Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Implications of US agricultural data practices for sustainable food systems research


Using the tenets of data feminism, we analyse the National Agricultural Statistics Service Quick Stats database — the primary repository of United States agricultural data. We identify unstated assumptions built into the database’s scaffolding through data collection, aggregation and dissemination practices, revealing how they facilitate granular analyses of agricultural topics historically judged as national priorities while leaving unilluminated many others of vital importance for contemporary sustainability needs. We argue that this entrenches an inequitable and unsustainable food systems status quo, and we offer recommendations for data providers and users based on principles of reflexivity, context and pluralism.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

The companion data product to this Perspective is available at, where we have taken one CoA variable and cleaned it from its original to tidy form to demonstrate the kind of data accessibility we envision in this paper. We are committed to open data science and to making research more reproducible.


  1. Gundersen, C. & Ziliak, J. P. Food insecurity research in the United States: where we have been and where we need to go. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 40, 119–135 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Francis, D. V., Hamilton, D., Mitchell, T. W., Rosenberg, N. A. & Stucki, B. W. Black land loss: 1920–1997. AEA Pap. Proc. 112, 38–42 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaufman, D. Is it time to break up big ag? New Yorker (17 August 2021).

  4. Chadde, S. COVID was far worse for meatpacking workers than previously reported. Civil Eats (2 November 2021).

  5. D’Ignazio, C. & Klein, L. Data Feminism (MIT Press, 2020).

  6. Eakin, H. et al. Identifying attributes of food system sustainability: emerging themes and consensus. Agric. Hum. Values 34, 757–773 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schipanski, M. E. et al. Realizing resilient food systems. Bioscience 66, 600–610 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Foran, T. et al. Taking complexity in food systems seriously: an interdisciplinary analysis. World Dev. 61, 85–101 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sommerville, M., Essex, J. & le Billon, P. The ‘global food crisis’ and the geopolitics of food security. Geopolitics. 19, 239–265 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Swinburn, B. A. et al. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the Lancet Commission report. Lancet 393, 791–846 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Howden, S. M. et al. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19691–19696 (2007).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., MacDonald, G. K. & West, P. C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Burchfield, E. K. Shifting cultivation geographies in the central and eastern US. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 054049 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Haraway, D. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 14, 575–599 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boström, M. A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue. Sustainability 8, 3–14 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hicks, C. C. et al. Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science 352, 38–40 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 1987 Census of Agriculture: Subject Series, Part 4 Vol. 2 (US Department of Commerce, 1992).

  18. Lehner, P., Rosenberg, N. & Stucki, B. The stakeholders in agricultural policy. Environ. Forum 39, 42–53 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bergmann, L. et al. Mapping agricultural lands: from conventional to regenerative. Land (Basel) 11, 437 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Burchfield, E. K., Schumacher, B. L., Spangler, K. & Rissing, A. The state of US farm operator livelihoods. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 795901 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Delonge, M. & Basche, A. Leveraging agroecology for solutions in food, energy, and water. Elementa 5, 6 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vandermeer, J. et al. Feeding Prometheus: an interdisciplinary approach for solving the global food crisis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2, 39 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McGreevy, S. R. et al. Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nat. Sustain. 5, 1011–1017 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Calo, A. The yeoman myth: a troubling foundation of the beginning farmer movement. Gastronomica 20, 12–29 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Singer, R., Grey, S. H. & Motter, J. Rooted Resistance: Agrarian Myth in Modern America (Univ. Arkansas Press, 2020).

  26. Dentzman, K., Pilgeram, R., Lewin, P. & Conley, K. Queer farmers in the 2017 US Census of Agriculture. Soc. Nat. Resour. 34, 227–247 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leslie, I. S. Queer farmers: sexuality and the transition to sustainable agriculture. Rural Sociol. 82, 747–771 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Barnett, M. J., Spangler, K., Petrzelka, P. & Filipiak, J. Power dynamics of the non-operating landowner–renter relationship and conservation decision-making in the midwestern United States. J. Rural Stud. 78, 107–114 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carter, A. Placeholders and changemakers: women farmland owners navigating gendered expectations. Rural Sociol. 82, 499–523 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clapp, J. The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nat. Food 2, 404–408 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sanderson Bellamy, A. Profit and hegemony in agribusiness. Nat. Plants 4, 867–868 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Franzen, S. The value of farming: multifaceted wealth generation through cooperative development. Econ. Anthropol. 7, 279–292 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saldanha, K. The invisibility of farmworkers: implications and remedies. Lat. Stud. 20, 28–49 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Pilgeram, R., Dentzman, K., Lewin, P. & Conley, K. How the USDA changed the way women farmers are counted in the Census of Agriculture. Choices 35, 1–10 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 2012 Census of Agriculture Highlights: Black Farmers (National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2014).

  36. Rosenberg, N. & Stucki, B. How USDA distorted data to conceal decades of discrimination against Black farmers. Counter (26 June 2019).

  37. Biagas, D. Jr. An assessment of four bridging options of agricultural producer demographics for the 2012 and 2017 census of agriculture. In Joint Statistical Meetings, Government Statistics Section (2017);

  38. Pilgeram, R., Dentzman, K. & Lewin, P. Women, race and place in US agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values 39, 1341–1355 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Horst, M. & Marion, A. Racial, ethnic and gender inequities in farmland ownership and farming in the U.S. Agric. Hum. Values 36, 1–16 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wickham, H. Tidy data. J. Stat. Softw. 59, 1–23 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Schumacher, B. L., Yost, M. A., Burchfield, E. K. & Allen, N. Water in the West: trends, production efficiency, and a call for open data. J. Environ. Manage. 306, 114330 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Henning-Smith, C., Alberth, A., Bjornestad, A., Becot, F. & Inwood, S. Farmer mental health in the US Midwest: key informant perspectives. J. Agromed. 27, 15–24 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schaider, L. A., Swetschinski, L., Campbell, C. & Rudel, R. A. Environmental justice and drinking water quality: are there socioeconomic disparities in nitrate levels in U.S. drinking water? Environ. Health 18, 3 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Stackpoole, S. M., Stets, E. G. & Sprague, L. A. Variable impacts of contemporary versus legacy agricultural phosphorus on US river water quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20562–20567 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Milbank, C. et al. Rethinking hierarchies of evidence for sustainable food systems. Nat. Food 2, 843–845 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank C. Coleman for providing helpful comments on an early version of the manuscript. B.L.S. was partially supported by USDA NIFA Grant Number 2021-69012-35916. A.R. and E.K.B. were partially supported by USDA NIFA Grant Number 2020-67019-31157. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the USDA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



A.R. led the writing and editing. A.R. and E.K.B. developed the analysis. K.A.S. and B.L.S. contributed to the analysis. E.K.B., K.A.S. and B.L.S. contributed to the writing and editing. B.L.S. prepared the companion data document. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Rissing.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Katie Dentzman, Ryanne Pilgeram and Ivette Perfecto for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rissing, A., Burchfield, E.K., Spangler, K.A. et al. Implications of US agricultural data practices for sustainable food systems research. Nat Food 4, 213–217 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing