The union of cooperatives involved in the PAR research also launched a community-based agro-ecotourism project to provide an alternative income stream. Both researchers found that the process of participatory action research involved a significant investment of time and energy in developing relationships with the farmers and staff of participating coffee cooperatives. PAR also broadened the role and spectrum of community members involved in the research, giving the community a voice in how the studies were conducted and a stake in the work’s outcome. The PAR process has evolved into an ongoing commitment to the communities, with both Bacon and Mendez continuing to support research, marketing, and training for the growers. The Center initiated its Research Brief series in 2003 to provide timely reports of Center research activities and of work funded by Center grants. The reports are targeted to growers and researchers, extension personnel, policymakers, students, and others interested in sustainable agriculture, water quality, habitat conservation, and food systems issues.Making the situation more precarious for serving the public agenda is that public research funding for social sciences is small and diminishing. Between 1973 and 1996, the small amount of funding going toward the social sciences in the U.S. dropped by 40 percent, square plant pots from 8.0 percent in 1973 to 4.8 percent in 1996 of total federal/non-federal funding sources . This is particularly true in agrifood system research. For example, in 1987 only one percent of USDA research funds was spent on projects in sociology or anthropology .

Support for social science research in agriculture declined further between the 1980s and the 1990s . USDA recognizes that the problems facing rural America are largely due to social, economic, and cultural conditions and, as such, “cannot successfully be addressed solely with the knowledge generated by the biological or agricultural sciences” . However, this has not translated into funding for social issues research. In not only traditional but also sustainable agriculture grant programs, the emphasis is overwhelmingly on production and environmental topics . The small amount of funding dedicated to research on non-agronomic topics is often limited to topics such as evaluating how farmers’ values and attitudes encourage or block adoption of sustainable technologies, and developing new marketing strategies for farm products. While there is some funding available for marketing and cost-of-production studies, the domains of standard agricultural economics, funding for social issues research, such as gender, working conditions, and food security is limited or nonexistent.A challenge we face at the Center is how to simultaneously meet academic and public service objectives. Legitimacy on the “outside” can compromise legitimacy on the “inside”, and visa versa. Research universities measure success by metrics such as the numbers of students served, articles and books published and cited, and dollars brought in for research projects. Non-formal education, social science research, interdisciplinary research, and participatory research and action are often not highly valued within this framework.

Not only is it difficult to obtain the funding that this type of work requires, but the greater value placed on individual scholarship in most research universities undermines efforts by researchers trying to work in interdisciplinary teams and with social movement organizations. We are fortunate that UC Santa Cruz values interdisciplinary work, but it can still be difficult to attract research funding for such efforts. The other side of this is how to maintain academic rigor and honesty without undermining the movements we support. For example, while the Center supports the organic farming movement, we do not see it uncritically as a panacea. In fact, part of our research agenda addresses the efficacy and environmental soundness of organic farming, while simultaneously working to develop more sustainable farming practices. Other work reflects on the class configurations of the organic foods market , or notes concerns with the increasingly popular farm-to-school programs . We think it is possible and desirable for academics to be simultaneously supportive and critical, but are concerned that this approach may not always sit well with those working in already beleaguered social movements. Our intention is for our research to serve as “resources” to social movements, without having research priorities defined by the necessarily immediate and often somewhat narrow questions of those working to create social change “on the ground”. We also believe it is important that the “Achilles’ heels” within alternative agrifood movements are anticipated and studied by those supportive of their goals. In this way the movements will be less vulnerable to critical attacks.

The Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems has developed from a particular history and set of commitments that enables its work in sustainable agrifood systems. While it is a constant challenge to meet the needs of diverse audiences, maintain institutional legitimacy, and secure resources, Center staff and cooperators continue to make important contributions. Through our work with local growers and agencies on watershed and landscape management we are developing new methodologies and gaining the trust of groups who have sometimes been on opposite sides of environmental issues. Together with California NGOs and other faculty, we have developed an Activist Researcher Consortium to serve as a forum for joint education and research on social issues in the agrifood system. We work with local groups on food-system issues, including an analysis of local food shortfalls and the development of a community-based food network discussion and action group. We believe that these types of multidisciplinary, realworld, action-oriented efforts comprise an appropriate and essential role for a public university. We welcome your perspectives and insights on how we can—given our particular institutional location and commitment—most effectively shape our research, education, and public service programs to help bring about an ecologically sound and socially just agrifood system.Acne affects between 40 and 50 million individuals in the United States, including mainly adolescents and adults. Factors influencing acne development include excessive sebum production, follicular hyperkeratinization of pilosebaceous ducts, and an increased release of inflammatory mediators. Additionally, some have hypothesized that androgens and microbial colonization with Propionibacterium acnes contribute to the pathogenesis of acne. The role of P. acnes is not clear, as this bacterium is ubiquitous. However, certain strains of acne may be more associated with acne and be pro-inflammatory. Regardless of the ongoing debate regarding P. acnes, antibiotics used in the treatment of acne appear to have anti-inflammatory effects independent of their antimicrobial effects. As a result, the first-line treatment of acne involves broad-spectrum oral and topical antibiotics, which require protracted treatments of a minimum of 3–6 months. Chronic antibiotics may have long-term side effects and detrimental effects on the host microbiome, including selection for multidrug resistant bacteria on the skin and in the gut. For example, the use of clindamycin has been associated with pseudomembranous colitis, tetracycline has been shown to change skin color, and erythromycin can precipitate hepatic dysfunction. Other medications used for acne such asisotretinoin, while effective, require close monitoring and have many side effects, including a risk of teratogenicity. Therefore, there is a need for safe and effective alternatives to treat acne. Plant-based approaches have been practiced in multiple medical perspectives, including Chinese medicine and Ayurveda. Our understanding of medicinal plant efficacy and their mechanisms is growing as demand for natural, holistic approaches and fears over the ramifications of chronic antibiotic use increase. Here, we discuss the importance of the gut microbiome in acne pathogenesis and the potential for phytotherapeutic treatments . Our gut bacteria perform multiple functions, including maintaining structural and functional integrity of the gut, immune system regulation, food breakdown, plastic pots for planting providing nutritional benefits to the host , and preventing the growth of harmful bacteria.

In the 1930s, Stokes and Pillsbury used experimental evidence and anecdotes to identify an association between microbial flora and inflammation of the skin. They found as many as 40% of those with acne had hypochlorhydria and hypothesized a lack of acid would induce a migration of bacteria from the colon to the small intestine and disrupt normal intestinal flora. In recent years, hypochlorhydria has been confirmed to be a significant risk factor for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth , which can cause increased intestinal permeability , leading to systemic inflammation. The excess bacteria can compete with the host for nutrients, produce toxic metabolites, and cause direct injury to enterocytes in the small intestine. Studies as early as 1916 suggested intestinal permeability might be augmented in acne vulgaris. In one such study of 57 acne patients, researchers used a blood serum complement fixation test to demonstrate enhanced reactivity to stool-isolated coliforms in 66% of the acne patients compared to none of the control patients. Later in 1983, a study involving 80 acne patients showed the presence of lipopolysaccharide endotoxins from Escherichia coli in the serum of acne patients. These results suggest that gut microbes may enhance the presence of circulating endotoxins in the blood of acne vulgaris patients compared to healthy controls. Although the mechanisms for how the gut and skin communicate are poorly understood, acne appears to have a potential gut-skin connection that may be a manifestation of a systemic problem involving intestinal bacteria and increased permeability. The human intestine is colonized by a complex microbial ecosystem that is hypothesized to be involved in the bioavailability of orally-administered drugs, as well as a number of disease states. The intestinal microbiota is a complex and dynamic bacterial community that plays an important role in human health. Alterations in microbiota composition and function have been related to different intestinal and extra-intestinal diseases. The first attempts to examine the intestinal bacterial flora in acne patients was conducted in 1955 by Loveman et al.. The authors concluded there were no major differences in a small subset of pathogenic bacteria. However, Bacteroides species were more commonly isolated from the acne patients. Only a few researchers have yet investigated the intestinal microbiome in acne patients. Russian investigators who studied 114 patients with acne vulgaris noted that 54% of acne patients have differences in their intestinal flora. Additionally, they found when acne patients with dysbiosis in their intestinal flora received probiotics, there was a reduction in the duration of treatment. The potential dysbiosis in the enteric microbial profile of acne patients needs further investigation and remains a potential source for alternative treatments. Differences in the gut microflora are not unique to patients with acne vulgaris. Investigators have identified lower counts of Bifidobacterium in fecal specimens from patients with atopic dermatitis compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, the composition and diversity of the gut microbiota in young children who develop atopic dermatitis were found to be different from children who never develop the disease. The mechanisms by which the gut microbiome exerts its effects and links between the gut flora and the pathogenesis of skin disease are not clear yet and remain an active area in research.Numerous studies have reported beneficial interactions between the human body and its microbiota. These relationships have suggested that modulation of the microbiota through prebiotics and probiotics may prevent or resolve various diseases such as pediatric infectious diseases, skin disease, gastrointestinal disorders, and allergic diseases. Probiotics are live microorganisms that can alter gut homeostasis and immunity. Here, we discuss current evidence supporting probiotics for the treatment of acne vulgaris. Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli are lactic acid-producing bacteria normally found in the gut that may assist in the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases, such as acne. Physicians, as early as the 1930s, used orally-administered Lactobacillus acidophilus cultures as a probiotic to treat acne. Despite various anecdotal reports, there was little research to determine efficacy at the time. The first formal case reports describing the use and benefits of Lactobacilli were not until 1961. The study gave probiotic tablets containing both L. acidophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus to 300 patients for 16 days with an interim two-week washout after the first eight days. The author reported 80% of patients with acne had some degree of clinical improvement, with the greatest improvement in those with severe inflammatory acne. Unfortunately the study did not have controls, and the authors simply concluded that there is an interaction between the skin manifestation of acne vulgaris and metabolic processes in the intestinal tract. In recent decades, only a few studies have investigated oral probiotics in the treatment of acne vulgaris. One study tested an oral supplement composed of lyophilized L. acidophilus and Bifidobacterium bifidum in 40 patients as an adjuvant to standard antibiotics in half of the group.