Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Food Movement: Its Power and Possibilities
Editor's Note from The Nation: Frances Moore Lappé's essay below kicks off The Nation's forum on the food movement. Raj Patel, Vandana Shiva, Eric Schlosser, and Michael Pollan have contributed replies.
For years I’ve been asked, “Since you wrote Diet for a Small Planet in 1971, have things gotten better or worse?” Hoping I don’t sound glib, my response is always the same: “Both.”
As food growers, sellers and eaters, we’re moving in two directions at once.
The number of hungry people has soared to nearly 1 billion, despite strong global harvests. And for even more people, sustenance has become a health hazard—with the US diet implicated in four out of our top ten deadly diseases. Power over soil, seeds and food sales is ever more tightly held, and farmland in the global South is being snatched away from indigenous people by speculators set to profit on climbing food prices. Just four companies control at least three-quarters of international grain trade; and in the United States, by 2000, just ten corporations—with boards totaling only 138 people—had come to account for half of US food and beverage sales. Conditions for American farmworkers remain so horrific that seven Florida growers have been convicted of slavery involving more than 1,000 workers. Life expectancy of US farmworkers is forty-nine years.
There is, however, another current, which is democratizing power and aligning farming with nature’s genius. Many call it simply “the global food movement.” In the United States it’s building on the courage of truth tellers from Upton Sinclair to Rachel Carson, and worldwide it has been gaining energy and breadth for at least four decades.
Some Americans see the food movement as “nice” but peripheral—a middle-class preoccupation with farmers’ markets, community gardens and healthy school lunches. But no, I’ll argue here. It is at heart revolutionary, with some of the world’s poorest people in the lead, from Florida farmworkers to Indian villagers. It has the potential to transform not just the way we eat but the way we understand our world, including ourselves. And that vast power is just beginning to erupt.
The Work
In a farmworker camp in Ohio, a young mother sat on her bed. She was dying of cancer, but with no bitterness she asked me a simple question: “We provide people food—why don’t they respect our work?” That was 1984. She had no protection from pesticides, or even the right to safe drinking water in the field.
Twenty-five years later, in Immokalee, Florida, I walked through a grungy, sweltering 300-foot trailer, home to eight tomato pickers, but what struck me most was a sense of possibility in the workers themselves.
They are among the 4,000 mainly Latino, Mayan Indian and Haitian members of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, formed in 1993—more than two decades after Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers’ victorious five-year grape strike and national boycott. In the 1990s, CIW’s struggle over five years, including a 230-mile walk and hunger strike, achieved the first industrywide pay increase in twenty years. Still, it only brought real wages back to pre-1980 levels. So in 2001, CIW launched its Campaign for Fair Food. Dogged organizing forced four huge fast-food companies—McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Burger King and Subway—to agree to pay a penny more per pound and adhere to a code of conduct protecting workers. Four large food-service providers, including Sodexo, were also brought on board. Beginning this fall, CIW will start implementing these changes at 90 percent of Florida tomato farms—improving the lives of 30,000 tomato pickers. Now the campaign is focused on supermarkets such as Trader Joe’s, Stop & Shop and Giant.
The Land
In Brazil, almost 400,000 farmworker families have not only found their voices but gained access to land, joining the roughly half-billion small farms worldwide that produce 70 percent of the world’s food.
Elsewhere, calls for more equitable access to land in recent decades have generally gone nowhere—despite evidence that smallholders are typically more productive and better resource guardians than big operators.
So what happened in Brazil?
With the end of dictatorship in 1984 came the birth of arguably the largest social movement in the hemisphere: the Landless Workers Movement, known by its Portuguese acronym MST. Less than 4 percent of Brazil’s landowners control about half the land, often gained illegally. MST’s goal is land reform, and in 1988 Brazil’s new Constitution gave the movement legal grounding: Article 5 states that “property shall fulfill its social function,” and Article 184 affirms the government’s power to “expropriate…for purposes of agrarian reform, rural property” that fails to meet this requirement. Well-organized occupations of unused land, under the cover of night, had been MST’s early tactic; after 1988 the same approach helped compel the government to uphold the Constitution.
Because of the courage of these landless workers, a million people are building new lives on roughly 35 million acres, creating several thousand farming communities with schools serving 150,000 kids, along with hundreds of cooperative and other enterprises.
Nevertheless, MST co-founder João Pedro Stédile said early this year that the global financial crisis has led “international capitalists” to try to “protect their funds” by investing in Brazilian “land and energy projects”—driving renewed land concentration.
