Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 https://doi.org/10.55845/jos-2025-1265 RESEARCH ARTICLE Integrating Food Biodiversity into Public Food Procurement: A Brazilian Amazon Case of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Bianca da Conceição Cabral1* , Teresa Borelli2 , Andrea das Graças Ferreira Frazao3 , Bernardo Tomchinsky4 , Sharon Mendonce2 , Danny Hunter2 Received: 27. August 2025 / Accepted: 29. November 2025 / Published: 3. December 2025 © The Author(s) 2025 Abstract This study explores the integration of food biodiversity and Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and Local Communities (LCs) into public food procurement (PFP). Using a primarily qualitative approach, it combines a scoping review with a case study of the National School Feeding Program (Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar - PNAE) and the Food Acquisition Program (Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos - PAA) across six municipalities in the eastern Amazon of Brazil. Common barriers included rigid procurement guidelines, culturally inappropriate menus, and erosion of traditional knowledge, reflecting the marginalisation of IPs and LCs, as well as food biodiversity. Compared to the PNAE, the PAA exhibited stronger inclusion of IPs and LCs by integrating diverse foods, implementing “Indigenous” and “traditional” procurement modalities, and fostering social engagement. In the PNAE, culturally adapted menus for IPs and LCs were absent; however, the presence of unprocessed menu items positively correlated with food biodiversity. Strategies such as institutionalising hybrid governance, participatory mechanisms, and social participation can strengthen IPs and LCs and biodiversity, thus providing pathways for PFP to support equitable, resilient, and culturally grounded food systems while addressing global challenges. Keywords Food Biodiversity · Public Food Procurement · Indigenous Peoples · Local Communities · Amazon 1. Introduction Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and Local Communities (LCs) play a vital role as guardians of global food biodiversity, leveraging their profound connection to the land and ecosystems to sustainably manage natural resources (Argumedo et al., 2021; Brondízio et al., 2025; Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations [FAO] & the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT [hereafter jointly cited as the Bioversity- CIAT Alliance], 2021). Their traditional knowledge, deeply embedded in cultural food practices, strengthens food and nutrition security by mitigating the nutritional challenges associated with unhealthy diets (Kuhnlein *Corresponding author: bianca.cabrall@yahoo.com.br 1 Bionorte - Rede de Biodiversidade e Biotecnologia da Amazônia Legal, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil. 2 Food Environment and Consumer Behaviour Division, Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. 3Pós-graduação em Nutrição da Amazônia/Instituto de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brasil. 4 Instituto de Estudos em Saúde e Biológica, Universidade Federal do Sul e Sudeste do Pará, Marabá, Brazil https://doi.org/10.55845/jos-2025-1265 mailto:bianca.cabrall@yahoo.com.br https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7910-7617 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6405-1339 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0746-9533 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5146-281X https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7958-0081 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4267-595X 2 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 et al. 2013). With millennia of experience, these communities exemplify resilience and adaptive capacity, showcasing innovative approaches to maintaining diverse food systems and addressing climate-change impacts (Brondízio et al., 2025; Knorr & Augustin, 2025). Despite their essential contributions, the food systems of IPs and LCs are often marginalised in current policies and programs, while also being among the most affected by socio-economic and climate-related disparities. This threatens their cultural heritage and compromises the global wealth of biodiversity they protect (FAO, 2021; Sakapaji et al., 2024; Swiderska et al., 2022; Swinburn et al., 2019; Vijayan et al., 2022). The loss of traditional knowledge and practices, and the failure of governments to guarantee the rights of IPs and LCs, threaten traditional food systems, which are increasingly being replaced by a dominant globalised model, centred on monocultures and ultra-processed foods. This dominant system harms the environment, causing soil degradation, dependence on agrochemicals, increased greenhouse-gas emissions and depletion of natural resources. It also exacerbates problems such as obesity and malnutrition, creating a combined scenario of health problems and climate change, known as the “global syndemic” (Chadha et al., 2024; García et al., 2023; Kuhnlein, 2014; Monteiro et al., 2018; Swinburn et al., 2019). Recognising that IPs and LCs are vital to human and planetary well-being (FAO, 2021; Swinburn et al., 2019), public food procurement (PFP) programs offer a strategic policy pathway to support these groups by promoting resilient and sustainable food systems. This approach is especially effective when such programs prioritise local and regional food chains that reflect and strengthen biocultural diversity, thereby supporting marginalised producers (Argumedo et al., 2021; Kuhnlein & Chotiboriboon, 2022; Sonnino, 2021; Swensson & Tartanac, 2020; Valencia et al., 2021). One of the most established forms of PFP is school meal programs. In particular, Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) programs create important opportunities for the inclusion of neglected and underutilised species (NUS), contributing to dietary diversity and enhancing the nutritional quality of school meals. These programs also promote local self-sufficiency, reduce environmental impacts, strengthen agroecological networks, and expand market access for Indigenous and traditional farmers (Deaconu et al., 2021; Hunter et al., 2019, 2020; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019a; Rosado-May et al., 2025). Many biodiverse foods originate from the food systems of IPs and LCs. Often consumed in their natural or minimally processed forms, they are not only nutrient-rich but also culturally appropriate, contributing to healthier and more diverse diets. Given their genetic and nutritional diversity, several of these foods may surpass conventional crops in nutritional value and climate resilience, playing a crucial role in food and nutrition security (Abberton et al., 2022; Beltrame et al., 2021; Hunter et al., 2019; Queenswood Consulting Group [QCG], 2021; Talabi et al., 2022). Although PFP holds the potential to drive transformative changes in food systems, particularly through traditional food systems, the participation of IPs and LCs remains limited and faces numerous challenges, ranging from historical inequalities to barriers against implementing procurement practices (Goolmeer et al., 2022; Kennedy et al., 2022; QCG, 2021; Swensson et al., 2021). A reflection of this is the widespread prevalence of school menus based on foods from the dominant food system, often overlooking the cultural practices and dietary habits of rural, traditional, and Indigenous communities (Girardi et al., 2021; Martínez- Esquivel et al., 2024; Pilnik & Argentim, 2024). Moreover, there are few studies documenting culturally appropriate school meal initiatives, intercultural sensitivity in public procurement models, and the promotion of agrobiodiversity through PFP. As a result, existing research is fragmented and sporadic (Hunter et al., 2019, 2020; Kennedy et al., 2022; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019b). Overcoming these barriers requires participatory and coordinated action. In Brazil, considerable progress has been made due to the mobilisation of social movements advocating for more fair and accessible institutional markets (Grisa & Schneider, 2014). This has led to the inclusion of family farming in the country’s two major PFP programs: the Food Acquisition Program (Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos – PAA) and the National School Feeding Program (Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar – PNAE), both of which prioritise IPs and LCs as suppliers and as beneficiaries (Bocchi et al., 2019; Brazil, 2003; 2009a). The PNAE, the older of the two public policies with 70 years of implementation, provides daily school meals to more than 40 million students and mandates that at least 45% of federal resources provided to schools be used to purchase food directly from family farmers, giving priority to Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas, Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 3 and other traditional groups. Moreover, Indigenous and Quilombola students receive higher per capita federal transfer funding specifically intended to support culturally appropriate menus (Brazil, 2009a, 2025; Brazil, National Fund for Educational Development [FNDE], 2020, 2025). The PAA, established in 2003, allows the Brazilian government to purchase food directly from family farmers, also with specific public calls and quotas for IPs and LCs. Its most common modality is the “Simultaneous Donation Purchase”, in which food is procured and immediately distributed to daycare centres, schools, hospitals, food banks, and other social institutions (Brazil, 2003, 2023). Despite legal progress, the effective participation of IPs and LCs still faces structural, logistical, and institutional challenges (Girardi et al., 2021). This study examines the participation of IPs and LCs and the integration of food biodiversity in public food procurement, drawing on a literature review and a case study from the Brazilian Amazon. It addresses the research question: To what extent are food biodiversity, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities effectively involved in public food procurement, and what challenges and enablers shape this participation? 2. Methods This study primarily adopted a qualitative approach, integrating a literature review with a case study focused on the Brazilian Amazon that included a quantitative analysis to examine statistically significant differences in the quantities of food items purchased. This dual approach enabled a contextualised understanding of structural challenges and emerging opportunities for more inclusive practices. The literature review provided a macro-level perspective of the broader landscape of food biodiversity and the inclusion of IPs and LCs in public food procurement. Complementarily, the case study examined how these dynamics unfold in a specific context from a micro-level perspective, offering local evidence and generating grounded insights into the implementation in Brazil. 