EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Global Day of Action: Occupy Our Food Supply
Food justice advocates rise up to confront corporate control of our food system
An alliance of Occupy groups, environmental and food justice organizations have called for a global day of action on February 27 to resist corporate control of our food system and to work towards a healthy food supply for all.
Occupy Our Food Supply is a call facilitated by Rainforest Action Network and is supported by over 60 Occupy groups and over 30 organizations including Family Farm Defenders, National Family Farms Coalition and Pesticide Action Network.
Ashley Schaeffer, Rainforest Agribusiness campaigner with Rainforest Action Network says of the day of action:
"Occupy our Food Supply is a day to reclaim our most basic life support system – our food – from corporate control. It is an unprecedented day of solidarity to create local, just solutions that steer our society away from the stranglehold of industrial food giants like Cargill and Monsanto,”
Occupy Our Food Supply supporter Vandana Shiva says:
"Our food system has been hijacked by corporate giants from the Seed to the table. Seeds controlled by Monsanto, agribusiness trade controlled by Cargill, processing controlled by Pepsi and Philip Morris, retail controlled by Walmart - is a recipe for Food Dictatorship. We must Occupy the Food system to create Food Democracy."
Occupy Wall Street’s Sustainability and Food Justice Committees also issued a letter in support of the day of action:
“On Monday, February 27th, 2012, OWS Food Justice, OWS Sustainability, Oakland Food Justice & the worldwide Occupy Movement invite you to join the Global Day of Action to Occupy the Food Supply. We challenge the corporate food regime that has prioritized profit over health and sustainability. We seek to create healthy local food systems. We stand in Solidarity with Indigenous communities, and communities around the world, that are struggling with hunger, exploitation, and unfair labor practices.”
“On this day, in New York City, community gardeners, activists, labor unions, farmers, food workers, and citizens of the NYC metro area, will gather at Zuccotti Park at noon, for a Seed Exchange, to raise awareness about the corporate control of our food system and celebrate the local food communities in the metro area.”
Vandana Shiva: "We must Occupy the Food system to create Food Democracy."
"When our food is at risk, we are all at risk."
In an op-ed on the Huffington Post today, Farm Aid president Willie Nelson and sustainable food advocate Anna Lappé, supporters of the day of action, emphasize that the consolidation of our food supply is harming the environment, food safety and farmers:
Our food is under threat. It is felt by every family farmer who has lost their land and livelihood, every parent who can't find affordable or healthy ingredients in their neighborhood, every person worried about foodborne illnesses thanks to lobbyist-weakened food safety laws, every farmworker who faces toxic pesticides in the fields as part of a day's work.
When our food is at risk we are all at risk.
Over the last thirty years, we have witnessed a massive consolidation of our food system. Never have so few corporations been responsible for more of our food chain. Of the 40,000 food items in a typical U.S. grocery store, more than half are now brought to us by just 10 corporations. Today, three companies process more than 70 percent of all U.S. beef, Tyson, Cargill and JBS. More than 90 percent of soybean seeds and 80 percent of corn seeds used in the United States are sold by just one company: Monsanto. Four companies are responsible for up to 90 percent of the global trade in grain. And one in four food dollars is spent at Walmart.
What does this matter for those of us who eat? Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers, the destruction of soil fertility, the pollution of our water, and health epidemics including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and even certain forms of cancer. More and more, the choices that determine the food on our shelves are made by corporations concerned less with protecting our health, our environment, or our jobs than with profit margins and executive bonuses.
This consolidation also fuels the influence of concentrated economic power in politics: Last year alone, the biggest food companies spent tens of millions lobbying on Capitol Hill with more than $37 million used in the fight against junk food marketing guidelines for kids.
The Occupy Our Food Supply website indicates that the action is Inspired by the theme of CREATE/RESIST, and that in addition to confronting the corporation control of our food supply, we must work towards solutions to make healthy food accessible to everyone. It invites people to share their fair food solutions on their Facebook page and on Twitter using the #F27 hashtag.
* * *
Eric Holt-Giménez, Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First Executive Director, writes that while the demand to fix the food system seems reasonable, it does not address the "inequitable foundations of the global food system."
The goal of food justice activists is a sustainable and equitable food system. Their strategy is to actively construct this alternative. Tactics include community gardens, CSAs, organic farming, etc. The problem is that this combination of strategy and tactics only addresses individual and institutional inequities in the food system, leaving the structure of the corporate food regime intact. The food justice movement has no strategy to address the inter-institutional (i.e. structural) ways that inequity is produced in the food system. By openly protesting the excesses of capitalism, Occupy does address this structure. This is why the convergence of Occupy and the food justice movement is so potentially powerful -- and why it is feared. The political alignment of these movements, however, is no small challenge.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
73 Comments so far
Show AllHard to focus on anything if ya just had a bomb dropped on you.