And in the United States? The largest 9 percent of farms produce more than 60 percent of output. But small farmers still control more than half our farmland, and the growing market for healthy fresh food has helped smallholders grow: their numbers went up by 18,467 between 2002 and 2007. To support them, last winter the Community Food Security Coalition held community “listening sessions,” attended by 700 people, to sharpen citizen goals for the 2012 farm bill.
The Seed
Just as dramatic is the struggle for the seed. More than 1,000 independent seed companies were swallowed up by multinationals in the past four decades, so today just three—Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta—control about half the proprietary seed market worldwide.
Fueling the consolidation were three Supreme Court rulings since 1980—including one in 2002, with an opinion written by former Monsanto attorney Clarence Thomas—making it possible to patent life forms, including seeds. And in 1992 the Food and Drug Administration released its policy on genetically modified organisms, claiming that “the agency is not aware of any information showing that [GMO] foods…differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”
The government’s green light fueled the rapid spread of GMOs and monopolies—so now most US corn and soybeans are GMO, with genes patented largely by one company: Monsanto. The FDA position helped make GMOs’ spread so invisible that most Americans still don’t believe they’ve ever eaten them—even though the grocery industry says they could be in 75 percent of processed food.
Even fewer Americans are aware that in 1999 attorney Steven Druker reported that in 40,000 pages of FDA files secured via a lawsuit, he found “memorandum after memorandum contain[ing] warnings about the unique hazards of genetically engineered food,” including the possibility that they could contain “unexpected toxins, carcinogens or allergens.”
Yet at the same time, public education campaigns have succeeded in confining almost 80 percent of GMO planting to just three countries: the United States, Brazil and Argentina. In more than two dozen countries and in the European Union they’ve helped pass mandatory GMO labeling. Even China requires it.
In Europe, the anti-GMO tipping point came in 1999. Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, expects that the same shift will happen here, as more Americans than ever actively oppose GMOs. This year the “non-GMO” label is the third-fastest-growing new health claim on food packaging. Smith is also encouraged that milk products produced with the genetically modified drug rBGH “have been kicked out of Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Yoplait, Dannon, and most American dairies.”
Around the world, millions are saying no to seed patenting as well. In homes and village seed banks, small farmers and gardeners are saving, sharing and protecting tens of thousands of seed varieties.
In the United States, the Seed Savers Exchange in Decorah, Iowa, estimates that since 1975 members have shared roughly a million samples of rare garden seeds.
In the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh—known as the pesticide capital of the world—a women-led village movement, the Deccan Development Society, puts seed-saving at the heart of its work. After the crushing failure of GMO cotton and ill health linked to pesticides, the movement has helped 125 villages convert to more nutritious, traditional crop mixes, feeding 50,000 people.
On a larger scale, Vandana Shiva’s organization, Navdanya, has helped to free 500,000 farmers from chemical dependency and to save indigenous seeds—the group’s learning and research center protects 3,000 varieties of rice, plus other crops.
Agri-Culture
In all these ways and more, the global food movement challenges a failing frame: one that defines successful agriculture and the solution to hunger as better technologies increasing yields of specific crops. This is typically called “industrial agriculture,” but a better description might be “productivist,” because it fixates on production, or “reductivist,” because it narrows our focus to a single element.
Its near obsession with the yield of a monoculture is anti-ecological. It not only pollutes, diminishes and disrupts nature; it misses ecology’s first lesson: relationships. Productivism isolates agriculture from its relational context—from its culture.
In 2008 a singular report helped crack the productivist frame. This report, “The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development” (known simply as IAASTD), explained that solutions to poverty, hunger and the climate crisis require agriculture that promotes producers’ livelihoods, knowledge, resiliency, health and equitable gender relations, while enriching the natural environment and helping to balance the carbon cycle. Painstakingly developed over four years by 400 experts, the report has gained the support of more than fifty-nine governments, and even productivist strongholds like the World Bank.
IAASTD furthers an emerging understanding that agriculture can serve life only if it is regarded as a culture of healthy relationships, both in the field—among soil organisms, insects, animals, plants, water, sun—and in the human communities it supports: a vision lived by many indigenous people and captured in 1981 by Wendell Berry in The Gift of Good Land and twenty years later by Jules Pretty in Agri-Culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature.
