Chloe Wallace
Credit: Vanessa Castle
The opportunity to choose the food one consumes is vital to Native American and other cultural communities in the United States and abroad. Food is more than just survival; it can be a social venture that represents culture and history. Food sovereignty is a relatively new concept and is recognized as the “ability of communities to determine the quantity and quality of the food that they consume by controlling how their food is produced and distributed.”[1] Food sovereignty is linked to food security, but the latter focuses on basic access to nutritious food rather than considering the cultural and spiritual connections that people may have with their food and processes.[2]
This article addresses Native American communities’ post-colonization relationship with food and the importance of food sovereignty to their cultures, customs, and economies. It explores case studies regarding food sovereignty challenges for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe in Washington and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation Prescription Produce Program in Alaska. Additionally, by analyzing two recent Supreme Court cases, it explores victories and shortfalls of Indigenous food sovereignty in the United States.
Food Sovereignty in the Native American Context
American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities face many challenges regarding food sovereignty and their right to choose which foods are adequate for them. Early colonization forced Indigenous peoples out of their ancestral lands and onto reservations where they lacked access to traditional foods and their historical processes to obtain them. Instead of using their traditional ways of hunting and gathering, they are forced to consume grocery store foods that lack the nutritional values their bodies require. Many are not only blocked from their traditional food sources, but food is unaffordable in their areas. A recent price index from 2018 revealed that reservation grocery store prices are consistently more expensive than national prices, with household items such as bread being as much as 85% more on reservations.[3]
Tribal food sovereignty involves several important tenets: (1) empowering Native households and communities, (2) re-introducing traditional food production processes, (3) working with nature, (4) valuing food providers, and (5) providing opportunities for local food cultivators and distributors.[4]
Food Sovereignty in Washington and Alaska Indigenous Communities
In the Pacific Northwest, Tribal food sovereignty has suffered the consequences of climate change and is threatened by higher temperatures, changes in precipitation, and extreme weather. These changes have made it difficult for Tribes to produce and harvest food in the manner to which they are historically accustomed. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recognized the difficulties for Tribes threatened by climate change and has sought to promote their food sovereignty. Since much of Indigenous food sovereignty is based on location and access to specific foodways, the USDA is seeking to increase Tribal access to land with traditional foods.
In Alaska, the Inuit have been an important part of the ecosystem for thousands of years through hunting, fishing, and gathering. The Arctic provides the Inuit with nutritious food, usually in the form of meat and fish.[5] They have built their culture around the land, and their respect and collaboration with the environment have allowed them to support “healthy and harmonious relationships and communities.”[6] However, food security, and thus sovereignty, for the Inuit in Alaska is at risk because climate change has threatened their culture and way of life.
Comparative Case Studies
A. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
Part of Olympic National Park in Washington, the Lower Elwha River was historically home to more than ten species of cold-water-loving salmon and trout, but two dams now limit the salmon and trout’s previously vast expanse of habitat in the river to just a five-mile stretch.[7] Similarly, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, which had relied on the River for salmon and trout since the 1800s, no longer had access to the River’s abundance. Their traditional diet consisted mainly of salmon, but this significant habitat loss and pollution has robbed the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe of its food sovereignty and traditional foodways.
Due to the low population of salmon and trout in the River, the Tribe temporarily prohibited all fishing in an effort to increase numbers. Unfortunately, this means that the newer generation of the Tribe has never experienced fishing in the River, which teaches them important lessons such as sustainable harvest and respecting the fish, both very important to their tribal customs and culture. To combat the loss of fishing, the Tribe opened a ceremonial and subsistence fishery for coho salmon. The fishery first opened in October 2023, where 177 salmon were harvested per strict regulations overseen by the Tribal fisheries biologists and enforcement officers.[8] The Tribe reopened their fishery in fall 2024 to support food sovereignty and allow Tribal fishers to feed their families with local fish from the Elwha River and plans to do the same in 2025.[9]
B. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation Prescription Produce Program in Bethel, Alaska
Many AI/AN populations live in remote rural communities and therefore face formidable barriers to healthy food compared to other communities. Some financial incentive programs are backed by the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), which funds produce prescription projects (PPRs).[10] The goal of the PPR is to provide culturally appropriate, healthy foods to the AI/AN population. The hope is that this program will help decrease the number of individuals with serious health problems such as diabetes and obesity. While climate change has presented unique challenges to the procurement of fresh fruits and vegetables, the USDA is working to alleviate some of the difficulty through the PPR. After the provider issues a prescription, usually in the form of a voucher or coupon, patients are given a monthly allotment to purchase fruits and vegetables from participating grocery stores and supermarkets.[11]
The Yukon Kuskokwim Delta region in Alaska is a rural tribal community and one of two federally funded Produce Prescription Projects (PPR) by the Department of Agriculture. Climate change has only exacerbated weather problems and further restricted access to fresh fruits and vegetables in the YK Delta region. The PPR in the YK Delta region has been flexible to allow more access to fresh fruits and vegetables for the community. Prescriptions have been modified to include canned and frozen fruits and vegetables that do not contain any added sugar, salt, or fat.
These two case studies are success stories in part because they represent efforts to return Indigenous communities to foods that respect their sovereignty, culture, and health. However, they also highlight the hardships that these communities endure due to colonization and environmental challenges such as climate change. While the fishery in the Lower Elwha River and the Prescription Produce Program are steps in the right direction, there is still much work that needs to be done to further protect and expand Indigenous people’s food sovereignty.
The Impact of Relevant U.S. Supreme Court Precedent on Indigenous Food Sovereignty
A. Haaland v. Brackeen (2023)
The Supreme Court’s decision in Haaland v. Brackeen has lasting positive impacts on sovereignty in the Indigenous community, specifically children. Thus, this decision supports Indigenous food sovereignty throughout the country.
