Alternative Food Movements - Food Justice and Sovereignty

The 2008 Global Food Crisis in which food prices rose exorbitantly, resulting in record levels of global hunger combined with record profits for major agrifood corporations may have stemmed from various proximate causes such as droughts, high oil prices, and the huge amount of grain used to feed livestock, but it is clearly the underlying structure of the global food industry, the corporate food regime, at the root of the problem (Holt-Ginenez, 2011). “Like capitalism, the corporate food regime goes through periods of liberalization characterized by unregulated markets and breathtaking capital expansion, followed by devastating busts.” - like the 2008 food crisis- “These are followed by reformist periods...in an effort to restabilize the regime” (Holt-Ginenez, 2011). Thus, in order to avoid such “busts” in the future, which could include increasingly severe food crises, the entire structure of the global food regime must be transformed. The reformist trend which focuses on food security, through such institutions as the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, is not a part of the alternative food movement as it only serves to prop up the current, inequitable system.

Progressive trends in the food movement, focusing on citizen empowerment and food justice, seek a more equitable and environmentally sustainable food system in which issues of access to healthy food in underserved communities, wages of agricultural workers, and local food production are addressed. These initiatives are much needed and many have been very successful, For instance, the food justice organization, Nuestras Raices, based in Holyoke, Massachusetts has “...demonstrated that it is possible to rebuild and empower communities by creating alternative approaches to growing and producing food” (Gottleib & Joshi, 2010), and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) has organized multiple successful campaigns aimed at improving the wages and working conditions of agricultural workers.

The only problem here is the need to also restructure the global food system, which the progressive trend does not tend to address as its focus is typically based on a more local scale. The radical trend, however, is concerned with the global food system. This trend focuses on the human right to food sovereignty and the democratization of the food system, and seeks to break the corporate monopoly and redistribute land and rights to water and seed. While the progressive trend is often active in practice, the radical trend is active more so through advocacy to raise awareness of the inequalities and injustices present in the current system. It is noted, however, that these trends are not necessarily fixed and have diverse interests and positions on many issues, and that alliances can be made across these somewhat fluid categories. Holt-Ginenez suggests that for true success of the alternative food movement, a transformation of the corporate food regime, the progressive and radical trends need to align.

Week 4: Culture and Farming

I hadn't considered the human side to "Food Justice." In the Gottleib and Joshi Growing Justice chapter, it is interesting to read about the various organizations throughout history that have attempted to improve the lives of farmers. I am shocked to see the term "slavery" thrown around and realize how unaware I am of these horrific conditions some farmers faced.

I found the immigrant farmers piece to be the most interesting. Farming culture, being one of the themes, is unique and different depending on where on Earth you are. When immigrants migrate from rural areas to the U.S., they often turn to their agricultural skills, even if it is in a bustling city. It is something that allows them to retain part of their culture, and as with the NIFI conference, explore other cultures as well. The National Immigrant Farming Initiative (NIFI) really seems to be effective in creating an organization that all U.S. immigrants can look to for support. The "open space technology" approach to a conference is an awesome idea that NIFI used in its conference. The whole "make your own workshop schedule with no keynote speakers or panelists" idea allows the diverse conference members from different nationalities to share with one another, not just their agriculture skills, but also their heritage.

To me, this idea of cultural understanding among farmers best links to the Alkon and Agyeman reading as an example of communitarianism. This theory is "linked with tolerance of other cultures and practices in a community, as with the Amish communities." Not that these immigrant communities are exactly like the Amish. But I do think the same willingness to farm to express culture here connects with communitarianism.

Are there any other theories that are brought up in the Alkon and Agyeman reading that might also connect to the immigrant organizations? What can national organizations like NIFI do to promote local pushes in agriculture?

