{"id":70,"date":"2026-05-15T12:01:47","date_gmt":"2026-05-15T16:01:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/foodpolicy\/?post_type=chapter&p=70"},"modified":"2026-09-24T15:35:03","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T19:35:03","slug":"food-security-initiatives-from-community-leaders-at-six-nations-of-the-grand-river","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/foodpolicy\/chapter\/food-security-initiatives-from-community-leaders-at-six-nations-of-the-grand-river\/","title":{"raw":"8. Haudenosaunee Worldviews of Food Sovereignty, Governance and Security: Towards More Just and Sustainable Food Systems","rendered":"8. Haudenosaunee Worldviews of Food Sovereignty, Governance and Security: Towards More Just and Sustainable Food Systems"},"content":{"raw":"

Abstract<\/h2>\r\nFood 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\u2014Resilience and Reclamation- emerged from collaborators\u2019 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.\r\n

I - Introduction<\/h2>\r\nExpanding 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).\r\n\r\nThis 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, \u201cTruth Telling: Gardens, Farming and Food experiences at the Mohawk Institute,\u201d 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n

II - Canada\u2019s Dark History<\/h2>\r\nThe Truth and Reconciliation Commission documented experiences of Indigenous children forced to work in gardens and farms during their school years in Canada\u2019s 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 \u201ceducation\u201d (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.\r\n

III - Defining Food Security and Food Sovereignty From Indigenous Perspectives<\/h2>\r\nConventional 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 (Ko\u00e7, 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019 rights to self-determination, governance, and control over their food systems.\r\n\r\nSome authors, such as Pach\u00f3n-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.\r\n\r\nSeveral 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.\r\n\r\nCanada 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).\r\n\r\nFood 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:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Food sovereignty is rooted in grassroots movements;<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Food sovereignty highlights the need for a democratic food system, one that involves inputs from citizens as well as producers,<\/li>\r\n \t
  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).<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nGordillo de Anda and M\u00e9ndez Jer\u00f3nimo (2013) and J\u00fanior (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 (J\u00fanior, 2020). Similarly, Gordillo de Anda and M\u00e9ndez Jer\u00f3nimo (2013) argue that food sovereignty prioritizes small-scale food production, sustainability, and local governance as an alternative to corporate-driven food security policies.\r\n\r\nIndigenous scholars describe how food sovereignty is deeply tied to land rights, traditional knowledge, and cultural revitalization (Cidro et al., 2015; Cot\u00e9, 2016; Ferrando et al., 2020; Jonathan et al., 2022). Cot\u00e9 (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.\r\n

    IV - Broad Overview of Six Nations<\/h2>\r\nThe 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\u2019s largest First Nations: Six Nations of the Grand River, a Haudenosaunee community located in southern Ontario.\r\n\r\nSix Nations of the Grand River, one of Canada\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nHaudenosaunee 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: \u201cTherein 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\u201d (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.\r\n\r\nThe 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).\r\n

    Historical Context<\/h3>\r\nThe 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 \u201cMush Hole,\u201d 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.\r\n

    Current Context<\/h3>\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, 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\u2019s revitalization efforts.\r\n\r\nAs 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\u2019s 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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 \u201cthey will be helping\u201d (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.)\r\n\r\nSix Nations\u2019 approach to food sovereignty is a multifaceted response to colonial impacts on land and cultural practices. The community\u2019s 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).\r\n

    V - Methods<\/h2>\r\nThe 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\u2019s 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 (Cot\u00e9, 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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).\r\n\r\nAligned 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)\r\n\r\nThe 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:\r\n
    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).<\/blockquote>\r\nThe concept of skanikonhra, or \u201ccoming to be of one mind,\u201d 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\u2014particularly in contexts of cultural disruption and reclamation.\r\n\r\nAn 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 \u2018come to being again of one mind\u2019 (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).\r\n\r\nResearch 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.\r\n

    Interview Guide<\/h3>\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nEthics approvals were obtained from the Six Nations Band Council, University of Waterloo (ORE # 40637), McMaster, and Toronto Metropolitan University.\r\n\r\nCollaborators (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[footnote]For a more detailed description of a definition of an Indigenous knowledge guardian, see: https:\/\/www.snpolytechnic.com\/knowledge-centre\/indigenous-knowledge-guardians[\/footnote], 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.\r\n\r\nInterviews 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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 \u201copen coding\u201d or a \u201cdata-driven\u201d 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. \u201cRepresentation 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).\u201d\r\n\r\nAfter 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 \u201cR\u201d and its definition:\r\n