Get News & Views Updates
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 AllWouldn't it be nice to get ahead of this for once?
Suburbanization of farm land is the problem, and turning cities into farms is not any sort of solution. All of the suburbs around the country are sitting on land that used to be farmland. More and more is gobbled up all the time. I don't see any calls for turning any of that land back to farms, or stopping suburban sprawl, even though that land represents 10 or 100 times more acreage than inner cities do. Why? $$$$$
Turning a city like Detroit into a farm is the goofiest idea, and I have no idea why people are buying into this.
More Capitalism, more development, more real estate speculation, more suburbanization and more gentrification can never be the solution to the problems caused by Capitalism, development, real estate speculation. suburbanization and gentrification.
Your facile conflation is hardly an argument. Food justice activists are privatizing schools? Real estate developers are spearheading urban ag? No one is fighting suburban sprawl?
The people i've met who are doing ag in Detroit are the absolute antithesis of your caricature: disenfranchised, people of color, anti-capitalist, working class and anarchist food justice activists, working at the grassroots to reclaim land-use decisions FROM speculators and developers.
The people i know working on food and ag issues in Seattle are also NOT anywhere to be seen in your broad-brush painting. Again, neighborhood-based, grassroots, people of color, working class and anarchist food justice activists fighting for access to land and for a vital dense city that does NOT sprawl into the foothills.
You see only through the frames you promote, blind to the lives and work of people you do not find in the pictures you paint. There are examples of profiteers and speculators in EVERY field of human endeavor, which does not sully the work of others who are fighting against that in those fields. The existence of the Hantz Group does not besmirch the locals who are growing food and fighting for rules governing access to land that do NOT favor speculators and profiteers.
And the existence of suburbia does not make it wrong or idiotic to produce food, or fight to produce food, in cities. That is not an either / or proposition. Land-use decisions and building codes and zoning regulations can promote vastly increased food production in cities AND restore the surrounding farmland and put an end to sprawl. Obviously that's a vast fight that you can ridicule with caricature but where is your organizing base? What projects are you working on? Food justice activists are all liberal tools and real estate speculators? What a joke!
i recognize that you feel near absolute certainty about your caricatures, and will keep promulgating them here. But they encompass only a slice of the truth. You are missing a lot.
I am extremely close to and familiar with this phenomenon, and can document it for you if you are interested. But I don't have an axe to grind about it - other than having exactly the same goals as you do.
Of course there are good people involved in this. There are good people involved in just about everything. That is not the issue. Yes, under Capitalism, "there are profiteers and speculators in EVERY field," and that "does not sully the work of others who are fighting against that in those fields." It destroys them.
You could turn the entire city of Detroit into farm land without making much of an impact on food production. Thinking otherwise is betraying a profound ignorance about farming. Besides, poor people will be displaced and the building of "satellite" yuppie enclaves, around charter schools. is the plan. A notorious real estate hustler from Detroit is gobbling up property to position himself for a killing, and is funding and leading the urban farming effort. The Land Use Institute, about as gentrified and out of touch with ag as could be imagined, is heavily involved.
"Vastly increased food production in cities?" Think about that. And yes, yes, I know that we can "walk and chew gum at the same time," in theory. Sure we can. And we can support the Democratic party and still fight for progressive causes at the same time, right? I would think that by now everyone would realize that this is a fantasy. You cannot go in two directions at the same time, and liberals and progressives are always trying to do that. You have to take a stand. No more "partnering," no more compromises, no more "at least we are doing something," no more incrementalism, no more band aids. "We can walk and chew gum at the same time" is an excuse for sitting around chewing gum and never walking anywhere. The problem of suburbanization is so huge, such a threat to farming, and the proposed solution of urban farming - at best - is such a weak and inadequate response that it is absurd to give them equal consideration. If they were even given equal consideration, but they are not.