Week 4 Readings

Firstly, I liked how this week’s readings dealt with some of the other factors that are involved in our food systems besides the food: the workers and the accessibility. It seems to me that in our food system, emphasis is placed mostly on nutrition, secondly on animal welfare, and lastly on worker welfare. Everyone knows about the documentaries encouraging veganism, yet many of these documentaries only take into account animal welfare with no regards to the immigrant workers who harvested the lettuce.  (not a put-down to veganism, but rather an observation about documentaries). Although maybe not always the case, this issue can be diluted by buying foods from local farms where the producer and the customer have a transparent relationship (again, more backing to how the local farm may be a huge part of the answer to our food injustice). More local farms and community gardens in food insecure neighborhoods can also drastically reduce the problem of unhealthy and essentially inaccessible food. My favorite quote from Guthman’s chapters was “equity not charity.” For example, it’s definitely a stigma to receive free and reduced lunch at public schools, yet this is more so an attempt to equalize than to differentiate the well-off from the poor. I’ve always thought integrating a gardening program into national curriculum would help promote sustainability and self-sufficiency at a young, absorbent age—plus, kids love playing in dirt, c’mon.

I also enjoyed how the one article discussed political philosophy in how different views may think and feel towards other approaches towards “good” food. It’s important to remember that “good” is subjective and depends on values. Personally I identify heavily with communitarianism because I believe that the needs in each community will vary drastically, and working towards a common goal takes precedent over individual freedoms.

Just Food: It's Not Just, Food

I was pleased to be able to read more about the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) in the Gottlieb & Joshi article this week, because my introduction to my undergraduate's association with this the CIW was similarly an introduction the issues migrant farmworkers face. My first-year book at New College was, of all things, Omnivore's Dilemma. Thus I entered with a bunch of students eager to learn more about food justice, and joined a community that was active within this movement. One of my first community meetings at New College was to hear a CIW-affiliated farmworker speak about the organization's efforts in the region. He spoke specifically of the organization's victories with fast food giants like Taco Bell, and about their current efforts to get Publix to "pay a penny more" for each pound of tomatoes a farmworker picks. While he was at New College to garner support for the CIW and for a march that was coming up, what struck me most about his presentation was the organization's focus on building autonomy among the farmworkers themselves. What a lot of people don't know about organizations like the CIW is that they are not lead by an advocate, someone that perhaps is more able to bridge the gap with the "outside world" but has never lived the life of those they are advocating for. The CIW is, as its name strictly tells you, an organization for farmworkers and by farmworkers. They appreciate and, in some cases, rely on allies to their cause but are by no means driven by them.

This could, and should, cause us to reflect on our roles in the food justice movement. Many of us are never  going to know the extreme hardships that farmworkers face: racial discrimination; low wages and poor living conditions; and even, in some horrifying instances, enslavement. I found myself wondering in these early days of being aware of migrant farmworkers issues, what should I do then? Do I boycott Publix? Do I throw myself into organizing, even though this is a cause that I can't personally relate to? Would that be disingenuous? To be honest, I still have not answered these questions. I guiltily buy tomatoes at Publix and think about all of the members of the CIW I encountered. I am aware of these issues and yet, I do nothing. Something I found lacking in the rather dense discussion of different philosophical approaches to "justice" is how to engage oneself meaningfully and genuinely into the food justice movement. While the communitarian approach resonated with me, what should I do when the "community" that seeks justice is not my own? How do we juggle not wanting to encroach upon the safe spaces the disadvantaged have built for themselves, through hard work and incredible passion, with wanting to advocate for their cause, in their name?

I like to think I believe in food justice. I believe food should be grown with integrity, by respected, well-paid, and well-treated workers in a system that does not try to purposefully oppress them, in such a manner that nourishes both the environment and human beings, body and soul. I believe healthy food access is a fundamental right. But...where do I, as a privileged person, play a role in creating this reality, without stepping on the toes of those I want to help?

Making Justice With Your Fork

Globally, one billion people starve every day due to a lack of access in foods. Many times I have seen on the media that more deforestation and new technologies rise in order to cease world hunger. However, data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2007 suggests that there is enough food to feed the world. The trend observes that food production increases by 2 percent each year whilst population growth rate decreases by 1.4. Thus, the concern does not really lie in making enough food, but rather in where food is being sent to.

Data from the World Food Program also mentions that 90 percent of people who starve is because of lack of money to buy enough food to sustain themselves and their family on a daily basis. Therefore, it can be assumed that the issue is not food production, but money and wealth. While many countries starve and suffer from high poverty rates in the southern hemisphere, obesity rates increase steadily in nations across the northern hemisphere. This shows the unevenness of food distribution, which is ultimately linked to the monopolization of corporations that take over entire sectors of the global economy. In the case of food, power is distributed among very few corporations.