2.1. Literature review Considering the diversity of relevant sources and the lack of standardised terminology, a scoping review was conducted, following Munn et al. (2018), to map and synthesise existing literature on the participation of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and Local Communities (LCs) and the inclusion of food biodiversity in public food procurement (PFP). The objective was to identify evidence, key concepts, and knowledge gaps rather than to provide an exhaustive or replicable synthesis. This approach may serve as a foundation for future systematic reviews in this field. An iterative search was conducted between September 2024 and January 2025. Peer-reviewed articles were retrieved from Scopus and SciELO, while grey literature—including policy documents, government reports, and institutional publications from international organisations—was identified through Google Scholar. Boolean combinations of terms were used: “food biodiversity” OR “biocultural diversity” OR “socio- biodiversity” OR “regional food” AND “local community” OR “traditional community” OR “indigenous” OR “Indigenous Peoples” AND “institutional market” OR “school feeding” OR “public food procurement.” In Brazil, socio-biodiversity refers to the interrelationship between biological diversity and the diversity of sociocultural systems, encompassing goods and services derived from biodiversity that generate production chains of interest to traditional peoples, communities, and family farmers (Brazil, 2009b). In the context of public food procurement, the term is often used to refer to food biodiversity. This terminology derives from Interministerial Ordinance MAPA/MMA No. 10 of 21 July 2021, which updated Ordinance No. 284/2018 and established a national list of native socio-biodiversity species with recognised food value for commercialisation, either in their natural or processed forms. Articles and documents in Portuguese, English, and Spanish published between 2010 and 2025 were included if they addressed the relationship between food biodiversity, public procurement, or Indigenous and local food systems. Documents referring exclusively to biodiversity in non -food contexts or without 4 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 connection to IPs and LCs were excluded. A total of 39 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents were included in the iterative reading process. 2.2. Case Study in the Eastern Amazon - Brazil The case study was conducted in six municipalities in the state of Pará, located in the Eastern Amazon of Brazil. The region was selected due to the historical presence of IPs and LCs and the existence of institutional partnerships with some of these communities through the researchers' university, which facilitated dialogue and fieldwork. In addition, this region represents one of the most emblematic areas of land conflicts between farmers, including IPs and LCs, and large mining and metallurgical projects (especially iron), monocultures and livestock farming (Malheiro et al., 2021), as well as being marked by food insecurity (Cabral et al., 2025), making it particularly relevant for understanding the challenges of integrating regional foods and socio- biodiversity into public procurement programmes. (Figure 1). Fieldwork was conducted between September 2023 and June 2024 involved collecting food procurement documents to assess the level of food biodiversity and the supply of such foods by and for IPs and LCs. From the official list of socio-biodiversity, species were cross-referenced with the Ministry of Health’s Brazilian Regional Foods publication, retaining only those reported for Pará and the Amazon region. The resulting subset comprised 74 native and naturalised plant species, forming the basis of the socio-biodiversity and regional (SR) foods category used as a reference for identifying and comparing items in the food procurement datasets analysed in this study (Brazil, Ministry of Health [MS], 2015; Brazil, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock [MAPA] & Ministry of Environment and Climate Change [MMA], 2021, see Appendix 1 - Glossary). For the PNAE, public procurement calls were analysed for 2023 in one municipality and for 2024 in the remaining five. In addition, a one-month sample of school menus serving Indigenous, Quilombola, and rural students was reviewed in each of the six municipalities. The sampled months, randomly selected by school nutritionists, spanned the years 2023 and 2024. Menus were further categorised by level of food processing: 1) unprocessed or minimally processed, 2) processed, and 3) ultra-processed (Monteiro et al., 2018). Figure 1. Map of the study area, Pará, Brazil. Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 5 For the PAA, data from the “Simultaneous Donation Purchase” modality —including “PAA General”, “PAA Indigenous”, and “PAA Traditional”— were analysed for 2023 in one municipality and for 2024 in the remaining five. While “PAA General” follows standardised procedures and is open to all family farmers, the Indigenous and Traditional modalities are specifically designed to meet the needs of IPs and LCs. These versions simplify documentation requirements for suppliers and prioritise these groups as beneficiaries, ensuring that food distribution occurs within their own communities (Brazil, 2023). Quantitative data from food lists were compiled in Microsoft Excel® Program and analysed in RStudio® (version R 4.3.1) to compare purchasing patterns across municipalities. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess linear associations, and paired t-tests were applied to test for statistically significant differences in the quantities of food items purchased. In addition to document analysis, 59 qualitative interviews were conducted with local actors involved in institutional food procurement. Participants were selected using a non-probabilistic snowball sampling method (Bailey, 2008), beginning with key informants previously engaged in the PAA and PNAE programmes. Demand-side actors, including nutritionists and programme coordinators (16 interviews), and intermediaries such as extension agents and agricultural technicians (11 interviews), represented government stakeholders. A total of 32 family farmers were identified during field visits across 15 rural communities, comprising six individual farmers and 24 community leaders or representatives of associations and cooperatives. These included a Quilombola community, agrarian reform settlers, babassu breaker women, Indigenous Peoples, farmers from environmental protection areas, riverine farmers, and other family farmers. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire to explore key barriers and enabling factors for the inclusion of SR foods in public procurement. All interviews were conducted in person, recorded, transcribed to ensure accuracy, and analysed using Bardin’s content-analysis method (2016). Participants provided written informed consent, and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), under approval number CAAE 68428823.7.0000.0018. Interviews with farmers and community members were conducted using culturally appropriate communication, respecting the autonomy of each group and individual. In the Indigenous village, fieldwork and interviews were carried out in accordance with authorisation from the village chief and the Community Protocol for Free Prior and Informed Consent. In other communities, interviews were conducted with the authorisation of the community leader, social organisation representative (cooperative or association), or on an individual basis. Participation was voluntary, and interviewees were informed about the study’s objectives, assured of anonymity and reminded of their right to withdraw at any time. 3. Study limitations This study faced limitations, primarily due to the restricted search strategy combining selected keywords. The authors acknowledge the sociocultural, historical, and ecological diversity of the peoples and communities interviewed, and that they are not homogeneous. Thus, any collective reference risks oversimplification. However, to address the challenges and enabling factors in public food procurement, this article adopts the term Indigenous Peoples(IPs) and Local Communities (LCs). The term is used jointly or separately in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] (2018). Although the CBD does not define or recommend definitions for these terms, “IPs and LCs” is used to collectively refer to two distinct groups with strong ties to specific territories and unique traditional knowledge and practices related to natural resources and biodiversity. In the Brazilian context, the term “traditional communities” is often used instead of “local communities.” It should also be noted that many of the studies reviewed focus exclusively on Indigenous Peoples, which accounts for the isolated use of the term in some references. A similar limitation was the lack of a standardised nomenclature for biodiversity in foods. In this study, the term food biodiversity is used as an umbrella term encompassing various expressions found in the literature, such as traditional foods, Indigenous Peoples’ foods, native species, wild species, neglected and underutilised species (NUS), local, regional, socio-biodiverse, and non-conventional edible plants (Plantas Alimentícias Não 6 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 Convencionais or PANCs, in the Brazilian context). These terms may appear individually throughout the article to reflect their original use in cited sources. Furthermore, in the Brazilian case, the absence of normative restrictions or minimum criteria for the inclusion of regional and socio-biodiverse foods in current legislation limits the effectiveness of these policies and hampers comparability across studies. It is recognised that this review has limitations related to the absence of a fully systematic approach and the limited reproducibility of results. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory insights rather than exhaustive evidence. Additionally, the case study sample is not statistically representative and reflects a specific regional context; however, the findings provide valuable practical insights that complement the literature review and help illustrate local implementation dynamics. 4. Results 4.1. Integrating Food Biodiversity into Public Food Procurement Public food procurement (PFP), especially through school meal programs, holds significant potential to transform food systems by reaching millions of students and purchasing food at scale, which allows for promoting more sustainable and inclusive procurement standards (Global Child Nutrition Foundation [GCNF], 2024). There are real opportunities to include traditional foods, safeguard food biodiversity, and strengthen food sovereignty among IPs and LCs. However, the meaningful integration of these foods and their suppliers into the food system remains limited. These challenges and opportunities can be grouped into three interrelated areas: institutional and political participation, valuing and promoting traditional foods, and education and traditional knowledge, based on the analysis of the literature review and case study (summarised in Table 1). 