Since its inception, public deliberation has been largely seen as an effective tool of inclusion and transformation within democratic politics. However, this article argues that public deliberation is not necessarily inclusive and transformative. These aspirations can only be achieved if certain conditions are met. The qualitative analyses drawn upon in this public deliberation study included virtual and face-to-face conversations between participants (N = 70) about opinions on eating together. The article examines factors that can impede food system transformation initiatives. This can be particularly problematic in low- and middle-income countries because corruptibility can reduce the stringency of food system transformation policy. This study was conducted with participants from the Dutch cities of Almere and Amsterdam. The article argues that public deliberation can be truly transformative when (1) it is institutionally sanctioned, and (2) participants in the deliberation are given more time to make their arguments and reconsider these arguments in light of what others have to say.

自诞生以来，公共协商在很大程度上被视为民主政治中包容和变革的有效工具。然而，本文认为，公共审议不一定具有包容性和变革性。只有满足某些条件，这些愿望才能实现。这项公共审议研究中采用的定性分析包括参与者之间的虚拟和面对面对话（N =70）关于一起吃饭的意见。本文探讨了可能阻碍粮食系统转型举措的因素。这在低收入和中等收入国家尤其成问题，因为腐败会降低粮食系统转型政策的严格性。这项研究是由来自荷兰城市阿尔梅勒和阿姆斯特丹的参与者进行的。文章认为，当（1）得到制度认可，（2）公共审议参与者有更多时间提出自己的论点并根据其他人的言论重新考虑这些论点时，公共审议才能真正具有变革性。