As a citizen, a student, and a person, it can be overwhelming to see all the issues that affect our food system, especially since the scale of the problem is worldwide. Still, I have learned to make small changes that can have a positive effect in fighting food injustice and monopolization. Localism, as DuPuis and Holt-Giménez mention in their article, is a tool that brings power back to food growers that are independent from corporate networks, and provide food security that would otherwise be affected by global crashes or inflation.

Although localism is an effective alternative, it does not address the issue of food equity. Even when a local food system can be enhanced, some other areas and communities lack of one in the first place, either due to its environmental conditions or lack of income to purchase food. As an open ended question to readers, how can individuals and/or organizations reach out to famished areas? What are some effective ways of self-sustaining those communities? Are there any examples that you have seen or read about?

Week 4: Readings

It was very intriguing to learn of the following trends and tendencies at play within our corporate food regime and food movements:

• The Neoliberal trend supports the idea that “hunger can be eradicated by expanding global markets and by increasing output through technological innovation. This trend reinforces a model of chronic overproduction and the corporate monopolization of the food system” (Holt-Gimenez, 2011). For some reason I was surprised to see that the USAID was listed as one of the governments that supported this trend. 

• The Reformist trend seeks to “mainstream less inequitable and less environmentally damaging alternatives into existing market structures” (Holt-Gimenez, 2011). The goal for this trend is to modify industrial behaviors through the “power of persuasion and consumer choice” (Holt-Gimenez, 2011). Many humanitarian and food banks are established in this trend because they are dependent upon government agricultural surplus.

• The Progressive trend is based in the concept of “citizen empowerment” and incites a “gradual, grassroots-driven transition, or passage, to a more equitable and sustainable food system” (Holt-Gimenez, 2011). This trend represents “smallholders seeking support for organic agriculture and family farming over corporate agriculture and genetically-modified organisms (GMOS)” (Holt-Gimenez, 2011). This trend is supported by local initiatives and Food Policy Councils.

• The Radical trend seeks “the radical transformation of food systems addresses the root causes of poverty and hunger in the food system, based on the notion of entitlement to food-producing resources and redistribution of wealth” (Holt-Gimenez, 2011).

Reading these trends confirms the need for us to take a more reflexive approach to our food system.  This view “works within an awareness of the tensions between different definitions of justice, environmental and bodily health, and good food, while admitting that localist strategies are imperfect and contradictory” (E. Melanie Dupuis, et al., 2011). 

Now understanding how our food system is imperfect and fluid, it automatically draws my thoughts to the disparities found within the Tallahassee food system and what are probable ways to address them. Frenchtown, which was a food desert that previously lacked resources, such as, the Frenchtown Heritage market and the Dunn Street Farm (iGrow), is an example of a change that has occurred through grassroots efforts. What will it take to see similar changes and resources provided on the Southside of town? I’m currently unaware of any food justice initiatives that have taken root. Could the implementation of a Food Policy Council that consists of Tallahassee residents, especially individuals that reside on the Southside, city and county personnel, local businesses, farmers and gardeners address the root causes of poverty and hunger? Even though this inequality issue affects the Southside of town, this is an issue that should involve all Tallahassee residents.

Week 3: Reflection

What I found most interesting from this week's readings was the part about Pollan interacting with Monsanto's scientists. Yes, the whole "Trust Us" thing is bizarre and somewhat alarming. But what struck me was when Pollan discussed the plant side effects from the experiments the scientists were doing. The plants would take on different shapes, colors, etc. that even the bright and brilliant Monsanto scientists could not predict. And yet here they are performing trial and error and when they believe they found the perfect plant, that's the one that gets put into circulation. It's the "we don't really know what is going to happen" thing that concerns me the most with GMOs.

I was having a discussion the other day with my boss who is very much a vegetarian and animal activist about GMOs. To my surprise, she had absolutely no problem with GMOs because the scientific data that says GMOs are unsafe does not exist. My argument was that we do not know for sure what is going to happen in the future with these plants. Especially with the one type of corn that we use. Still, she was unconcerned with corn being essentially in everything we eat. She mentioned that we have been eating corn for thousands of years (I brought up Pollan's point of variety with the Inca) and that corn itself is not bad for us. At this point, I had no more counterpoints to make.