Across cultures, the global food movement is furthering agri-culture by uniting diverse actors and fostering democratic relationships. A leader is La Via Campesina, founded in 1993 when small farmers and rural laborers gathered from four continents in Belgium. Its goal is “food sovereignty”—a term carefully chosen to situate “those who produce, distribute, and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies, rather than the demands of markets and corporations,” says the declaration closing the group’s 2007 global gathering in Nyeleni, Mali. La Via Campesina connects 150 local and national organizations, and 200 million small farmers, in seventy countries. In 2009 it was included among civil society players on the UN Committee on Food Security.
And in the urban North, how is the food movement enhancing agri-culture?
For sure, more and more Americans are getting their hands in the dirt—motivated increasingly by a desire to cut “food miles” and greenhouse gases. Roughly a third of American households (41 million) garden, up 14 percent in 2009 alone. As neighbors join neighbors, community gardens are blooming. From only a handful in 1970, there are 18,000 community gardens today. In Britain community gardens are in such demand—with 100,000 Brits on waiting lists for a plot—that the mayor of London promised 2,012 new ones by 2012.
And in 2009 the Slow Food movement, with 100,000 members in 153 countries, created 300 “eat-ins”—shared meals in public space—to launch its US “Time for Lunch” campaign, with a goal of delicious healthy school meals for the 31 million kids eating them every day.
An Economics of Agri-Culture
Agri-culture’s unity of healthy farming ecology and social ecology transforms the market itself: from the anonymous, amoral selling and buying within a market structured to concentrate power to a market shaped by shared human values structured to ensure fairness and co-responsibility.
In 1965 British Oxfam created the first fair-trade organization, called Helping-by-Selling, in response to calls from poor countries for “trade, not aid.” Today more than 800 products are fair-trade certified, directly benefiting 6 million people. Last year the US fair-trade market passed $1.5 billion.
The Real Food Challenge, launched by young people in 2007, is working to jump-start a US swing to “real food”—defined as that respecting “human dignity and health, animal welfare, social justice and environmental sustainability.” Student teams are mobilizing to persuade campus decision-makers to commit themselves to making a minimum of
20 percent of their college or university food “real” by 2020. With more than 350 schools already on board, the Challenge founders have set an ambitious goal: to shift $1 billion to real food purchases in ten years.
Farmers’ markets, the direct exchange between farmer and eater, are also creating a fairer agri-culture. So rare before the mid-’90s that the USDA didn’t even bother to track them, more than 7,000 farmers’ markets dot the country in 2011, a more than fourfold increase in seventeen years.
Other democratic economic models are also gaining ground:
In 1985 an irrepressible Massachusetts farmer named Robyn Van En helped create the first US Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program, in which eaters are no longer just purchasers but partners, helping to shoulder the farmer’s risk by prepaying for a share of the harvest before the planting season. On weekends, “my” CSA—Waltham Fields, near Boston—is alive as families pick and chat, and kids learn how to spot the yummiest strawberries. Now there are 2,500 CSAs across the country, while more than 12,500 farms informally use this prepay, partnership approach.
The cooperative model is spreading too, replacing one dollar, one vote—the corporate form—with one person, one vote. In the 1970s, US food cooperatives took off. Today there are 160 nationwide, and co-op veteran Annie Hoy in Ashland, Oregon, sees a new upsurge. Thirty-nine have just opened, or are “on their way right now,” she told me.
Funky storefronts of the 1970s, famous for limp organic carrots, have morphed into mouthwatering community hubs. Beginning as a food-buying club of fifteen families in 1953, Seattle’s PCC Natural Markets has nine stores and almost 46,000 members, making it the largest US food cooperative. Its sales more than doubled in a decade.
Producer co-ops have also made huge gains. In 1988 a handful of worried farmers, watching profits flow to middlemen, not to them, launched the Organic Valley Family of Farms. Today Organic Valley’s more than 1,600 farmer owners span thirty-two states, generating sales of more than $500 million in 2008.
The Rules
The global food system reflects societies’ rules—often uncodified—that determine who eats and how our earth fares. In the United States, rules increasingly reflect our nation’s slide into “privately held government.” But in rule-setting, too, energy is hardly unidirectional.
In 1999, on the streets of Seattle, 65,000 environmentalists, labor and other activists made history, blunting the antidemocratic agenda of the World Trade Organization. In 2008 more citizens than ever engaged in shaping the farm bill, resulting in rules encouraging organic production. The movement has also established 100 “food policy councils”—new local-to-state, multi-stakeholder coordinating bodies. And this year, eighty-three plaintiffs joined the Public Patent Foundation in suing Monsanto, challenging its GMO seeds’ “usefulness” (required for patenting) as well as the company’s right to patent seeds to begin with.
