Food systems (FS) are complex webs of processes and products, involving production, processing, packaging, distribution, retail and consumption of food, which finally have implication on social and natural systems (Eliasson et al., 2022). Current challenges of FS arise from several dynamics shaped by capitalist values (Bakker and Gill, 2019). Various authors have highlighted the need to consider social, economic, and ecological outcomes within FS as the starting point in their transformation (FAO, 2019; Giraldo, 2019; Ume, 2023). Others have called for transformative processes in socio-natural relationships, the urgency of shifting mental models, and the need for more democratic and less oligopoly-driven FS (El Bilali et al., 2019; Fanzo et al., 2021; Kugelberg et al., 2021). Achieving sustainability in FS therefore requires addressing root causes and avoiding simplistic approaches. Literature reveals various proposed approaches that emphasize the importance of holistic strategies, innovative collaboration, and systemic transformation (Table 1). Equity, inclusivity, interdisciplinary efforts, and resilience are consistently mentioned priorities that aim to shift paradigms toward more sustainable FS. Yet, there is no universally accepted approach to FS transformations (Juri et al., 2022).

In this paper, we aim to offer an initial guide for approximating FS’ transformation toward sustainability, by recognizing their non-linear nature. We reflect on the intricate process of transformation particularly needed in and coming from the Global South to highlight two main points: unequal ecological exchange and peasant resistance. Global North’s reliance on extractive practices in the South affects environmental sustainability (core-periphery relation), while Southern peasants play a crucial role in challenging the dominant neoliberal food regime (Tilzey, 2020). We propose a bricolage approach, incorporating various strategies to navigate the complex journey toward achieving more sustainable FS, but from a radical perspective (Tilzey, 2024). By grounding this process in the principles of Critical Realism,¹ we aim to comprehend the root pathways of radical transformation by answering: What is needed to achieve radical FS transformation toward sustainability in the Global South?

Previous studies underscore the nonlinear nature of FS transformation by considering imbalances and the dynamic nature of power in the agricultural sector (Kok et al., 2019; Eliasson et al., 2022). According to Eliasson et al. (2022) confronting the inherent power structures across geographical scales and promoting social movements advocating for food sovereignty are important. Collective understanding and agency are also deemed crucial for creating more sustainable FS. Examining structural and agential aspects in FS transformation through the lens of Critical Realism is also important for understanding to understand the dialectics of socio-natural relations in FS (Tilzey, 2018). Following the critical realist Transformational Model of Social Activity (Bhaskar, 2008), this paper seeks to reveal the interplay between social-natural-agrarian structures and human agency as a “structured agency” (Potter and Tilzey, 2005). The approach posits that social structures influence human actions, which, through social interactions, can reproduce or transform these structures. Critical Realism provides a comprehensive framework for navigating the complexity of FS transformation through human agency, by considering material transactions with nature, social interactions, social structure, and individuals’ inner being (Bhaskar, 2008; Buch-Hansen and Nesterova, 2023). This wide insight into the FS posits that its essence is profoundly interconnected across these 4 dimensions. Acknowledging and actively addressing this interconnected nature enhances the potential of radical transformative initiatives to foster sustainable changes.

Since FS unfold in these four dialectically interrelated dimensions of human agency, it is essential to determine the origin of the causal mechanisms that lead to discrepancies across these four planes. This comprehension introduces even greater complexity, specifically, when considering the open and multi-scaler nature of social-natural-agrarian systems, which requires a layered explanation (Collier, 2013). According to Bhaskar and Danermark (2006), layered systems pertain to multiple levels of reality organized on a hierarchical scale. In such systems, it is possible to delineate distinct levels of agency and collectivity. Explanations within layered systems involve mechanisms at various of these levels. This involves understanding comprehensively all aspects of society and not only what and where things happen, as represented by the four-planar social being, but also exploring how and why they occur (causal mechanisms), as depicted in the multi-scalar social being (Figure 1).

While various approaches aim to provide guidance for achieving sustainability transformations in food systems, (Table 1) it is crucial to recognize that the complexity inherent in this transformation (Figure 1) requires a comprehensive perspective, and in our case, a radical one. We will navigate the intricacies discussed earlier by examining the instance of FS in the Global South.

The recognition that social-natural-agrarian phenomena unfold across the four dialectically interrelated planes provides a comprehensive framework for understanding FS transformations. Recognizing transactions with nature, social structures, social interactions, and deep personality enables a nuanced understanding of the scenario where mechanisms behind FS unsustainability across various scales emerge (Table 2). Therefore, the challenge is to address transformations in the myriad of scales that produce unintended and unsustainable consequences in global FS occurring in the four planes throughout multiple scales.