I think there are many "middle class" liberals who are willing to accept the ongoing and all-pervasive state of war, and the continued rule by the propertied class, so long as their housing and healthcare are secure, so long as their white collar jobs are there, so long as they have the opportunity to assuage their consciences with feel-good activism, so long as they have nice food "choices," so long as they have nice bike paths, and so long as Democrats are running things and not those yucky Republicans.
I agree that employment, particularly by large corporations, is in many ways hazardous to a person's health, not to mention the consequences for society at large.
Years ago, I used to say half in jest, that employment causes psychological brain damage. Given that the neurons in the cerebral cortex are now known to physically re-configure themselves throughout the day according to each individuals experience, I suppose psychological brain damage, literally, really is a possible consequence of employment. Then, of course, there is also that damned amydala.
You know the old joke, "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you."
Well, if you have been employed for a long time, maybe you don't just think you are going crazy, maybe you actually are going crazy. Just because you are going crazy, doesn't mean employment doesn't cause pyschological brain damage.
After all, corporate capitalists are out to get you, until you have nothing left worth taking.
:>)
There's too much focus on this all-nasty 1%. Changing the distribution of wealth in the USA will help the rest of the world little if at all. In terms of consumption, the West is almost ENTIRELY bloated in its lifestyle. So my word 'ALL' should maybe have been >95% of CD readers. (Recent figures say that if all the world consumed at the rate of the USA we would need a planet 4.4 times the size of Earth).
mun2 wrote:
Too true. EVERYONE is involved in creating the current mess. As they say, if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
- - - - -
mun2 (among other things) wrote:
We all need to consume less... especially in the consumer-mad West. That means less work to make less money to manufacture and to buy less crap to pollute the planet less.
* * * * *
My Reply:
mun2,
Well, as Two Americas has pointed out some people need to consume more. They are struggling to get enough of the necessities of life. While everyone who is dependent upon the current system is in some way, at least inadvertantly, part of the problem; not everyone who is part of the problem has been involved in creating the problem. Some people do not know they are part of the problem. But many people are trying to figure out how they can become part of the solution, given that they know that their circumstances inadvertantly make them part of the problem.
In other words a person can be part of the solution, even while they are still part of the problem.
The retort that you make seems to be pleading that it is not fair to point the finger at everyone ... no one is pointing the finger at anyone. Sorry, but that's you when you are talking about who created the problem... do you really expect anyone to stand up and say 'Hey yeah - I'm the bad guy'?
There's a reaction that comes as soon as you spread the debate out beyond the 1% that seems unwilling to entertain the idea that others outside the 1% are responsible (something which is not the same as being 'to blame').
Of course no one is saying take from the really needy. But the current sick culture needs those needy people to remain needy as examples of what the not-so-needy have to fear. The common factor throughout the whole thing is this consumerist trap. The corporate-led nation trap convinces us ALL, rightly or wrongly, that we need more and, in the vast majority of cases - including all those middle classes that were mentioned - people do THINK they need more. Surveys in the States have shown that, regardless of wealth and income, just about EVERYONE believes that happiness would be achieved by having about 150% of their current wealth/income. There's obviously no wealth/income level where you actually 'arrive' as the madmen on Wall St demonstrate.
So to speak of (the poorest?) people who want to be part of the solution but are actually part of the problem is to do them a disservice. They EXPERIENCE the problem and are sometimes used politically to sustain the problem... but surely that does not make them, in their near powerlessness, part of the problem?
At the most basic level, the States is THE consumer-mad centre of the world with a lot of pollution to go with it. Having visited it, I have to say that what the admen have convinced many are the 'essentials' are actually luxuries in other parts of the globe. That is a ONLY a generalisation and not said with anti US sentiment... but just check the stats and realise it's true.
We're taught to pursue luxury/convenience at any/all cost. Only a small few of us are naturally able to transcend that indoctrination. The rest of us are going to need some help. Lacking that, we're simply going to ignore the occupy calls and continue grabbing the luxuries/conveniences dangled by elites.