Even small changes in the rules can create huge possibilities. Consider, for example, the ripples from a 2009 Brazilian law requiring at least 30 percent of school meals to consist of food from local family farms.
Rules governing rights are the human community’s foundational guarantees to one another—and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights gave access to food that status. Since then, nearly two dozen nations have planted the right to food in their constitutions. If you wonder whether it matters, note that when Brazil undertook a multifaceted “zero hunger” campaign, framing food as a right, the country slashed its infant death rate by about a third in seven years.
Food Power: Only Connect
This rising global food movement taps universal human sensibilities—expressed in Hindu farmers in India saving seeds, Muslim farmers in Niger turning back the desert and Christian farmers in the United States practicing biblically inspired Creation Care. In these movements lies the revolutionary power of the food movement: its capacity to upend a life-destroying belief system that has brought us power-concentrating corporatism.
Corporatism, after all, depends on our belief in the fairy tale that market “magic” (Ronald Reagan’s unforgettable term) works on its own without us.
Food can break that spell. For the food movement’s power is that it can shift our sense of self: from passive, disconnected consumers in a magical market to active, richly connected co-producers in societies we are creating—as share owners in a CSA farm or purchasers of fair-trade products or actors in public life shaping the next farm bill.
The food movement’s power is connection itself. Corporatism distances us from one another, from the earth—and even from our own bodies, tricking them to crave that which destroys them—while the food movement celebrates our reconnection. Years ago in Madison, Wisconsin, CSA farmer Barb Perkins told me about her most rewarding moments: “Like in town yesterday,” she said, “I saw this little kid, wide-eyed, grab his mom’s arm and point at me. ‘Mommy,’ he said. ‘Look. There’s our farmer!’”
At its best, this movement encourages us to “think like an ecosystem,” enabling us to see a place for ourselves connected to all others, for in ecological systems “there are no parts, only participants,” German physicist Hans Peter Duerr reminds us. With an “eco-mind” we can see through the productivist fixation that inexorably concentrates power, generating scarcity for some, no matter how much we produce. We’re freed from the premise of lack and the fear it feeds. Aligning food and farming with nature’s genius, we realize there’s more than enough for all.
As the food movement stirs, as well as meets, deep human needs for connection, power and fairness, let’s shed any notion that it’s simply “nice” and seize its true potential to break the spell of our disempowerment.




27 Comments so far
Show AllNow that this author has laid out this blue-print for better Food Sovereignty, How do we slap a muzzle on Monsanto [Chem Corp & Ex-Maker of Agent Orange & Napalm], Du-Pont [another Chem Corp - Ex-Maker of Napalm, Teflon, & PFOA] & Syngenta [that would be Synthetic Genetics] from completely controlling what we eat? Well one thing would be requiring all food w GMO products to be labeled as such. The other would by grow you own food or develop working relationships w organic farmers. Next would be vote out Corp shill poly-tricians be they Dims or Repugs [that wouldn't leave very many in this current crop of politicians]!
In Berkeley and Oakland I have been organizing "Neighborhood Vegetables." Most weekends we have at least one "garden work party." Ten or fifteen people gather in someone's front or backyard garden and help them do whatever they need to grow food.
So far we have over 2000 people on our email list. The next step is to decentralize into neighborhoods, so that each one has its own "garden work party" organizers. Each neighborhood would become a gardening co-op. After that, some of the neighborhoods might want to co-operate with other skills from childcare and tutoring to housework or carpentry.
Starting with our neighborhoods, we can build a so-operative world. If you contact me I'll give you more information about how to do it.
Yours for Food and Community,
Laurenceofberk@aol.com
510-540-1975
Thank you, and more power to you!
In case anyone would like to try Neighborhood Vegetables garden work parties in your own city, here is our basic leaflet and our sign up card. If you email me I'll send you an attachment, so you can print them out.
______________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD VEGETABLES
We Can Grow Food and Community
Here Where we Live
Back Yards, Front Yards, Empty Lots.
If you need help in your garden
We can arrange a volunteer
GARDEN WORK PARTY
Expert advice and perhaps a steady helper
As food prices rise,
We can grow our own good food,
IF WE COOPERATE
NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR
With our skills, land and labor.