I guess my question is how would you have handled that argument? Do you agree with my boss? I was caught off guard by the discussion, but wonder how everyone else would have formulated their case if put in my situation.

Week 3 Reading Blog

              One thing that struck me in the excerpt “The Pollen of Desire” by Pollan was when he brought up the fact that the potato famine in Ireland occurred due to the fact that “the bounty of [it] was its curse”. When the Irish depended too greatly on the potato as a staple to feed its growing population, its economy could not support them or the food supply to feed that increased population. Had they had had some of the Monsanto potatoes or other genetically modified foods they would have been able to prevent the famine. The excerpt describes how the U.S. has since used GMO’s to help increase crop yields for crops like potatoes, corn, and grain and can now feed the world’s population every day. And now we grow these crops at an immense rate, and I wonder if we will go through the same thing that Ireland did, but instead of it being a famine because of lack of food, it would be because there is a recall on a great number of GMO products, such as a string of seed species made by the Monsanto company. And this recall would stun all corn production, and would cause beef and poultry production to stall, since we feed our livestock corn. It would also stun production for hundreds of products that use corn as a main ingredient. Our bounty of corn  will be our curse. 

            The way that our food production system is set up, it is very possible that this could happen, and it may be hard for us to come back from it, our system gives more power to agribusiness and government as opposed to the farmers and the public. The excerpt “Omnivores Dilemma” by Pollan exclaims how the government has set nutrition guidelines for the public that reflects its interests, and that they have allowed food to be sold to the public without proper labeling of GMO’s used in them. This was to of course, protect companies from losing profit. Companies like Monsanto, who controls the majority of the seeds for these products. We need to use research in planning methods, demographics, environmental science, and equitable development to better incentivize food production companies and the national public on sustainable and healthy food production options and products, so they may bring us closer to a “sitopia”. 

A Potato named Desire Week 3

Humans have found many purposes for the glorious potato and for thousands of years have cross bred them to attain new species with a plethora of characteristics. Pollan says that the garden has been a place where humans can experiment with the fruits of mother earth. However, the advent of genetically modified foods and the rise of monoculture has taken gardening from the farmers into the hands of corporate managers.

Pollan uses Monsanto's new patented potato, NewLeaf, which has bt (Bacillus thuringensis) a natural soil dwelling bacteria that's used as a pesticide. Planting GM crops is still a novel idea and tests haven't been thoroughly conducted to find long term effects. In the case of bt crops, bt can build up in the soil and kill all the good bugs and can cause biological pollution in the form of "gene flow" where genes from crops can drift to any part of the ecosystem. The FDA considers GM crops to be organic equivalents yet labels bt potatoes as a pesticide. When Pollan visits the potato fields of Idaho, he sees large fields clean of weeds and full of monoculture. He goes on to talk about how Ireland became so dependent on one crop that when the potato blight spread, millions of people died and fled to America halving the population. Pollen compares the soils from a farm that uses Monsanto chemicals and how it's a powdery, gray void of nutrients and only used a medium to grow the potato. When he visits an organic farm, all haphazard looking, the soil is a familiar crumbly brown. 

What stuck me the most was learning the fact than an average potato farmer spends $1,950 to upkeep one acre that he'll make almost $2,000 on, since that's the price he can get. He's demanded to grow Russet Burbank potatoes, even if they naturally don't grow well, because McDonald's uses them to create their beautifully uniform golden fries. 

This goes back to Pollan's main point; the human desire to control, make things neat and uniform. We want things to work our way, efficiently, ordered in a nice row even if it means spraying thousands of tons of pesticides into the Earth that destroy the soil and groundwater all in the name of cheap monoculture. 

Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan Summar

Michael Pollan in the Omnivore’s dilemma explains how humans with complex digestive systems have the luxury to choose everyday on what is good or bad for them to eat. Pollan’s broader concept is to try and get the reader to understand the benefits of being closer to the origin of their food. He analyzes and the American food chains and tries to inform the reader about the environment from which their food is harvested from.

The dilemma is that omnivores have a vast choice when eating. Specialized animals, such as the koala, know only to eat one single food because that is all its body is designed to eat. However, omnivores have an enormous array of food to select from, and those animals must rely in the wild on skills such as taste, food detection, reminiscence, culture, and aroma in order to determine which foods are safe to eat, and which are dangerous. 