4.1.1. Institutional and Political Participation Bureaucratic complexity and restrictive regulations, especially those regarding food safety, are among the most significant barriers that limit IPs’ and LCs’ participation in PFP. Public procurement guidelines are often rigid and culturally disconnected from traditional food systems (Inter-American Development Bank [IDB] & WFP, 2023; Kennedy et al., 2022; Matarezio Filho & Pedrosa, 2024; Mercado et al., 2018; QCG, 2021), while legal and commercial restrictions further constrain the already limited availability and accessibility of traditional foods, particularly those wild-harvested (QCG, 2021). Table 1. Challenges, enablers and recommendations for strengthening the participation of IPs and LCs and inclusion of food biodiversity in PFP programmes (all references cited in the table appear in the bibliography). (Source: Research data and literature.) Challenges Enablers and Supporting Evidence Recommendations In st it u ti o n a l a n d P o li ti ca l P a rt ic ip a ti o n Lack of legal recognition and guarantees of rights to land and water [1-3]; Legal and food safety restrictions on traditional foods, especially those of wild origin [2,4,5]; Absence of intercultural guidelines and effective IPs and LCs participation in PFP design; bureaucratic and culturally disconnected processes that marginalise Indigenous/traditional knowledge, practices, and foods [1, 5, 6-12] Hybrid and collaborative governance structures, integrating traditional and formal norms, promote, participation, and culturally appropriate solutions [1, 4-5, 8, 14] “Gate openers” (key social actors) facilitate community engagement and the inclusion of traditional foods [8, 9, 14] Participatory and intercultural sensitivity policies (e.g. Indigenous PAA) and sanitary exemptions for traditional foods can improve market access and respect cultural specificities. [9]. Strengthen legal norms and guidelines to ensure food sovereignty and IPs and LCs participation; Guarantee IPs and LCs participation in the design and governance of food procurement policies that benefit them; Reduce bureaucracy and regionalise PFP with culturally appropriate guidelines. Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 7 Table 1 (Cont.). Challenges, enablers and recommendations for strengthening the participation of IPs and LCs and inclusion of food biodiversity in PFP programmes (all references cited in the table appear in the bibliography). (Source: Research data and literature.) Challenges Enablers and Supporting Evidence Recommendations V a lu in g a n d P ro m o ti n g T ra d it io n a l F o o d s Impacts of industrial agriculture, globalisation, homogenised diets, and marginalisation of traditional ways of life [3, 10, 16‒19]; Limited support for the production and marketing of traditional foods due to low production scale, seasonality, high logistics costs, payment delays, and lack of technical assistance [2, 5, 7, 9-11, 15, 16, 20] Discrimination and lack of awareness of traditional foods, especially among public agents [1, 2, 9, 20‒23] Traditional IPs and LCs foods are nutritionally dense, minimally processed, and central to food sovereignty and culturally respectful diets [2, 6, 26, 34-37]; Agroecological practices and support for local food systems, including HGSF programs, can enhance food biodiversity and strengthen local supply chains [1, 9, 10, 16, 19, 21, 24-28]. Prioritise local procurement and the inclusion of traditional foods; Expand rural extension services and funding for local, traditional and agroecological food chains; E d u ca ti o n a n d T ra d it io n a l K n o w le d g e Culturally inappropriate school menus resulting from standardised requirements that overlook food diversity; weak food education, and lack of intercultural education [1, 3, 20, 23, 25, 29, 30]; Lack of institutional measures to empower communities [8, 9]; Loss of traditional knowledge, especially among youth [1-3, 23, 30, 32]; Limited research on PFP initiatives that benefit IPs and LCs or promote biodiversity-based and culturally sensitive diets (1, 6, 10, 12, 20, 25, 26, 32] Intercultural food and nutrition education fosters appreciation of food diversity, supports traditional knowledge, and counters food discrimination [5, 10, 31, 37-38]; Strengthening intergenerational transmission of food knowledge revitalises food systems and maintains cultural identity among youth [1, 12, 15, 31, 37, 39]; Integrating scientific and traditional knowledge promotes participation and empowers smallholder farmers, Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities, women, and youth [1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 37, 40]. Ensure active IPs and LCs participation in the design and implementation of food programs and curricula; Integrate intercultural food and nutrition education in schools to promote diversity and counter prejudice. Support the conservation and intergenerational transmission of traditional food knowledge; Foster community leadership, partnerships with public institutions, and Indigenous-led research on food and culture. Legend: 1. FAO, 2021; 2. QCG, 2021; 3. Swiderska et al., 2022; 4. Mercado et al., 2018; 5. WFP & IDB, 2023; 6. Kennedy et al., 2022; 7. Matarezio Filho & Pedrosa, 2024; 8. Teixeira & Noder, 2015; 9. Case study [4.2. section]; 10. FAO & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2021; 11. Mabhaudhi et al., 2019b; 12. Mabhaudhi et al., 2019a; 13. Goolmer et al., 2022; 14. Mercado et al., 2016; 15. Oloko et al., 2024; 16. Drucker et al., 2022; 17. Leite et al., 2022; 18. Mineiro & Triches, 2018; 19. Rosado-May et al., 2025; 20. Girardi et al., 2021; 21. Beltrame et al., 2021; 22. Gomes et al., 2023; 23. Martínez-Esquivel et al., 2024; 24. Deaconu et al., 2021; 25. WFP & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2022; 26. Hunter, et al. 2019; 27. Di Prima et al., 2022; 28. Sakapaji et al. 2024; 29. Pilink & Argentim, 2023; 30. Garavito et al., 2021; 31. Yangdon et al., 2022; 32. Hunter et al., 2020; 33. Abberton et al., 2022; 34. Downs et al., 2022; 35. Talabi et al., 2022; 36. Sowerwine et al. 2023; 37. Argumedo et al., 2021; 38. Kuhnlein & Chotiboriboon, 2022; 39. Rathoure et al. 2024; 40.Trott & Mulrennan, 2024 Production-related challenges add to these regulatory barriers. IPs and LCs often suffer from limited technical support, poor infrastructure, and restricted access to land and water, all of which undermine their capacity to supply these foods to markets (QCG, 2021). Even when administrative hurdles are overcome, operational issues persist, including transport and delivery difficulties, and frequent delays in payment processing (Drucker et al., 2022; FAO & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2021; Girardi et al., 2021; IDB & WFP, 2023; Oloko et al., 2024; QCG, 2021). These challenges are exacerbated by a broader misalignment between public policies and local cultural realities. The lack of supportive regulations and practical implementation guidelines (Kennedy et al., 2022) reflects the systemic marginalisation of IPs and LCs, who are rarely involved in the design of such programs. 8 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 Discrimination further undermines their participation, eroding the recognition of their knowledge systems, cultural practices, and foodways (FAO, 2021; FAO & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2021; Girardi et al., 2021; IDB & WFP, 2023; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019b; Martínez-Esquivel et al., 2024; QCG, 2021; Swiderska et al., 2022). Addressing these barriers requires collaboration between stakeholders and rethinking new ways of managing and implementing these policies. In Bolivia, for example, hybrid governance models combine formal institutions with Indigenous organisations, supported by "gate openers”—social actors who facilitate dialogue and coordination between communities and institutions—thereby enabling the inclusion of local foods in school meal programs. These strategies also highlight the importance of shared leadership, social capital, and the incorporation of cultural practices into public procurement processes (IDB & WFP, 2023; Mercado et al., 2016, 2018). 4.1.2. Valuing and Promoting Traditional Foods Public food procurement often prioritises mainstream food products, resulting in the persistent underrepresentation of traditional foods (QCG, 2021). The exclusion of food biodiversity from school meal programs has resulted in standardised menus that are often culturally inappropriate. In many cases, unfamiliar foods are introduced without prior dialogue with IPs and LCs—a situation documented by Pilnik and Argentim (2023) in the Huni Kuin Indigenous community in Brazil— which further alienates students from their traditional foodways. This disconnection is intensified when school communities fail to recognise the value of traditional foods, fostering the uncritical acceptance of foreign or mainstream cuisines (Martínez-Esquivel et al., 2024; Mineiro & Triches, 2018). Evidence also indicates that knowledge of biodiversity is increasingly concentrated among older generations, while younger cohorts show less interest, threatening the continuity of ancestral food practices (Garavito et al., 2021; Yangdon et al., 2022). Collectively, these dynamics undermine food sovereignty and perpetuate a self-reinforcing cycle of disengagement from traditional food systems (FAO, 2021; FAO & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2021; Girardi et al., 2021; Swiderska et al., 2022). Tackling these challenges requires public procurement models that are designed with sensitivity to local contexts. Evidence from initiatives such as Home-Grown School Feeding demonstrates that valuing traditional foods through local sourcing and agroecological networks can generate multiple benefits. In addition to promoting healthier, more diverse, and culturally appropriate diets, such approaches strengthen family farming; expand market access for Indigenous and local producers; generate income opportunities and support the conservation of agrobiodiversity. Production based on native and underutilised species, adapted to local ecosystems, can reduce costs, enhance food security and reinforce both food sovereignty and cultural connections to food (Beltrame et al., 2021; Borelli et al., 2025; Deaconu et al., 2021; FAO, 2021; Rosado-May et al., 2025; WFP & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2022). 4.1.3. Education and Traditional Knowledge Findings suggest that a widespread lack of institutional understanding of Indigenous food systems within non-Indigenous organisations continues to hinder their meaningful participation in PFP (QCG, 2021). The exclusion of IPs and LCs from the planning of school feeding and other formal educational programs accelerates the erosion of traditional knowledge among youth by weakening intergenerational knowledge transmission. This problem is compounded by the limited integration of Indigenous food systems into school curricula (Martínez-Esquivel et al., 2024; QCG, 2021; Swiderska et al., 2022) and by the tendency of existing research to overlook the sociocultural dimensions that underpin these systems (FAO & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2021; Girardi et al., 2021; Mabhaudhi et al., 2019b). Overcoming these gaps requires food and nutrition education that adopts an intercultural approach—one that strengthens cultural ties to food and land, supports the valorisation of traditional food systems, and challenges food-related prejudice. Incorporating traditional recipes and ingredients into public institutions, especially schools, can contribute to the indigenisation of these spaces, fostering reconciliation and cross- cultural understanding. Achieving these goals demands revisions to institutional regulations and practices, to Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 9 ensure the active participation of IPs and LCs in program design and implementation (Argumedo et al., 2021; FAO & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2021; IDB & WFP, 2023; Kuhnlein & Chotiboriboon, 2022; QCG, 2021; Yangdon et al., 2022). Strengthening food sovereignty and biodiversity further depends on recognising and respecting Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems. Research initiatives led by Indigenous communities—particularly by youth—have proven effective in developing culturally relevant solutions, building community trust, and ensuring the intergenerational transmission of ancestral knowledge (Kuhnlein & Chotiboriboon, 2022; Trott & Mulrennan, 2024). 