If the Occupy Movement could cut the elites' petro-opiate supply lines in the Merkan war zone it could with some effort convince the people to give up the opiates. Lacking that ability to cut the supply lines of das supply-side kapitalism, the movement is much better off addressing the real problem directly: The indoctrination of the people. Occupy your own mind, occupy the vision and the message, and measure success by the number of people you get through to, get on board the bandwagon. This is about the people. Neglect the people, and you'll fail.
2. Decry the "violence" and start spreading the idea that it is "Black Bloc" and anarchists that caused the problems. Call them "crazy" and "dangerous" and say they are "advocating violence." Start calling for "new" and "more effective" approaches.
3. Set up various astroturf groups that co-opt the language of Occupy, run by all of the same old liberal and progressive leaders.
4. Focus each new phony astroturf Occupy "movement"group on one narrow cause, in order to be as divisive as possible.
5. Bring out the celebrities.
6. Plan various "actions" - petitions, recalls, etc. that are safe and moderate and narrowly focused, run by all of the self-appointed liberal leaders.
7. Attack anyone who objects, who refuses to be herded by this, and turn them over to the authorities if they persist in their dissent.
8. As the election draws near, have all of the various phony "Occupy" organizations endorse Obama as the "lesser of two evils."
i agree wholeheartedly with that frame regarding the "non-violence training" article that was posted several days ago.
i disagree that the people putting forward "occupy our food supply" are stalking horses for Obama.
i could be wrong!
"Occupy our food supply" is about as innocuous and meaningless as could be imagined. Compare that to a hypothetical call to "occupy the Pentagon," for example.
You watch as the election draws closer, and all of these groups that are springing up - poof! a new website. Poof! A new non-profit shell with a fancy name and fancy slogans - start saying "we will continue the important work we have been doing (whatever that is - petitions, and letters to Congress and the like) but this election is the most important one of our lifetime, and while we have many disappointments with Obama, don't get us wrong, the choice is clear..."
Notice how this is divisive. Some feel strongly about this issue of food - I do - and so jump on board. Any who then say that maybe this is not the top priority will be labeled shills for Monsanto, or whatever and the battle will rage. Then people, such as myself, will say that the people drawn to this movement are being herded back into the fold, they will resent that, and the battle will escalate. That is standard operating procedure for liberal organizations.
Notice how this disperses us. Before there was one Occupy movement in many places. Now there will be a hundred little so-called Occupy movements, each one organized around a discrete cause. Each of us will choose the cause we most identify with, and to one extent or another see all outsiders as the enemy. Once we are dispersed, then the call for "unity" will go up, and that "unity" will be in the form of rallying around the Democratic party. That is standard operating procedure for liberal organizations.
Notice how all of these organizations that are springing up are anti-democratic, hierarchical and directed from the top. Various people, with strong ties to the insiders and party hacks, are proclaiming themselves leaders. That is standard operating procedure for liberal organizations. People will then vigorously defend the celebrities and leaders, because "they share my values," which is obviously and transparently ant-democratic. People will then say "are you calling (my favorite liberal personality) anti-democratic??? How dare you? They support democracy." Sure, they say they support democracy, but they are running their little advocacy organizations as dictatorships.
Notice how various people, connected to the liberal establishment or the Democratic party, are using Occupy to promote themselves and their careers. They form a non-profit, set up a website, declare themselves to be "chief agitator in charge" or whatever, talk "occupy occupy occupy" and establish their cred - "fighting for safer food" or whatever, and mouth all of the right words. This they will then leverage into positions in the Democratic party hierarchy. Russ Feingold is busy doing this very thing.
So many people claim to be pro-democracy - "this is what democracy looks like!" they will chant, yet quickly sign on to extremely un-democratic organizations.
Here is how it works:
Someone, with connections and resources, comes up with a name for an "organization," gets a domain name and throws up a website, anoints themselves as the leader of this "organization," and then asks people to come work for them for free - "for the cause." Sooner or later, we will discover that these people are promoting their own careers, angling for positions in a Democratic party administration, or protecting and augmenting the personal income that their "non-profit" affords them.
Within these organizations, should you question the dictates of the leaders, you will be treated condescendingly at first - "let's play nice" - and if you refuse to be silent, you will eventually be viciously attacked, maligned and purged. You must not question or challenge the authority of the leaders.
Occupy is democratic. These liberal organizations most certainly are not.
We will be called "purists." It is not being a "purist" to point out the difference between democratically run activities, and authoritarian activities.
We will be accused of "promoting our own narrow agenda," or of being "doctrinaire." Democracy is not a narrow agenda, nor a doctrine.