You are not going to stop the juggernaut with "building codes and zoning regulations." No, "the existence of suburbia does not make it wrong or idiotic to produce food, it just makes it very difficult. You cannot possibly replace the acreage lost to suburbia with urban farming, even if you turned the entire city of Seattle into farms. On the other hand, people from Seattle are gobbling up farmland and developing it. I know the farmers in Washington state, I know the activists. I am very familiar with the bourgeoisie foodie movement in Seattle. I know the winery people and "artisan producer" hobby farms that cater to that demographic. I know the organic farmers in the state.
Of course the "existence of the Hantz Group does not besmirch the locals." But it will crush the locals. Yuppies from outside promoting these schemes are throwing locals to the wolves, for the sake of their feel good cause.
You ask "where is your organizing base?" I am not so egotistical as to think that "I" have any such thing, nor am I so naive as to think I have all of the answers. I am involved and have been for a long time in just about every organization in the field. "What projects are you working on?" My focus over the last few years has been locating, collecting and documenting heirloom crop varieties, working in the immigrant rights movement, fighting the FDA, and other projects. I am only one person, there are not very many of us, and I do what I can do. I have no interest in hobby activism, nor in mingling with and appeasing the wine-sipping set than dominates much of the foodie movement.
I know what I am talking about on this, webwalk, and I am not your enemy.
You may not be my enemy but you keep conflating things in a very facile way that does almost nothing to address me. You don't seem to be able to help yourself, you conflate everything into your broad-brush painting. i'm working on ag on multiple fronts, the fact that i'm not talking about them all here does not make my work in the city i live in "yuppie dreams," nor does it make any of the work i cited, or the work that Vandana Shiva and Raj Patel and Occupy Wall Street (all involved in the Feb 27 call to action) "yuppie dreams." But you can't actually argue with the actual organizers of this call so you argue with your "yuppie dreams" instead.
Where for example do i (or anyone else involved in the article or the call for Feb 27 actions) call urban farming "the solution" to our problems? i never say any such thing, yet that is what you pretend to respond to. Feel free, but you're not really having a conversation, you're preaching your gospel. And simply stating "i know what i am talking about" doesn't cut it. i know what i am talking about.
I don't have "a solution" to the problems, and I am highly suspicious of those who claim that they do. It is a process, a struggle. And, yes, CSA, organic, urban farming and other schemes ARE presented as "the solution," and are promoted as safe, moderate and acceptable alternatives, often as the only acceptable alternatives, to more radical approaches. One can not possibly be working on ag on multiple fronts and yet be sanguine about any of this. One would have to be, at the very least. skeptical of this movement. Skepticism is exactly what I am expressing here. I have yet to meet an actual farmer, a serious and committed person in ag, among thousands, whether they are involved in CSA or organic or not, who would object to what I am expressing here or deny that there is validity to this skepticism.
If you are in fact working on ag on multiple fronts, we have much in common and you are among a tiny handful of people. There is no one who is working on ag on multiple fronts that has a problem with what I have been posting here. If you are interested in ag, then let's talk ag.
Yes, I can and have often debated with "the actual organizers." Vandana Shiva's work is good. Many of the worshipful followers of that work, problematic. Michael Pollan, on the other hand, is a self-promoting huckster with little or no knowledge of agriculture who panders to yuppie sentiments and prejudices to turn a buck.
Expressing skepticism about the gospel that is being preached by others is not preaching the gospel.
"Corporate agri-business" is a symptom of the problem. The problem is Capitalism.
You should be able to get good peaches and other fruit in Washington state. Carleton Orchards comes to mind - dozens of heirloom peach varieties. High quality Montmorency tart cherries are grown in Washington. Washington apples, on the other hand, are in my view vastly inferior - other than in appearance - to those grown in the Midwest and Northeast. There is an heirloom grower north of Wenatchee who does a good job, and Tiny's is a good operation and they sell at farm markets all over the state.
I know a couple living in east Cambridge, MA who are using gray water where appropriate, along with humanure and growing a significant amount of their food indoors and out. But hey, be afraid. They are anarchists. I need somehow to do better than I do. Gardening has never been my strong point.