4.2. Local Evidence in the Eastern Amazon While analysis of procurement lists from the PNAE (National School Feeding Program) and PAA (Food Acquisition Program) revealed that the PAA included a greater total number of food items, statistical analysis found no significant difference in the proportion of socio-biodiversity and regional (SR) foods between the two programs. Across the six municipalities analysed, the PAA included 292 food items, of which 84 (28.8%) were classified as SR foods (see the complete list in Appendix 2). In comparison, the PNAE listed 146 items, with 44 (30.1%) falling into the SR category. Table 2 details the distribution of procurement under the PAA and PNAE by municipality. Specifically, for the PNAE, the analysis of monthly school menus highlighted both the level of food processing and the presence of SR foods, which were notably less represented in the menus. The analysis revealed a moderate negative correlation between SR foods and ultra-processed foods (Pearson’s r: -0.4285), suggesting that increased inclusion of SR foods is associated with reduced use of ultra-processed items. Additionally, a moderate positive correlation was also found between SR foods and unprocessed or minimally processed items (Pearson’s r: 0.4311), suggesting that greater use of SR foods can be associated with a higher share of fresh foods. Table 2. Distribution of items purchased under PAA and PNAE in the study region, Pará, Brazil . Municipalities Food biodiversity PNAE PAA Items (n) SR (%) SR in the menu (%) Degree of processing of the menu (%) Items (n) SR (%) 1 2 3 M1 24 25.0 0.0 47.6 23.8 28.6 34 32.4 M2 41 29.3 6.9 72.4 10.3 17.3 54 31.5 M3 35 34.3 21.9 81.3 12.4 6.3 34 17.6 M4 8 37.5 4.0 72.0 20.0 8.0 17 17.6 M5 13 23.1 5.9 76.5 17.6 5.9 69 31.9 M6 25 32.0 6.5 83.8 6.5 9.7 84 29.8 Legend: Municipality (M); Socio-biodiverse and Regional Foods (SR); 1= Unprocessed/minimally processed; 2 = Processed; 3 = Ultra-processed. Analysis of interviews and public procurement contracts revealed the extent of participation of IPs and LCs in the two food procurement programs studied. In the case of the PNAE, none of the municipalities included suppliers from IPs and LCs. In contrast, under the PAA, five out of six municipalities engaged with suppliers from various IPs and LCs, including Indigenous Peoples, Quilombola communities, babassu coconut breakers, riverine populations, and other traditional groups. The greater participation of IPs and LCs in the PAA can be attributed to legal innovations such as the “PAA Indigenous” and “PAA Traditional” modalities, established by the Ministry of Development and Social Assistance, Family and Fight Against Hunger [MDS] Ordinance No. 906/2023 (Brazil, MDS, 2023), which 10 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 created specific procurement frameworks for these groups. Field observations also indicated that the proactive role of local agents was decisive: PAA coordinators often functioned as social facilitators, organising meetings, visiting communities, and promoting intercultural dialogue, while also showing greater cultural sensitivity by mapping local production and valuing foods of cultural significance to the groups served. In one case, the coordinator was himself a member of a Quilombola community. In the PNAE, however, such engagement was limited. Although nutritionists are formally responsible for local coordination, most do not conduct technical visits or maintain contact with traditional communities, which resulted in culturally inappropriate menus, even for Indigenous and Quilombola students who receive higher per capita federal funding precisely to support culturally relevant menus. Determining whether the SR foods were exclusively supplied by IPs and LCs was not feasible, given that the available data do not allow for tracing the origin of individual items. Furthermore, foods are generally delivered jointly to recipients in both programs, through food baskets in the PAA or prepared meals in the PNAE, further complicating traceability. Although the precise origin of the SR foods cannot be definitively confirmed, it is reasonable to infer that some were supplied by IPs and LCs. This inference is supported by program guidelines linking these food groups to IPs and LCs, the presence of specific procurement modalities such as “PAA Indigenous” and “PAA Traditional,” the greater diversity of items observed in the PAA, and the predominance of foods traditionally associated with Indigenous Peoples’ food systems—such as cassava (Manihot esculenta) and açaí (Euterpe oleracea) (Cascudo, 2004). Together, these factors suggest that the participation of IPs and LCs as suppliers correlates with increased food biodiversity and more culturally appropriate food provision in public procurement programs. Based on the interviews, Table 3 shows that the main challenges for including SR foods in programs are concentrated in the mismatch between supply and demand, structural barriers, prejudice and cultural invisibility of traditional food systems. Table 3. Main Challenges Identified in Interviews, Pará, Brazil. Challenge Description Interviewee Quotes 1. Mismatch between supply and demand While all stakeholders recognise the low availability of SR foods, program managers attribute the problem to insufficient production, whereas farmers cite a lack of demand. This divergence reveals a disconnect in communication and planning between buyers and producers. “I can say for sure there’s no production. So, trying to include a food that isn’t produced here is completely unfeasible.” (E43, PAA coordinator) “These products we don’t have… they’re backyard crops. But there’s no producer with the potential.” (E27, intermediary) “I can tell you for sure we could produce… but if you grow too much, you end up throwing it away because there’s no one to buy it.” (E44, farmer) 2. Bureaucracy, infrastructure, and logistics Infrastructure limitations (e.g., inadequate irrigation, lack of technical assistance and transport means) and bureaucratic requirements hinder the participation of family farmers—especially those producing non-conventional or small- scale crops. NOTE: PAA’s provision of municipal transportation was noted as an enabling factor. “Production is low, but so is the support... and then there's irrigation, and irrigation is very expensive.” (E37, farmer) “If we have a rural school... they’ll deliver R$50 [Brazilian currency] reais worth of goods spending R$50 on fuel. It’s complicated.” (E58, farmer) 3. Cultural invisibility of traditional food systems Traditional foods are frequently perceived as “weeds”, “wild”, or “non- commercial”. Program managers often lack awareness of their cultural significance, and in some cases, community members themselves no longer value them, further constraining their inclusion in PFPs. “They are Indigenous, but they’re already… eating just like us.” (E30, PNAE nutritionist) “Did you know that sometimes students don’t like cupuaçu [Theobroma grandiflorum] juice? Because they drink it at home. Especially in rural areas. They don’t value it.” (E49, school principal, PNAE) “Physalis [Physalis angulata], I remember when I was a kid, I ate it, and it gave me stomach-aches… because it is a weed, it is a pest.” (E23, farmer) Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 11 Overall, the quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the inclusion of socio-biodiversity and regional (SR) foods in public procurement is closely linked to the participation of IPs and LCs. The results also highlight that broader implementation challenges within these programs constrain both the participation of IPs and LCs and the integration of SR foods. Nevertheless, such barriers can be mitigated through institutional flexibility and active mediation by local actors, as observed in the PAA. Importantly, the presence of SR foods serves not only as a quantitative indicator of food biodiversity in procurement but also as a qualitative marker of the recognition of biocultural diversity within institutional food systems. 5. Discussion This section integrates insights derived both from the literature review and the case study, discussing convergences and divergences between global trends and local realities in the Brazilian Amazon. The results identified systemic barriers to integrating food biodiversity and IPs and LCs into public food procurement, including limited institutional and political inclusion, insufficient valuation and promotion of traditional foods, and weak intergenerational and intercultural knowledge transfer (Table 1). The case study revealed how these systemic issues play out in practice, such as mismatches between supply and demand, bureaucratic procedures, inadequate infrastructure and logistics, and a persistent lack of recognition of traditional foods, despite their nutritional value, climate resilience, and cultural significance (Table 3). Together, these findings suggest that while policy and institutional gaps create overarching constraints, their real-world consequences emerge as operational challenges that directly limit the IPs and LCs’ participation in PFP. Participatory approaches emerged as a key means of addressing these barriers and unlock ing new opportunities. In the case study, higher participation of IPs and LCs in the PAA reflected mechanisms documented in the literature—such as the "Indigenous PAA" and "Traditional PAA" modalities—alongside the efforts of active local actors, which together fostered more intercultural sensitivity in procurement systems (Brazil, MDS, 2023; FAO & the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, 2021; Mercado et al., 2016, 2018; Teixeira & Noder, 2015). A significant legal milestone supporting the participation of IPs and LCs in the PAA was the 2020 Technical Note issued by the Federal Public Ministry [MPF] (Brazil, MPF, 2020). This note clarifies the need for Brazilian law to respect traditional food production practices and to exempt foods produced and consumed within Indigenous villages and traditional communities from standard registration, inspection, and food safety requirements. The Technical Note is the product of a collaborative process initiated in 2016 involving public institutions, Indigenous movements, community leaders, and civil society organisations. It illustrates how intercultural dialogue and institutional cooperation can enhance policy legitimacy, food sovereignty and public health (Argumedo et al., 2021; Brondízio et al., 2025; FAO, 