This week’s readings are centered upon the discussion of institutional roles and the shaping of policy. Institutions listed in Robert’s chapter discussing the Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC) he lists these institutions as the local, state, and national governments, as well as hospitals, universities and other players who play a part in the multifaceted issue that is food. It is important that he notes that these players generally play no part in our current food system, which is true with the exception of the USDA, the FDA. Our food system has become quite unsustainable with it being controlled by private parties who are more interested in profits than sustainability. Winne’s chapter on public policy concurs with this notion, and claims that “law, regulation, or budgetary action” are required by governments of all sizes to turn this system around to be more sustainable.
The first definition of sustainability I ever learned involved the three E’s: ecology, economy, and equity, what Robert calls the Triple Bottom Line of sustainability. The readings heavily supports attention to the equity side of this definition in regards to using policy to improve our food system. The TFPC, for example, is a council in Toronto that aims to be equitable/sustainable through its unique ability to make council members more accountable than government figures tend to be, facilitating departmental collaboration, and engaging the citizen body and representatives from various backgrounds. I think these guidelines would definitely allow the council to concern themselves with interests of the locals instead of interests groups, as well as draw from multiple human resources to achieve a comprehensive goals that better serve communities,
Governments such as these creates a new dimension to politics; one that puts the power in the hands of the people and local organizations instead of the politically powerful and wealthy. It calls for a great deal of civic engagement, empowerment, and of course trust building between the public and government. The TFPC is a great organization, but creating a council like the TFPC would call for an already highly organized local community with leaders, infrastructure, and a voice, and many cities lack one or even all of these. Can a food council like the TFPC be imposed on a community that lacks these things? And if so how could this council maintain its dedication to the public in the face of real food issues?
I agree that big change can come about through the implementation of policy and by having a group that will represent the fight for food equality within a community. While it might not be the easiest movement to start just get up and start, with a dedicated individual one would hope that people would rally around them. Nice post!
ReplyDeleteThe TFPC is a great organization that attempts to give more power to the people, rather than the politicians. Interest groups have too much control over all types of public policy issues. There are countless examples across the nation of interest groups persuading politicians to make certain decisions that benefit there group, but are detrimental to the majority of the public. This needs to be changed across all communities in America.
ReplyDeleteI think you captured part of the answer to your question in the word "imposed". Without having any examples to draw upon, my instinct is to say that it would be extremely challenging to to establish a Food Policy Council within a community lacking those qualities you mentioned. A top-down policy runs the risk of not gaining public support. I don't think it's impossible to have a FPC in that context, but to be more effective and sustained in the longterm, there might have to be some sort of capacity building or advocacy work at the local/grassroots level.
ReplyDelete