Also, Michael Pollan discussed a lot about how Corn has lucratively altered the United States diet and animals diet. Pollan observed the horrible developmental process of a calf from a pasture in South Dakota and how the calf lived a short life in the disgusting feedlots. He writes about how animals are naturally evolved to eat grass, but more than half of a feedlot cow’s food comes from corn. Now a day’s corn is what feeds the steer that becomes the steak. Corn feeds the chicken and the pig, the turkey and the lamb, the catfish and the tilapia and, even the salmon. This is very unfortunately; because it seems like everything we come from corn. Also, the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer invented be the German scientist, Fritz Haber, marks the moment when the “flood tide of cheap corn” made the food industry markets to be more profitable to fatten cattle on feedlots instead of on grass. According to Pollan, the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is the foundation of soil fertility transferred from a total reliance on the energy of the sun to a new reliance on fossil fuel.

Week 3 Blog

GMOs are again brought up in this weeks readings with particular emphasis on the complexities and possibilities, be them positive or negative, that they may provide. The whole concept of natural experimentation within agriculture has been challenged due to the mass production of products and the introduction of seeds and crops which have specific resistances. According to Pollan the whole natural part of seed variety and biodiversity has been expedited and challenged by GMOs and their rapid expansion into the agricultural world. Agrobusiness and the mass "acceptance", or rather forceful application, of GMOs within the farming world has led to a whole new era in agriculture with the ability of the crops to be as efficient as possible and grow in conditions that might not have normally been possible. While maximum production and resistance may seem beneficial, especially in an economic sense, one might argue that the science of genetically modifying our food is too new and unexplored. With GMOs comes a stigma partially due to the lack of long term study and information on them. People aren't sure if there will be a negative feedback associated with the continued use of GMOs be it on their own health and well being or on the long term effect they might have on crop biodiversity.

When considering GMOs and their massive presence in the agricultural world it is also important to think about the accessibility of food and how it goes from the agricultural fields into our restaurants and grocery stores. People far too often ignore the thought of where their food might come from and the way it was produced and transported. With the advent of refrigeration and the cheap and mass access to transportation, food has certainly been taken for granted. The absolute amount of energy that goes into the production, transportation and then distribution of food seems to be rarely considered yet poses a big problem in relation to the environment as well.

Food as a whole is constantly taken for granted within our modern world where it is so easily accessible, and with the continued experimentation and production of it it certainly poses an interesting question to what the future holds.

Pollan and Potatoes

     I really enjoyed this week's Michael Pollan readings, especially The Botony of Desire. The way he structured his investigation of Monsanto was not immediately argumentative against GMOs, although you could definitely see his points. Combining this with the Omnivore's Dilemma and the USDA's Economic Research Report showed a subjective view of growing food compared to a data tool for a more objective perspective.

      In the introduction of the Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan hones in on the decisions we need to make in the clean, pre-packaged environment that is the super market. With all these labels such as "vegan," "gluten free," "free-trade," "organic," etc., it can be difficult to know where this pristine vegetable or fruit came from and in what kind of conditions it was grown.

      For last weeks reading, I discussed how we tend to obsess over the sterilizing of our our food, and this perspective was reinforced by Pollan's trip to Idaho. His comparison of the large chemically-based farm versus the organic farm was a wonderful illustration of this idea. The first farm he went to had gray, powdered soil that quite literally paled in comparison to the rich brown soil at the organic farm. The ridiculous amount of pesticides and fertilizers farmers are convinced they need to run their operations is astonishing. Even more shocking is that one of these farmers said he does not even eat his own potatoes.

     When Pollan noticed this, he said "The difference, I understood, was that this soil was alive." This reminded me of a video shown at the Paris Climate Summit in December that he created with the Center for Food Safety. The video emphasizes that healthy soil is the reason for 95% of what we eat and that healthy soil can store water, increase crop productivity, and can sequester green house gases. When damaged, soil can even release CO2, and so far we have lost 50% of  CO2 stocks due to this. Pollan suggests things like composting and using cover crops to enforce healthy soil.

     The report managed to tie it all together by discussing what food systems and their technologies are most energy-efficient. what sort of energy source they tend to use, how food prices ad demand have adjusted over time, and what are the food-related energy flows.