We will be accused of refusing to cooperate, of alienating "potential allies." We are actually refusing to submit to dictatorial hierarchies. we are refusing to be manipulated and herded.
People who are not committed to democracy are not "potential allies." People who are using various causes to promote their own careers are not "potential allies." People who are using bait and switch tactics to get people off of the streets and back into the system are not "potential allies." People who try to purge and silence critics and radicals are not "potential allies."
So what do you think about this:
The "non-violence training" call included groups like Move-On etc. ad nauseum.
The "occupy our food supply" call includes the OWS food justice committee, OWS sustainability committee, and others similarly directly engaged with the Occupy process; and no Move-On etc.
And what do you think about Eric Holt-Gimenez' quote at the end of the article, analyzing the "food justice movement" similarly to your analysis, and asserting that incorporating the Occupy analysis creates a genuine threat of NON-co-opted NON-individulaistic NON-life-style based food activism? Directly citing from the article:
Eric Holt-Giménez, Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First Executive Director, writes that while the demand to fix the food system seems reasonable, it does not address the "inequitable foundations of the global food system."
"The goal of food justice activists is a sustainable and equitable food system. Their strategy is to actively construct this alternative. Tactics include community gardens, CSAs, organic farming, etc. The problem is that this combination of strategy and tactics only addresses individual and institutional inequities in the food system, leaving the structure of the corporate food regime intact. The food justice movement has no strategy to address the inter-institutional (i.e. structural) ways that inequity is produced in the food system. By openly protesting the excesses of capitalism, Occupy does address this structure. This is why the convergence of Occupy and the food justice movement is so potentially powerful -- and why it is feared. The political alignment of these movements, however, is no small challenge."
(i would have included more of this detail last night but was in a rush.)
I think the important thing there is his characterization of community gardens, CSAs, organic farming, etc. as tactics. Those tactics are also highly susceptible to being co-opted and steered down blind alleys, to being gentrified and neutered and privatized. When I point that out, I am not opposing those tactics - as I am afraid you presume - I am opposing the naive notion that these things are the solution, are a strategy, when they are merely tactics, and weak ones at that.
Growing one's own food is true self-sufficiency. We also need tens of thousands more organic farmers - perhaps some of you could make the career change?
Sound too prosaic? Well, Google the dangers of, for example. Monsanto's genetically-engineered, Round-Up Ready Corn, Soy, and other "food" people eat every day. Virtually all processed food has some form of soy or corn in them.
Monsanto and the other "life science" chemical companies use toxic materials to get these plants' seeds to accept foreign DNA, and those toxins are then expressed in every cell of the plant, and thusly, introduced into every cell of the people who eat them.
Why is nearly everyone these days taking some kind of pharmaceutical? They're sick from the "food" they're ingesting every day.
Think of the implications of corporate control of our food - think of their withholding food if we do not comply with the regime. Think of their deliberately introducing agents which would harm us - - oh, wait, they already have.
I'm an organic grower and have been resisting Monsanto's g-e seeds and food since 1998. These "foods" are a danger to us all. They kill the soil, as well, since their toxic chemicals invade the soil and kill the biota which live there and which contribute to good, healthy, fertile soil.
Oh, yes, then there are the "natural" foods in your supermarket, so much cheaper than those labeled "organic." But do not be fooled - - "food" labeled "natural" is allowed to have GMO (aka G-E) ingredients with no limit.
The "natural" label is only to fool people into thinking that product is somehow more "organic" or healthier than others. THEY ARE NOT ANY DIFFERENT FROM any other pesticided, genetically-engineered product.
Also, dairy products which do not say "no gmo's" are likely contaminated with Monsanto's g-e growth hormone, which non-organic dairy farmers inject into their cows' udders to force her to produce more milk.
If we were to build raised-bed gardens in people's yards, which would mean no stoop labor and no machines needed, anyone and everyone could grow at least some of their own food.
Also, growing one's own food organically means saving lots of money, using less fossil fuel, and getting good exercise.
Using less fossil fuels = fewer trips to store to buy food, , eliminating planes and trucks transportation to get food from California to Maine, no pesticides or chemical fertilizers means even less use of fossil fuels since they are created from oil, less contamination of our drinking waters from pesticides and fertilizers, etc.
If done worldwide, this would bring agricultural use of fossil fuels down close to zero,
Whether we can do this worldwide is one question, but we can - and must, if we are to survive - work to eliminate fake foods, and encourage kitchen gardens and organic farms wherever we live. Do one yourself; become an example for others.