The structural framework enabling and constraining human agency on the four planes when analyzing contemporary FS consists of the complex state-capital nexus, which acts as the primary source of legitimation and enforcement by facilitating capital accumulation through varying degrees of mediation (Tilzey, 2020; Tilzey and Sudgen, 2024). This structure enables the intricate web of the global economy, where the world is starkly divided into dialectical imperial-peripherical relations; i.e. the Global North pressures the socio-natural systems of the Global South (Tilzey, 2020). Large-scale corporations (supported by the state-capital nexus), wielding immense power, spearhead the production and commercialization of commodities (Tilzey, 2024). The deeply rootef historical legacy of colonization lingers, perpetuating extractive activities in the agricultural sector (McKay et al., 2021; Petras and Veltmeyer, 2023). National, regional, and municipal policies, rather than nurturing local initiatives, fuel the relentless expansion of commodity cultivation (Veltmeyer and Lau, 2020). Amidst this backdrop, non market-oriented peasantry (c.f. Tilzey, 2024) find themselves marginalized, overshadowed by the preeminence of corporate growers, with a surge in land grabbing and rural proletarianization exacerbating their plight (Tilzey and Sudgen, 2024). In the midst of these dynamics, plantations become arenas of conflicted experiences, where individuals navigate through a process of apprehension, particularly in the Global South (Suarez and Gwozdz, 2023). Meanwhile, in the Global North, a personal quest for healthy and trendy diets further complicates the intricate tapestry of global agricultural dynamics.

Literature on scaling-up agroecology have reported various additional challenges. Some authors emphasize the need to recognize agroecological systems as systems in transition, and that supportive policies are required to scale up agroecology (Dumont et al., 2021). Similarly, scaling-up agroecology requires understanding constraints at the farmer level, an agricultural knowledge system favoring mainstream approaches, adverse and intertwined political and economic interests, and cross-cutting ideological and discursive pressures (Isgren, 2016). Other aspects that requires attention are insecure land tenure and unequal access to land, unequal systems of exchange, and a culture that favors silver bullet narratives (Jiménez-Soto et al., 2024). To attain sustainable FS, it is important to explore diverse solutions while acknowledging their interconnected components. This entails embracing radical transformation through a counter-hegemonic stance (Tilzey, 2024). This approach is crucial for comprehending root problems, such as the pervasive state-capital nexus, and the development of the green revolution paradigm and its discourses (Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018).

Drawing on this counter hegemonic positionality, we emphasize the need to confront power structures through class struggles embedded in FS advocating for food sovereignty (Biel, 2016a; Tilzey, 2018, 2020, 2024; Tilzey and Sudgen, 2024). Such emphasis puts a spotlight on power dynamics within FS and addressing the unequal distribution of resources and the marginalization of certain groups. Recognizing power imbalances highlights the crucial role of agroecology in challenging these power dynamics though processes immbicated in class struggles, promoting fairer access to resources and inclusive decision-making processes. We expand on this narrative by highlighting the significance of social movements in fostering transformation. We argue that agroecology goes beyond ecological practices and encompasses a socio-political dimension (Biel, 2016a). Social movements advocating for food sovereignty though class struggle, align with agroecological principles by seeking to empower local communities, challenge corporate dominance, and promote participatory decision-making in food production.

Conflicted dynamics reflecting the tensions between economic motivations, health-conscious consumer trends, and environmental sustainability. These tensions underscore the complexities inherent in transforming FS, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach. This perspective paper contributes to the broader literature on food systems’ transformation by providing guidelines rooted in Critical Realism and the four-planar and multi-scalar social being framework. By acknowledging the interplay between social-natural-agrarian structures and human agency as a structured agency (Potter and Tilzey, 2005), our proposal provides a theoretical foundation for navigating the intricate journey toward sustainable food systems.

In this vein, and acknowledging the transformative role of the peasantry in the Global South due to their dynamics of constant resistance and social reproduction (prioritization of use values over exchange values), we offer recommendations that must necessarily be grounded in a dialectical process. Through class struggle and the subversion of center-periphery dynamics, this process enables the construction of pathways that contribute to more sustainable FS.

Collective efforts dentify and address potential weaknesses in the proposed approach is essential. One concern is the feasibility of implementing recommended strategies across diverse socio-political regimes. While advocating for agroecological principles and local empowerment through policy reforms is crucial, future research should delve deeper into challenges such as resistance from entrenched interests, bureaucratic hurdles, and the need for substantial financial and technical support to facilitate meaningful change.

Considering the long-term sustainability and scalability of proposed solutions is crussial, given factors like the state-capital nexus, market changes and climate variability. Future research should investigate these aspects to ensure effectiveness. Additionally, exploring unintended consequences of challenging neoliberal dominance in agriculture is essential, requiring careful consideration of supply chain disruptions and socio-economic impacts. Through empirical research, valuable insights can enhance the proposed approach’s robustness and applicability.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

AS: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. CU: Writing – review & editing.