2021; Sakapaji et al., 2024; Sowerwine et al., 2023). The underappreciation of food diversity remains a major driver of biodiversity loss and contributes to limited market demand for SR foods (Beltrame et al., 2021; Gomes et al., 2023). Many of these foods were classified in Brazil as “non-conventional food plants” (or PANCs, from their acronym in Portuguese). They were once common in national diets but are now largely restricted to traditional communities or specific regions (Kinupp & Lorenzi, 2014). Participatory approaches are therefore critical for reversing this trend, as they engage IPs and LCs directly in decision-making, aligning supply and demand while promoting cultural valorisation. In the PAA, coordinators often functioned as social facilitators, fostering intercultural dialogue. These practices likely contributed to the greater diversity of SR foods procured and participation as suppliers of IPs and LCs, strengthening their roles within local food systems, in contrast to the PNAE, where no suppliers belonged to these groups. By embedding these groups in local supply chains, the PAA contributes to sustainable development rooted in socio-biodiversity and informed by the ancestral knowledge of Amazonian forest communities (Abramovay et al., 2021). This is particularly important in a region threatened by high rates of deforestation, where protected areas and Indigenous lands continue to safeguard biodiversity through traditional management practices (Tomchinsky et al., 2023). Yet, as observed in the case study, traditional foods are often dismissed as “weeds”, 12 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 “wild”, or “non-commercial”, and in some cases, undervalued by the community members themselves. Without recognition of their importance remain at risk. Recent studies reinforce that Indigenous and traditional food systems play a central role in strengthening climate resilience and promoting sustainable territorial development in the Amazon. Athayde et al. (2025) highlight how socio-bioeconomic initiatives in the Upper Solimões region integrate conservation, income generation, and local governance, building adaptive capacities to cope with climate change. These community- based practices, grounded in traditional knowledge, contribute simultaneously to ecolog ical restoration and social resilience. Furthermore, Araújo et al. (2024) emphasise that advancing the Amazonian bioeconomy requires empowering local communities and addressing sociocultural, normative, and political barriers that limit the development of sustainable value chains. Their findings underscore the need for a holistic approach that values both economic viability and environmental sustainability, fostering models adaptable to evolving local and global demands. Clement et al. (2024) also reinforce that human capital is fundamental to a resilient forest bioeconomy. Education and training programs tailored to rural and Indigenous contexts can promote sustainable forest management, strengthen non-timber forest product (NTFP) value chains, and improve food and nutrition security. By integrating traditional knowledge, biodiversity conservation, and equitable participation, these approaches strengthen climate adaptation and food sovereignty in Amazonian territories. Schools play a strategic role in safeguarding these systems through intergenerational and intercultural knowledge exchange. Indigenous education can reinforce ethnic identity, affirm traditional food cultures (Mineiro & Triches, 2018), and sustain demand for biodiverse foods, maintaining them for future generations. Strengthening food sovereignty and biodiversity also requires recognising Indigenous and traditional epistemologies in education and knowledge production (Kuhnlein & Chotiboriboon, 2022). Integrating scientific and traditional knowledge within governance structures—particularly when IPs and LCs are active decision-makers—can yield public policies that are both culturally appropriate and effective. In terms of limitations, this study approached food biodiversity broadly and did not differentiate the degree to which specific foods were conventional or mainstream. Even so, the case study confirmed the limited presence of socio-biodiversity and regional foods in PFP, especially in school menus, reflecting institutional fragility in promoting biodiversity. When included, these foods are often overshadowed by conventional items such as bananas, lettuce, and pumpkins—findings consistent with previous research on public procurement in culturally diverse regions (Cabral et al., 2025; Drucker et al., 2022). Indigenous Peoples and local communities are not only vital to the mitigation of climate change but also key to preventing the loss of our food biodiversity. Public food procurement can serve as an initial and tangible policy tool to include these groups, fostering mutual learning and laying the groundwork for broader transformative actions. When effectively implemented, these programs promote healthy, sustainable, and resilient food systems that respond to our current climate crisis. Future research, ideally Indigenous-led, should focus on: i) developing strategies to integrate a wider diversity of culturally-relevant species into PFP; ii) identifying interventions to overcome cultural bias and strengthen institutional support for food biodiversity; iii) advancing participatory approaches to procurement policy design; iv) establishing traceability mechanisms; v) examining the links between food culture and IPs and LCs livelihoods; vi) promoting youth engagement in traditional food systems; and vii) assessing the role of intercultural food and nutrition education in valuing Indigenous and traditional foods and knowledge. 6. Conclusion This article argues that reinforcing the food systems of IPs and LCs through PFP is not merely an option but a strategic imperative. Strengthening these systems advances food justice, preserves agrobiodiversity, and offers a sustainable model for tackling the interconnected crises of contemporary global food systems. By integrating empirical findings from a case study in Pará, Brazil, with secondary evidence, this study contributes a novel Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 13 synthesis of the challenges and enabling factors for incorporating food biodiversity into PFP, while highlighting both recurring obstacles and emerging good practices. The findings show that systemic barriers translate into concrete operational challenges on the ground. These systemic barriers include institutional and political participation, insufficient recognition and promotion of IPs' and LCs' foods, and weak intergenerational knowledge transfer. Operational challenges include mismatches between supply and demand, bureaucratic procedures, inadequate infrastructure and logistics, and a persistent undervaluation of traditional foods despite their nutritional value, climate resilience, and cultural significance. Such dynamics restrict the effective participation of IPs and LCs in PFP and perpetuate cycles of exclusion. At the same time, the case study and literature reveal that targeted initiatives can overcome these barriers. Mechanisms such as the Indigenous and Traditional PAA, hybrid governance arrangements that integrate traditional and formal norms, and the active involvement of “gate openers” and local facilitators have fostered more intercultural participation in procurement processes. The 2020 Technical Note issued by Brazil’s Federal Public Ministry, which exempted foods produced and consumed within Indigenous and traditional communities from standard food-safety regulations, illustrates how collaborative, intercultural policymaking can expand IPs’ and LCs' participation, while respecting cultural and production specificities. Although these findings are not generalisable, they offer a valuable analytical framework for designing more culturally responsive procurement policies in diverse contexts. In Brazil, strengthening the monitoring and transparency of institutional procurement through data disaggregated by type of supplier and greater specificity of food origin could enhance long-term evaluation of institutional procurement. In addition, lessons learned from the PAA, which demonstrated greater flexibility and intercultural engagement, could influence improvements in the PNAE, aiming at greater inclusion of socio-biodiverse foods and suppliers from IPs and LCs. Scaling up meaningful participation progress demands more than good intentions. It requires the recognition of territorial rights, technical and financial support for traditional and local food chains, and the revision of procurement policies to include regionally adapted and culturally appropriate guidelines, as outlined in the recommendations summarised in Table 1. These national-level measures should be aligned with international legal and normative frameworks, including the International Labour Organisation [ILO] Convention No. 169/1989 (Article 23), the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Right to Food, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In this context, governments—supported by multilateral bodies such as the UN system, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, the Committee on World Food Security, and the High-Level Panel of Experts—must foster sustained dialogue that ensures IPs and LCs are active decision-makers in the design and implementation of food programs. Such engagement is essential to strengthening traditional food systems, safeguarding intergenerational knowledge, and embedding food biodiversity into PFP as a pillar of equitable, resilient, and culturally grounded food systems. Acknowledgements This work was carried out based on projects financially supported by the Fundação Amazônia de Amparo a Estudos e Pesquisas (FAPESPA), Pará, Brazil and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Ministério da Educação (CAPES), Brazil and in collaboration with the Food Environment and Consumer Behaviour Division, the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance, Rome, Italy. The authors sincerely thank Tania Martínez and Zeyuan Wang for their valuable input during the preliminary stages of this study. They also extend their gratitude to all the research interviewees who kindly gave their time and shared their experiences, providing valuable information and contributions to the Brazilian case study. The authors would like to thank Vincent Johnson of the Bioversity-CIAT Alliance Science Writing Service for his editorial support. Author Contributions Bianca da Conceição Cabral: Data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, writing - original draft, and writing - revision and editing. Andrea das Graças Ferreira Frazao and Bernardo Tomchinsky: Supervision of data collection, guidance on methodology, writing - review and editing. Teresa Borelli and Sharon Mendonce: Writing - review and editing. Danny Hunter: Supervision and writing - review and editing. 14 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third-party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Abberton, M., Paliwal, R., Faloye, B., Marimagne, T., Moriam, A., & Oyatomi, O. (2022). Indigenous African orphan legumes: Potential for food and nutrition security in SSA. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6(708124), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.708124 Abramovay, R., Ferreira, J., de Assis, C. F., Ehrlich, M., Euler, A. C., Young, C. E. F., ... & Villanova, L. (2021). Opportunities and challenges for a healthy standing forest and flowing rivers bioeconomy in the Amazon. In Amazon Assessment Report 2021 . New York: United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://doi.org/10.55161/ughk1968 Araujo, E. C. G., Silva, T. C., Da Cunha Neto, E. M., Favarin, J. A. S., Da Silva Gomes, J. K., Das Chagas, K. P. T., Fiorelli, E. C., Sonsin, A. F., & Maia, E. (2024). Bioeconomy in the Amazon: Lessons and gaps from thirty years of non-timber forest products research. Journal of Environmental Management , 370, 122420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122420 Argumedo, A., Song, Y., Khoury, C. K., Hunter, D., Dempewolf, H., Guarino, L., & De Haan, S. (2021). Biocultural diversity for food system transformation under global environmental change. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5(685299), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.685299 Athayde, S., Coutinho, T. C., Tello J. P. J. (Orgs.) (2025). Panorama da Sociobioeconomia na Região do Alto Solimões: Perspectivas dos Territórios. 1 ed. Caderno Técnico PaCTAS. Bailey, K. (2008). Methods of social research. 4th ed. New York: The Free Pass, 592p. Bardin, L. (2016). Análise de conteúdo. Vol. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: edições, 70, 225. (Edição 70). Beltrame, D., Borelli, T., Oliveira, C., Coradin, L., & Hunter, D. (2021). Biodiversity for food and nutrition: Promoting food security and nutrition through institutional markets in Brazil. In Swensson, L., Hunter, D., Schneider, S., & Tartanac, F. (Eds.) Public food procurement for sustainable food systems and healthy diets (Vol. 1, pp. 262–285). FAO; Bioversity International; https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7960en Bocchi, C. P., Magalhães, É. D. S., Rahal, L., Gentil, P., & Gonçalves, R. D. S. (2019). A década da nutrição, a política de segurança alimentar e nutricional e as compras públicas da agricultura familiar no Brasil. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 43 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2019.84 Borelli, T.; Cabral, B.d.C.; Mendonce, S.; Hunter, D.; Pero, A.; Rosado-May, F. (2025). Bridging Indigenous peoples’ food systems and school meals programmes: Evidence and gaps (3 p.). Bioversity International. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/175058 Brazil. (2003). Lei nº 10.696, de 2 de julho de 2003 [Law No. 10.696, of July 2, 2003]. https://www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/leis/2003/ l10.696 .htm https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122420 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 15 Brazil. (2009a). Lei nº 11.947, de 16 de junho de 2009 [Law No. 11.947, of June 16, 2009]. https://www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/lei/ l11947.htm Brazil. (2009b). Plano Nacional de Promoção das Cadeias de Produtos da Sociobiodiversidade . https://bibliotecadigital.econom ia.gov .br/handle/123456789/1024 Brazil. (2023). Decreto nº 11.802, de 28 de novembro de 2023 [Law No. 11.802, of November 28, 2023]. https://www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/_ato2023-2026/2023/decreto/D11802 .htm Brazil. (2025). Lei nº 15.223, de 30 de setembro de 2025 [Law No. 15.223, of September 30, 2025]. https://www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/_ato2023-2026/2025/lei/L15223 .htm Brazil, Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). (2024). Censo Demográfico 2022: População e domicílios. Brazil, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA) & Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MMA). (2021). Portaria Interministerial MAPA/MMA no 10, de 21 de julho de 2021 [Interministerial Ordinance No. 10, of July 21, 2021]. https://in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-interm in isterial- mapa/mma-n-10-de- 21-de-julho-de-2021-333502918 Brazil, Ministry of Development and Social Assistance, Family and Fight Against Hunger (MDS). (2023). Portaria MDS nº 906, de 28 de julho de 2023 [Ordinance No. 906, of July 28, 2023]. Brazil, Ministry of Health (MS). (2015). Alimentos Regionais Brasileiros (Vol. 2). https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/alimentos_regionais_brasileiros_2ed .pdf Brazil, National Fund for Educational Development (FNDE). (2020). Resolução nº 6, de 08 de maio de 2020 [Resolution No. 6, of May 8, 2020]. https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-b r/acesso -a- informacao/legislacao/resolucoes/2020/reso lucao-no-6-de-08-de-maio -de-2020/v iew Brazil, National Fund for Educational Development (FNDE). (2025). PNAE - home. Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação. https://www.gov .br/fnde/pt -br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e- programas/programas/pnae/pnae-home Brazil, Federal Public Ministry (MPF). (2020). Nota Técnica Nº 3/2020/6ªCCR/MPF [Technical Note No 3/2020/6ªCCR/MPF]. Populações Indígenas e Comunidades Tradicionais. https://www.mpf.mp.br/atuacao-tematica/ccr6/catrapovosbrasil/documentos-epublicacoes. Brondízio, E. S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bates, P., Carino, J., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Ferrari, M. F., Galvin, K., Reyes-García, V., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Samakov, A., & Shrestha, U. B. (2021). Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46 (1), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127 Cascudo, L. C. (2004). História da alimentação no Brasil (Vol. 4). Global Editora. Cabral, B.da C., Siqueira , F. F. da S. F., Frazao, A. das G. F. & Tomchinsky, B. (2025). Public procurement of regional food from family farming in municipalities of the Eastern Amazon. Mundo Amazónico, 16(1), e112178, 52-76. https://doi.org/10.15446/ma.v16n1.112178 Chadha, M., Shukla, R., Kumar Tiwari, R., Kumar Dubey, D., & Singh, K. (2024). Impact of ultra -processed foods on food sustainability: Exposure assessment and health implications. Recent Advances in Food, Nutrition & Agriculture, 15(10), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.2174/012772574X327683240910063234 Clement, C. R., Dos Santos Pereira, H., Vieira, I. C. G., & Homma, A. K. O. (2024). Challenges for a Brazilian Amazonian bioeconomy based on forest foods. Trees, Forests and People, 16, 100583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100583 Convention on Biological Diversity. (2018). Glossary of relevant key terms and concepts within the context of Article 8(J) and related provisions. InforMEA. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100583 16 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 https://www.informea.org/en/decision/glossary-relevant-key-terms-and-concepts-with in -context -article- 8j-and-related-provisions De Schutter, O., Quinot, G., Swensson, L. F.J. (2021). Public Food Procurement as a Development Tool: The Role of the Regulatory Framework. In Swensson, L., Hunter, D., Schneider, S., & Tartanac, F. (Eds.) Public food procurement for sustainable food systems and healthy diets (Vol. 1, pp. 43–77). FAO; Bioversity International; https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7960en Deaconu, A., Mercille, G., & Batal, M. (2021). Promoting traditional foods for human and environmental health: Lessons from agroecology and Indigenous communities in Ecuador. BMC Nutrition, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-020-00395-y Di Prima, S., Nguyen Dinh, D., Reurings, D. D., Wright, E. P., Essink, D., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2022). Home- grown school feeding: Implementation lessons from a pilot in a poor ethnic minority community in Vietnam. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 43(3), 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/03795721221088962 Downs, S. M., Kapoor, R., Merchant, E. V., Sullivan, T., Singh, G., Fanzo, J., & Ghosh -Jerath, S. (2022). Leveraging nutrient-rich traditional foods to improve diets among indigenous populations in India: Value chain analysis of finger millet and kionaar leaves. Foods, 11(23), 3774. Drucker, A. G., Ramírez, M., Cueto, J., Watts, S., McKeown, P. C., Spillane, C., & Hunter, D. (2022). Feed me sustainably–A tool for improving the sustainability of public food procurement programmes using threatened crop diversity. Bioversity International. Polícy Brief No. 67, 1-18. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/117588 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2021). The white/wiphala paper on Indigenous peoples’ food systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4932en Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. (2021). Indigenous Peoples’ food systems: Insights on sustainability and resilience from the front line of climate change. Food and Agricultu re Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5131en Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Food Programme. (2018). Home-Grown School Feeding. Resource Framework. Synopsis. (p. 1-36). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Food Programme. Garavito, G., Clavijo, R., Luengas, P., Palacios, P., & Arias, M. H. (2021). Assessment of biodiversity goods for the sustainable development of the chagra in an Indigenous community of the Colombian Amazon: Local values of crops. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 17 (23), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-021-00453-0 García, S., Pastor, R., Monserrat-Mesquida, M., Álvarez-Álvarez, L., Rubín-García, M., Martínez-González, M. Á., Salas-Salvadó, J., Corella, D., Fitó, M., Martínez, J. A., Tojal-Sierra, L., Wärnberg, J., Vioque, J., Romaguera, D., López-Miranda, J., Estruch, R., Tinahones, F. J., Santos-Lozano, J. M., Serra -Majem, L., … Bouzas, C. (2023). Ultra -processed foods consumption as a promoting factor of greenhouse gas emissions, water, energy, and land use: A longitudinal assessment . Science of The Total Environment, 891(164417), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv .2023.164417 Girardi, M. W., Leao, L. P. G., & da Silva, L. L. (2021). Public food procurement and Indigenous peoples: The case of the Brazilian National School-feeding program. In Swensson, L., Hunter, D., Schneider, S., & Tartanac, F. (Eds.) Public food procurement for sustainable food systems and healthy diets (Vol. 1, pp. 227–247). FAO; Bioversity International; https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7960en Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF). (2024). School meal programs around the world: Results from the 2024 global survey of school meal programs. https://gcnf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GCNF- Global-Survey-Report -2024-V1.8 .pdf Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 17 Gomes, S. M., Chaves, V. M., De Carvalho, A. M., Da Silva, E. B., De Menezes Neto, E. J., De Farias Moura, G., Da Silva Chaves, L., Alves, R. R. N., De Albuquerque, U. P., De Oliveira Pereira, F., & Jacob, M. C. M. (2023). Biodiversity is overlooked in the diets of different social groups in Brazil. Scientific Reports, 13(7509), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34543-8 Goolmeer, T., Skroblin, A., Grant, C., Van Leeuwen, S., Archer, R., Gore‐Birch, C., & Wintle, B. A. (2022). Recognizing culturally significant species and Indigenous‐led management is key to meeting international biodiversity obligations. Conservation Letters, 15(e12899), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12899 Grisa, C., & Schneider, S. (2014). Três gerações de políticas públicas para a agricultura familiar e formas de interação entre sociedade e estado no Brasil. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 52(suppl 1), 125– 146. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20032014000600007 Hunter, D., Borelli, T., Beltrame, D. M. O., Oliveira, C. N. S., Coradin, L., Wasike, V. W., Wasilwa, L., Mwai, J., Manjella, A., Samarasinghe, G. W. L., Madhujith, T., Nadeeshani, H. V. H., Tan, A., Ay, S. T., Güzelsoy, N., Lauridsen, N., Gee, E., & Tarta nac, F. (2019). The potential of neglected and underutilized species for improving diets and nutrition. Planta, 250(3), 709–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019- 03169-4 Hunter, D., Borelli, T., & Gee, E. (Eds.). (2020). Biodiversity, food and nutrition: A new agenda for sustainable food systems. Routledge. Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). (2024). Terras indígenas no Brasil. https://terrasindigenas.org.b r/pt-b r/node/33 Inter-American Development Bank & World Food Programme. (2023). Special report: Towards an intercultural approach to school meals in the region , 1-17. https://doi.org/10.18235/0005686 Kennedy, G., Wang, Z., Maundu, P., & Hunter, D. (2022). The role of traditional knowledge and food biodiversity to transform modern food systems. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 130 , 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022 .09.011 Kinupp, V. F., & Lorenzi, H. (Eds.). (2014). Plantas Alimentícias Não Convencionais (PANC) no Brasil: Guia de identificação, aspectos nutricionais e receitas ilustradas (Vol. 1). Nova Odessa, Plantarum. Knorr, D., & Augustin, M. A. (2025). Towards resilient food systems: Interactions with Indigenous knowledge. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 156(104875), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.104875 Kuhnlein, H. V. (2014). How ethnobiology can contribute to food security. Journal of Ethnobiology, 34(1), 12– 27. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-34.1 .12 Kuhnlein, H. V., & Chotiboriboon, S. (2022). Why and how to strengthen Indigenous peoples’ food systems with examples from two unique Indigenous communities. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6(808670), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.808670 Kuhnlein, H. V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D., & Burlingame, B. (2013). Indigenous Peoples’s food systems & well- being: Interventions & policies for healthy communities (Vol. 1). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment. https://www.fao.org/4/i3144e/i3144e00.htm Leite, F. H. M., Khandpur, N., Andrade, G. C., Anastasiou, K., Baker, P., Lawrence, M., & Monteiro, C. A. (2022). Ultra-processed foods should be central to global food systems dialogue and action on biodiversity. BMJ Global Health, 7(e008269), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008269 Mabhaudhi, T., Chibarabada, T. P., Chimonyo, V. G. P., Murugani, V. G., Pereira, L. M., Sobratee, N., Govender, L., Slotow, R., & Modi, A. T. (2019a). Mainstreaming underutilized indigenous and traditional crops into food systems: A South African perspective. Sustainability, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010172 18 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 Mabhaudhi, T., Chimonyo, V. G. P., Hlahla, S., Massawe, F., Mayes, S., Nhamo, L., & Modi, A. T. (2019b). Prospects of orphan crops in climate change. Planta, 250(3), 695–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425- 019-03129-y Malheiro, B., Porto-Gonçalves, C.V. & Michelotti, F. (Eds.). (2021). Horizontes amazônicos: Para resgatar o Brasil e o mundo (Vol. 1). Fundação Rosa Luxemburgo, Expressão Popular. Martínez-Esquivel, R. A., García Aguilar, N., Cubillas-Tejeda, A. C., Martínez Esquivel, Z. V., & Cilia -López, V. G. (2024). Mexican Indigenous schoolchildren’s healthy eating knowledge. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2024.2379375 Matarezio Filho, E. T., & Pedrosa, H. C. (2024). Mapana, alimentação escolar e soberania alimentar dos Ticuna (Magüta). Revista de Antropologia, 67(e209413), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.11606/1678- 9857.ra.2022.209413 Mercado, G., Hjortsø, C. N., & Honig, B. (2018). Decoupling from international food safety standards: How small-scale Indigenous farmers cope with conflicting institutions to ensure market participation. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(3), 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9860-x Mercado, G., Hjortsø, C. N., & Kledal, P. R. (2016). Public procurement for school breakfasts in the Bolivian Altiplan: Governance structures enabling smallholder inclusion. Journal of Rural Studies, 44 , 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud .2016.01 .004 Mineiro, S. K., & Triches, R. M. (2018). O papel do ambiente escolar na cultura alimentar Kaingang: O caso da Terra Indígena Rio das Cobras, PR. Interações (Campo Grande), 19(4), 757–771. https://doi.org/10.20435/inter.v19 i4 .166 Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Moubarac, J.-C., Levy, R. B., Louzada, M. L. C., & Jaime, P. C. (2018). The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra -processing. Public Health Nutrition, 21(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017000234 Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Oloko, M., Robson, J. P., & Reed, M. G. (2024). The opportunities and values of procuring and preserving food within co-existing Indigenous and local food systems: Insights from canada’s west coast. Food Ethics, 9(21), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-024-00155-9 Pilnik, M. S., & Argentim, T. (2024). Etnoculinária do povo indígena Huni Kuin do Jordão, Acre: Conhecimentos, práticas e transformações alimentares na Amazônia ocidental brasileira. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 19(e20210078), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1590/2178- 2547-BGOELDI -2021-0078 Queenswood Consulting Group (QCG). (2021). Traditional foods and Indigenous recipes in B.C.’s public institutions (p. 62). British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/ industry/agricu lture - seafood/growbc-feedbc-buybc/feed-bc-and-the-bc-food-hub-network/feed -bc-program/ind igenous-and- traditional-foods-in-public-institut ion Rathoure, A. K. (2024). Cultural practices to protecting biodiversity through cultural heritage: Preserving nature, preserving culture. Biodiversity International Journal, 7(2), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.15406/bij.2024.07 .00213 Rosado-May, F. J., Tec Tun, J. M., Cuevas-Albarrán, V. B., & Ramírez-Silva, J. H. (2025). Constructing an Indigenous knowledge approach to agroecology and regenerative agriculture: The case of Yucatec Maya. Elem Sci Anth, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00121 Sakapaji, S. C., García Molinos, J., Parilova , V., Gavrilyeva, T., & Yakovleva, N. (2024). Navigating legal and regulatory frameworks to achieve the resilience and sustainability of indigenous socioecological systems. Resources, 13(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13040056 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 19 Sarkar, S., & Bhatia, G. (2021). Writing and appraising narrative reviews. Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research, 10(3), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcsr.jcsr_1_21 Sonnino, R. (2021). Public procurement as a sustainable food and nutrition security strategy. In Swensson, L., Hunter, D., Schneider, S., & Tartanac, F. (Eds.) Public food procurement for sustainable food systems and healthy diets (Vol. 1, pp. 26–42). FAO; Bioversity International; https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7960en Sowerwine, J., Mucioki, M., Sarna -Wojcicki, D., McCovey, K., Morehead-Hillman, L., Hillman, L., Lake, F. K., Preston, V., & Bourque, S. (2023). Enhancing Indigenous food sovereignty and community health through the karuk agroecosystem resilience initiative: We are caring for it: xúus nu’éethti. Health Promotion Practice, 24(6), 1096–1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399231190368 Swensson, L. F. J., Hunter, D., Schneider, S., & Tartanac, F. (2021). Public food procurement as a game changer for food system transformation. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(8), e495–e496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00176 -5 Swensson, L. F. J., & Tartanac, F. (2020). Public food procurement for sustainable diets and food systems: The role of the regulatory framework. Global Food Security, 25(100366), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020 .100366 Swiderska, K., Argumedo, A., Wekesa, C., Ndalilo, L., Song, Y., Rastogi, A., & Ryan, P. (2022). Indigenous peoples’ food systems and biocultural heritage: Addressing Indigenous priorities using decolonial and interdisciplinary research approaches. Sustainability, 14(11311), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811311 Swinburn, B. A., Kraak, V. I., Allender, S., Atkins, V. J., Baker, P. I., Bogard, J. R., Brinsden, H., Calvillo, A., De Schutter, O., Devarajan, R., Ezzati, M., Friel, S., Goenka, S., Hammond, R. A., Hastings, G., Hawkes, C., Herrero, M., Hovmand, P. S., Howden, M., … Dietz, W. H. (2019). The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The lancet commission report. The Lancet, 393(10173), 791–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32822 -8 Talabi, A. O., Vikram, P., Thushar, S., Rahman, H., Ahmadzai, H., Nhamo, N., Shahid, M., & Singh, R. K. (2022). Orphan crops: A best fit for dietary enrichment and diversification in highly deteriorated marginal environments. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13(839704), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.839704 Teixeira, C. A., & Norder, L. A. C. (2015). A participação indígena no Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos. Revista NERA, 18(26), 110–121. Tomchinsky, B., Siqueira, F. F. D. S., & Silva, J. D. S. E. (2023). A sociobiodiversidade como estratégia para o desenvolvimento sustentável no Sudeste do Pará, Brasil. Confins, 61. https://doi.org/10.4000/confins.55094 Trott, N., & Mulrennan, M. E. (2024). “Part of who we are…”: A review of the literature addressing the sociocultural role of traditional foods in food security for Indigenous people in northern Canada. Societies, 14(34), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14030034 Valencia, V., Wittman, H., & Blesh, J. (2021). Public food procurement for farm system diversification. In Swensson, L., Hunter, D., Schneider, S., & Tartanac, F. (Eds.) Public food procurement for sustainable food systems and healthy diets (Vol. 1, pp. 248–261). FAO; Bioversity International; https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7960en Vijayan, D., Ludwig, D., Rybak, C., Kaechele, H., Hoffmann, H., Schönfeldt, H. C., Mbwana, H. A., Rivero, C. V., & Löhr, K. (2022). Indigenous knowledge in food system transformations. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), 213, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00543-1 WFP & the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. (2022). Home-Grown School Feeding in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Review of 12 Countries (p. 53). 20 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 Yangdon, P., Araki, T., Rahayu, Y. Y. S., & Norbu, K. (2022). Ethnobotanical study of wild edible fruits in eastern Bhutan. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine , 18(27), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-022-00526-8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-022-00526-8 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 21 Appendix Appendix 1 - Glossary of the Brazilian Context Agrarian Reform Settlers – Rural workers who receive land plots (agricultural units) through concession of use or property title, as part of the Brazilian agrarian reform process, which redistributes land from rural properties that did not fulfil their social function. The Brazilian government is responsible for implementing this process (Brazil, Ministry of Agrarian Development [MDA], 2020). Babassu Coconut Breaker Women – Communities composed mainly of women who depend on the extraction of babassu (Attalea speciosa Mart. ex Spreng.), a palm species commonly found in the Brazilian states of Maranhão, Piauí, Tocantins, and Pará. These women maintain a way of life closely connected to their territories, preserving traditional knowledge and practices related to the sustainable management and use of babassu coconuts, passed down through generations (Brazil, Ministry of Environment [MMA], 2024). Food Acquisition Program (Programa de Aquisicao de Alimentos – PAA) – Created in 2003, this federal program enables the Brazilian government to purchase food directly from family farmers, with specific public calls and quotas for prioritising Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas, and women. Its most common modality is the “Simultaneous Donation Purchase,” through which food is procured and immediately distributed to schools, hospitals, food banks, and other social institutions (Brazil, 2003a, 2023). Indigenous Peoples – Individuals of pre-Columbian origin and ancestry who identify and are recognised as members of an ethnic group with their own social organisation, customs, languages, beliefs, and traditions that distinguish them from national society (Brazil, 1973, 1988). National School Feeding Program (Programa Nacional de Alimentacao Escolar – PNAE) – A national program that has operated for over 70 years, providing daily school meals to more than 40 million students across Brazil. At least 45% of federal funds transferred to schools must be used to purchase food directly from family farmers, prioritising Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas, and other traditional groups (Brazil, 2009a, 2025; Brazil, National Fund for Educational Development [FNDE], 2025). Non-Conventional Food Plants (PANC) – Neglected and underutilised species, both native and naturalised, that were once part of local diets but have fallen into disuse, remaining restricted to certain regions or traditional populations (Kinupp & Lorenzi, 2014). Quilombolas – Descendants of Afro-Brazilian communities formed through resistance to slavery, with specific relationships to quilombo territories and collective land rights (Brazil, 2003b). Regional Foods – Foods that are typical of Brazil’s native flora and fauna (Brazil, 2015). Riverine Populations – Traditional communities living along rivers, lakes, and streams throughout Brazil, with livelihoods based on fishing, small-scale agriculture, and forest resources (Brazil, Ministry of Environment [MMA], 2024). Socio-Biodiversity – a concept that expresses the interrelationship between biological diversity and the diversity of sociocultural systems. Socio-biodiversity products are goods and services (end products, raw materials or benefits) generated from biodiversity resources, aimed at forming production chains of interest to traditional peoples and communities, and family farmers, which promote the maintenance and appreciation of their practices and knowledge, and ensure the resulting rights, generating income and promoting the improvement of their quality of life and the environment in which they live (Brazil, 2009b) Traditional Peoples and Communities (PCTs) – Culturally differentiated groups who self-identify as such, possess their own forms of social organisation, and depend on the occupation and use of territories and natural resources for their cultural, social, religious, ancestral, and economic reproduction. Their knowledge, innovations, and practices are generated and transmitted through tradition. In Brazil, 28 traditional peoples and communities are officially recognised, including Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas, riverine populations, and babassu coconut breaker women (Brazil, Ministry of Environment [MMA], 2024; Brazil, 2007). 22 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 References (Appendix 1) Brazil. (1973). Law No. 6.001 of December 19, 1973 [Statute of Indigenous Peoples]. Brazil. (1988). Federal Constitution of Brazil, Article 231. Brazil. (2003a). Law No. 10.696 of July 2, 2003 [Food Acquisition Program – PAA]. https://www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/leis/2003/ l10.696 .htm Brazil. (2003b). Decree No. 4.887 of November 20, 2003 [Regulation of Quilombola Land Rights]. https://bibliotecadigital.mdh .gov.br/jspu i/handle/192/6434 Brazil. (2007). Decree No. 6.040 of February 7, 2007 [National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities]. https://www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/_Ato2007 - 2010/2007/Decreto/D6040.htm Brazil. (2009a). Law No. 11.947 of June 16, 2009 [National School Feeding Program – PNAE]. https://www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/lei/ l11947.htm Brazil. (2009b). National Plan for the Promotion of Socio-biodiversity Product Chains. https://bibliotecadigital.econom ia.gov .br/handle/123456789/1024 Brazil, Ministry of Health (MS). (2015). Brazilian Regional Food (Vol. 2). https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/alimentos_regionais_brasileiros_2ed .pdf Brazil. (2023). Decreee No. 11.802, of November 28, 2023. https:/ /www.planalto.gov.br/cciv il_03/_ato2023- 2026/2023/decreto/D11802.htm Brazil, Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA). (2020). Agrarian Reform Settlements. https://www.gov.br/ incra/pt-br/assuntos/ reforma-agraria/assentamentos Brazil, Ministry of Environment (MMA). (2024). Traditional Peoples and Communities. https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/povos-e-comunidades-tradiciona is Brazil, National Fund for Educational Development (FNDE). (2025). PNAE – National School Feeding Program. https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-b r/acesso -a-informacao/acoes-e- programas/programas/pnae/pnae-home Brazil. (2025). Law No. 15,226 of September 30, 2025. https:/ /www.planalto.gov .br/cciv il_03/_ato2023- 2026/2025/lei/L15226.htm Kinupp, V. F., & Lorenzi, H. (2014). Non-Conventional Food Plants (PANC) in Brazil: Identification Guide, Nutritional Aspects and Illustrated Recipes (Vol. 1). Nova Odessa: Plantarum. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2003/l10.696.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2007/Decreto/D6040.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2007/Decreto/D6040.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/lei/l11947.htm https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/alimentos_regionais_brasileiros_2ed.pdf http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2023/decreto/D11802.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2023/decreto/D11802.htm http://www.gov.br/incra/pt-br/assuntos/reforma-agraria/assentamentos http://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/povos-e-comunidades-tradicionais http://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e- http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2025/lei/L15226.htm http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2025/lei/L15226.htm Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 23 Appendix 2 Appendix 2a. List of conventional foods Frequency of municipalities Local name PNAE PAA Pumpkin 6 5 Lettuce 6 6 Banana 6 6 Kale 6 5 Watermelon 5 4 Lemon 4 6 Sweet potato 3 5 Papaya 3 6 Green maize 3 4 Cilantro 4 6 Spring onion 2 6 Acerola pulp 4 2 Guava pulp 4 2 Yogurt 3 1 Orange 3 5 Gherkin 3 0 Eggs 3 2 Cucumber 3 5 Green pepper 4 6 Fermented milk drink 2 0 Green beans 2 4 Okra 2 4 Roselle 2 0 Saffron powder 1 1 Basil 1 2 Cheese chips 1 0 Acerola 5 0 Chicken 1 3 Guava 1 1 Yam 1 4 Mango 1 4 Bread 1 0 Cheese bread 1 0 Fruit pulp 1 0 Mozzarella cheese 1 0 Arugula 1 2 Avocado 0 5 Zucchini 1 4 Green coconut 0 4 Dry coconut 0 4 Scarlet eggplant 0 4 24 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 Appendix 2a(Cont.). List of conventional foods Frequency of municipalities Local name PNAE PAA Rice 0 3 Beetroot 0 3 Carrot 0 3 Chayote 0 3 Soursop 0 3 Melon 0 3 Cabbage 0 3 Tangerine 0 3 Tomato 0 3 Fish 0 3 Eggplant 0 2 Star fruit 0 2 Onion 0 2 Mint 0 2 Jackfruit 0 2 Milk 1 2 Dragon fruit 0 2 Parsley 0 2 Celery 0 2 Watercress 0 1 Garlic 0 1 Potato 0 1 Spinach 0 1 Cornmeal 0 1 Ginger 0 1 Honey 0 1 Mango pulp 0 1 Peper 0 1 Journal of Sustainability (2025) 1:2, 1-24 25 Appendix 2b. List of socio-biodiversity and regional (SR) foods Frequency of municipalities Local name Scientific name* PNAE PAA Cassava Manihot esculenta 6 5 Brazil nut Bertholletia excelsa 0 5 Açaí pulp Euterpe oleracea 5 2 Açaí fresh Euterpe oleracea 1 4 Cupuaçu pulp Theobroma grandiflorum 4 2 Passion fruit pulp Passiflora actinia; P. alata; P. cincinnata; P. edulis; P. setácea; P. nitida 5 1 Yellow mombin pulp Spondias mombin 3 2 Babassu mesocarp flour Attalea speciosa 2 1 Tapioca flour Manihot esculenta 2 3 Cassava flour Manihot esculenta 2 3 Pupunha (peach palm) Bactris gasipaes 0 3 Muruci Byrsonima crassifólia; B. verbascifolia 0 4 Bacaba Oenocarpus bacaba; O. balickii; O. distichus; O. mopora; O. minor 0 2 Bacuri Platonia insignis 0 2 Tucumã Astrocaryum aculeatum; A. vulgare 0 2 Uxi Endopleura uchi (Huber) Cuatrec. 0 2 Buriti Mauritia flexuosa 0 1 Rose apple Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr. e L. M. Perry. 0 2 Urucum (annatto) Bixa orellana L. 2 1 Cocoa Theobroma cacao 0 2 Pará coriander Eryngium foetidum 1 2 Passion fruit Passiflora actinia; P. alata; P. cincinnata; P. edulis; P. setácea; P. nitida 0 5 Cowpea Phaseolus vulgaris L. 1 2 Yam (cará) Dioscorea trifida 0 3 Yellow mombin Spondias mombin 0 4 Cupuaçu Theobroma grandiflorum 0 4 Plantain Musa spp paradisiaca L. 2 2 Pineapple Ananas comosus 2 3 Cocoa powder Theobroma cacao 2 Pineapple pulp Ananas comosus 2 2 Babassu coconut oil Attalea speciosa 1 0 Paracress(Jambu) Acmella oleracea 1 2 Cariru Talinum fruticosum 0 2 Sweetsop Dioscorea alata L. 0 2 Cashew pulp Anacardium occidentale 0 1 Muruci pulp Byrsonima crassifólia; B. verbascifolia 0 1 * Based on the scientific names published in official Brazilian publications (Brazil, Ministry of Health [MS], 2015; Brazil, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock [MAPA] & Ministry of Environment and Climate Change [MMA], 2021).