City People - There are many examples of roof gardens, turning parks into gardens, growing in containers on concrete, and so on. Google community gardens, organic gardening, anything on the topic and you will get more ideas than you could possibly do.
Put up flyers calling for a meeting of people who want to be food secure by growing their own food. Call upon local organic growers to come meet with your group and learn just how easy it is to get started.
Time is getting short for us to figure out how to survive the onslaught of industrial food and control thereof. Time to get as self-sufficient as possible. Now.
PeterGreenaway,
We need to do both and much more, and no we should not let single issue groups co-opt and divide us.
Different experiences serve to radicalize different people. My 17 year old daughter is learning about the true nature of power from the economic meltdown, changes in our economic circumstances, and from my own exposure of "democracy", Plurality Voting, and elections in the United States as being profoundly undemocratic.
But more recently her own interest in food and the power of agribusiness has open her eyes to the revolving door corruption between government and large corporations that is characteristic of just about every aspect of government. As a senior in high school she is tasked with writing a persuasive research paper that presents an argument in favor or against something. Her topic is corruption of the food safety inspection system. Without any specific prompting from me she has recently added breaking up the large agribusiness corporations to her recommendations for reform. While her recommendations will go nowhere, of course; I am pleased that she is finding her own way through all the propaganda and coming to grips with the bigger picture.
Corporate power is the common cause behind so many of the problems we face, including war.
Well, my daughter is in high school and I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with learning about what is going on and writing papers or even articles that might be published some place like Common Dreams, or even posting comments on Common Dreams like you are doing now.
Ending the wars requires somehow ending or at least controlling the power of government and corporations. That will not be easy. Do you have any suggestions?
Revolution of some sort? Of course. But working that through successfully, now that is the hard part.
PeterGreenaway (among other things) wrote:
It sounds like you are already on it and doing a good job. How about planting a garden with her?
* * * * *
My Reply:
Thanks for your comments.
Wars are terrible. While I do talk to her about these things, sometimes images and movies have more impact. Constantly bringing up the horrors of the world, when those horrors are not at your doorstep isn't the right way to raise children, anyway.
For years we listened to stories or I read to her before she went to sleep. Stories from places all over the world, including a lot of age appropriate historical fiction. Last year she read "The Things They Carried with Them" for school and we watched "The Killing Fields" and "The Official Story" (Argentina) together. Sort of by coincidence, we have recently watched a number of holocaust movies, including "The Pianist" and "Sarah's Key".
With respect to immigrant undocumented workers in the U.S., some time ago I managed to get her to watch "El Norte", "Hecho En Los Angeles / Made In L.A.", and 'La Misma Luna / Under the Same Moon". The last of these three movies is more of a Hollywood movie, but still worth something I think for children at least. At the time I felt "De Nadie, Morir Cruzando / Border Crossing" was too brutal for her to watch.
There are utopian visions of farms on city roof tops. The "visions / hallucinations (?)" of architect William McDonough come to mind. I certainly think gardening can be good for the soul, and increasing the amount of gardening / agriculture done in and near cities strikes me as a good idea, but moving agricultural produce to cities by rail from agricultural areas, absent a complete catacylismic collapse of the current system, will remain the way food is made available to most of us for some time. Farm work is hard work, and farm workers have often been treated terribly by corporate agribusiness, and farm communities haven't done so well either; but I do think more workers and less petroleum and less capitalism is needed in agriculture.
Still, we will try growing tomatoes in a bucket this year, hopefully I will be able to plant a real garden sometime soon. After all, even the better store bought tomotoes available around here are not very good.
Veggies and tomatoes fit in better with upscale entrepreneurial "green" or "alternative" activities, and pander to bourgeoisie sentimentalism. That is why green veggies and tomatoes are constantly being trumpeted.
"More workers and less petroleum and less capitalism is needed in agriculture." Amen.
Nothing wrong with "moving agricultural produce to cities by rail from agricultural areas." That is not where the problem lies. That is actually far more energy efficient and delivers higher quality produce then does, say, the CSA model is as practiced.
If we are going to turn cities into farms, that raises the question - why cities at all? If you turn a city into a farm, it is no longer a city. It is a suburban model that tries to combine city living with farm living, with all of the disadvantages of both and none of the advantages of either, and with disastrous social and economic consequences. And then, notice how "middle class" suburban activists obsess over urban areas and rural areas - lecturing everyone about how to go about hings - but how rarely suburbia itself comes under criticism, and how much resistance and hostility is generate if you do criticize suburbia and the "middle class."
"La Misma Luna" is a great film. Highly recommended.