At issue in Haaland v. Brackeen is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a federal law that seeks to protect Native children. The ICWA favors family members or Native foster homes for Native children who are removed from their immediate families.[12] The ICWA faced backlash from the public, with many states and individuals claiming the law violated the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine. After a 7-2 decision in favor of the ICWA, the Court concluded that the law is within Congress’s Article I authority and does not violate the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine.[13]
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a major milestone for Indigenous children and Tribal food sovereignty. Staying with their biological families keeps children connected to their cultural roots and family lineage. If the ICWA were declared unconstitutional, countless Indigenous children would be placed in homes that do not uphold their native culture and community. Darren Ranco, a member of the Penobscot Nation and Associate Professor at the University of Maine, strongly believes that “the role [of ICWA] is to maintain the integrity of our communities and families [by] keeping them together. And the oral traditions and the passing down of these knowledges requires these ongoing connections.”[14]
Upholding the constitutionality of the ICWA is a step toward protecting Indigenous sovereignty, especially for children. It protects families, gives children a community where they feel they belong, and strengthens cultural roots to protect longstanding traditions and practices, especially related to Tribal food sovereignty. Thus, this ruling is a step in the right direction, but there is still work to do to protect Indigenous food sovereignty.
B. United States v. Washington (2018)
This Supreme Court case directly affects Indigenous food sovereignty, specifically salmon, which is an invaluable part of Indigenous culture in the Pacific Northwest. The Court upheld Tribal treaty fishing rights by affirming a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Since 1854 and 1855, the federal Indian Tribes in Washington entered into the Stevens Treaties, which afforded them the right to off-reservation fishing in exchange for relinquishing land that became the state of Washington.[15] The federal government filed the suit on behalf of many Washington-based Tribes against the State for violating the fishing clause of the Treaty by preventing salmon from migrating between the sea and spawning grounds. The Ninth Circuit ruled for the Tribes and held that the Stevens Treaties not only guaranteed the right to off-preservation fishing but “included a promise that there would be fish to harvest.”[16] Furthermore, the Tribes’ food sovereignty would be jeopardized because “their usual and accustomed fishing places would be worthless without harvestable fish,” ultimately ending hundreds of years of heritage, culture, and custom.[17]
This ruling is a significant step toward affirming Tribal rights and their food sovereignty in the United States, but culverts are not the only threat to salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Climate change has continually stressed salmon and disrupted their life cycle. Dams are another challenge that can drastically reduce populations. Regardless, Willy Frank Jr. the 3rd of the Nisqually Indian Tribe, said that this decision is not only beneficial for the current Tribal members but also for “all of [their] elders who spent their lives fighting for [their] treaty rights.”[18]
Conclusion
Colonization and climate change have long threatened Indigenous food sovereignty across the U.S., threatening traditional foodways and culture. To protect their food sovereignty, climate change needs to be recognized and addressed. Additionally, action from the government in the form of laws, policies, and assistance programs is crucial to support traditional foodways.
[1] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tribal Food Sovereignty and Climate Change in the Northwest.
[2] Tara L. Maurdrie et al., Food Security and Food Sovereignty: The Difference Between Surviving and Thriving, Health Promotion Pract., Oct. 25, 2023, at 1075.
[3] Sarah Usha Maillacheruvu, The Historical Determinants of Food Insecurity in Native Communities, Ctr. on Budget & Pol’y Priorities (Oct. 4, 2022).
[4] U.S. Department of Agriculture, supra note 1.
[5] Sheila Watt-Cloutier, The Right to Be Cold: One Woman’s Fight to Protect the Arctic and Save the Planet from Climate Change 1 (2015).
[6] Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska, Food Sovereignty and Self-Governance: Inuit Role in Managing Arctic Marine Resources 16 (2020).
[7] Mikaela Ruland, Salmon & Sovereignty, Olympic National Park Trips.
[8] Elwha River Tribal Ceremonial & Subsistence Fishery for Coho Salmon to Open Fall 2024, National Park Service (May 1, 2024).
[9] Coho Salmon Run Supports Treaty Fishing on Elwha River, Northwest Treaty Tribes (Dec. 31, 2024).
[10] Nadine Budd Nugent et al., Food Sovereignty, Health, and Produce Prescription Programs: A Case Study in Two Rural Tribal Communities, 11 J. Agric., Food Systems, & Comty. Dev’t 177, 179-80 (2022).
[11] Id. at 180.
[12] Haaland v. Brackeen, 143 U.S. 1609, 1610 (2023).
[13] Id. at 1613.
[14] Amelia Keleher, The Supreme Court’s ICWA Ruling Impacts Food Sovereignty: Here’s Why, Food Tank.
[15] United States v. Washington, 827 F.3d 836, 837 (9th Cir. 2016).
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Bellamy Pailthorp, Victory For Tribal Treaty Rights And Salmon As U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Culvert Case Ruling, Knkx (June 11, 2018).
Chloe Wallace
Chloe Wallace is a J.D. candidate (2L) at The George Washington University Law School. She holds a bachelor’s degree with double majors in Public Policy and Criminal Justice from the University of Maryland, College Park. She is currently an intern at the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Law and Policy Section. She has interests in environmental law, in particular as it relates to natural resources and wildlife protections.
Chloe’s research was made possible through funding and support from Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus, hosted at the University of Rhode Island. In collaboration with The Nippon Foundation, Ocean Nexus champions transformational social change through actionable ocean governance research. Our research expands on The Nippon Foundation’s program for policy research capacity building through an interdisciplinary social science research approach. At Ocean Nexus, we aspire to create equitable oceans for humanity.
