thomas, A., Chase, S., Barnett, D., Hill, S. B., Belcourt, A., Brown, B., & Sweetgrass-She Kills, R. P. (2022). The Six Rs of Indigenous research. Tribal College, 33(4), 1–6.

University of British Columbia. (2021). The 5Rs: Decolonizing the online space. British Columbia/Yukon Pressbooks.

University of British Columbia. (2023, August 16). The 5Rs model. Learning design & digital innovation.

Vogel, L. (2015). The new ethics of Aboriginal health research. CMAJ, 187(5), 316–317.

Whitlow, K. B., Oliver, V., Anderson, K., Brozowski, K., Tschirhart, S., Charles, D., & Ransom, K. (2019). Yehyatonhserayenteri. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 42(2), 553–575.

World Health Organization. (2022, October 18). Food security & nutrition: Essential ingredients to build back better.