Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025): On Resilience, Adaptability, Cooperation, and Innovation

The groundhogs in the community garden in central Montreal are thriving this year. Their population has bounced back after a forced migration by way of live traps, thus proving their resilience. They change their diets based on available produce, demonstrating their adaptability. In other words, having devastated the brassica, they have turned their attention to the Swiss chard. Active in all corners of the garden, the groundhogs are cooperating (amongst themselves at least) and innovating: climbing fences, burrowing under netting, waiting until a volunteer steps away from a task to fetch a pair of secateurs from the shed and then quick-as-they-can making a grab for the peppers. The cover photo represents some of the produce we gardeners managed to wrest away from them. We are calling this harvest a triumph. At the very least, we are contributing to the biodiversity of this one-acre plot of land. The groundhogs (and along with them the rabbits and likely the fox) are both intellectually stimulated and well fed.

The groundhogs—while a fascinating subject in their own right—are being used here as a narrative device to introduce the material to come. True to the adjectival descriptions above, groundhogs are indeed resilient, adaptable, cooperative and innovative. Not to mention persistent. And also audacious. The articles in this issue display similar preoccupations with these characteristics.

Sutter et al. unpack the results of an anonymous, province-wide survey about food-related concerns in Saskatchewan, keeping an eye to the norms and practices needed to build and maintain resilient local food systems. Regnier-Davies and Edge are also interested in resilience, unpicking as they do the rhetoric around the term. They want to know who is expected to be resilient within food systems and at what cost.

On the matter of cooperation, the article by Dutta et al. emerged out of a community-based symposium “aimed at synthesizing reflections on the connections between climate actions, food security and (im)migration” (Dutta et al., 2025, p. 103). The library at which the symposium took place represents just one space that facilitates their looked-for learning alliances.

As for innovation, a field report by Clarke et al. describes the development of the Arctic Food Innovation Cluster, as well as its primary goal: to “help instill a sense of pride, empowerment, health, and wellbeing in Arctic communities through the sustainable development of Arctic food industries” (Clarke et al., 2025, p. 120).

A handful of articles look to the adjustments key actors are making in their bid for better, more equitable, less wasteful school foods. Maximova et al. delineate the existing patchwork of School Food Programs in Canadian schools as a means of informing national school food program development. Seko et al. seek to uncover what Asian immigrant families are feeding their children at lunch, the kinds of parameters they follow and set for themselves and the moments of adaptation or adjustment. Vader et al. set their sights on another educational setting, measuring the amount of food wasted by university students, examining the reasons why, and determining ways in which a particular dining hall at Brescia University College can reduce this waste.

We have three book reviews on offer by Aqeel Ihsan, Jennifer Sumner, and Ethan Shapiro. The first is about Mennonite foodways as they have been “shaped by migration, adaptation, and cultural exchange” (Ihsan, 2025, p.131). The second looks at the “public plate” or the good food revolution in schools, hospitals, and prisons. We suggest that you wash the first two down with the third: a global history of beer. The temperature at which said beer is served is up to you.

And finally, for those who have been wondering what kind of garden Bryan Dale likes best—with or without groundhogs—look no further than our Choux Questionnaire.

Bonne dégustation!

(Photo by Alexia Moyer)