Whether or not you have a yard,
We can garden together
If you are interested, call
510-540-1975, or write
Laurenceofberk@aol.com
Tell us where you live so we can connect you.
Include phone & email
level of garden skill, if you have a yard,
And if you need garden help.
____________________________________________________________________
NEIGHBORHOOD VEGETABLES
Working with Neighbors to Grow Food
Name _________________________________________________
Email _________________________________________________
Phone (H) ______________________________________________
Cell or Work ___________________________________________
Address or Cross Streets _______________________________
_______________________________ City ____________________
Garden Skill: Some ____ Skilled________
Can Mentor Others? ______ How? ______________________
Have Yard? ____ Fruit Tree? ______ Extra Veggies____ Want a Work Party in your yard?___________________
Garden needs ongoing helper ____ Can provide ongoing help ______
Tell Neighbors____ Make phone calls?___ Door to door?___
That's an excellent idea. My first thought was that if people can do get together cookouts, then they should be able to engage in neighborly gardening. I can't say that it's that easy given that people buy processed meat, chips, soda, etc.. from the supermarkets. There's a difference between that and truly sustained neighborly get togethers such as via gardening. It's unfortunate that in this country, individualism in excess makes it difficult for people to think cooperation instead of competition or true care instead of petty urges. This is where I think that your program can and will come in handy. People will have to finally get it that we all let industrialization go out of control beyond the point of no return on wrecking our soil. If more people could do neighborly gardening from Berkeley to suburban Orange County, CA, then there might be a big chance down the road to put the agri-business powers to be on the defensive so that they'll have only two choices: explain their urge to control or come clean and let the masses produce mass produce for true sustainability. I saw your brochure from before and I've gotten some positive feedback from some of my neighbors. I can't say that all of them took it seriously given their jobs and working hours but our efforts did pay off for some of the rest if not all. Thanks and all the best to you.
For some reason the USA,unlike elsewhere where GMOs are not trusted, allows them to be used without being labelled. The pretence is that they benefit us all and the environment, with little evidence.
there are not enough people with enough land for them to completely rely on their own food that they grow......but if many people in one community were to grow.......even in their yard.... we'd be a lot closer to producing our own food ......even wheat...... The idea is to turn ALL your land over to growing food, you can combine some flowers into the mix to help with a natural way to keep out pests and weeds.....plus you may have to do some actual labor.......... but hey we all need to exercize ..........wouldn't that be a great cure for sitting down at a stinkin' desk all day.....we should cut back on office hours and add more time to taking care of our homes, kids and growing our food........those who don't own.......could be integrated by landlords allowing them to grow on the property.......or if it's urban......we have the urban gardens........... we need to think in terms of how FOOD IS OUR LIFE....... SOW WE ALL NEED TO PRODUCE IT OR WORK IT........ INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE CORPS TO PROVIDE IT VIA A CORP OWNED GROCERY STORE....or seed company .....or food processing plant..... I can't believe how many people I saw yesterday in the store...purchasing loads of already to eat dinners.... I do get some... because since I have always.... worked,....my kids learned to eat them from the baby sitters or from me to a small extent..... I tried most of the time not to use short cuts. I need to do even better.... our lifestyles stink.... .. if we do not start to actually change our culture on a large scale...........and take down the banks while we are at it........ we will be looking at a planet in which nothing will grow anyway........... we will have killed of most of the soil......forest and the oceans...... we are already gone.....almost....... I've been reading a book by Derrick Jensen ...." Strangely LIke War" .....
Ms. Lappe, keep up the great work exploding the myth that the solution to the Maltusian problem is corporate, large scale, high-tech, agribusiness.
We need to, as a one-time iconic nutritionally challenged figure once said, "Stop the Insanity."
>>"Some Americans see the food movement as “nice” but peripheral—a middle-class preoccupation with farmers’ markets, community gardens and healthy school lunches. But no, I’ll argue here. It is at heart revolutionary, with some of the world’s poorest people in the lead, from Florida farmworkers to Indian villagers. It has the potential to transform not just the way we eat but the way we understand our world, including ourselves. And that vast power is just beginning to erupt."<<
This needs to be repeated. What we eat and how that food is produced is an integral part of the big change that many here are talking about. Frances Moore Lappé is right: "It is at heart revolutionary".
It's been 40 years since Lappé's groundbreaking book "Diet for a Small Planet" came out. What's even more impressive about her, according to John Robbins, is how willing she was to correct a particular position she took in the book that first made her famous. From John Robbins's "Diet for a New America" (1987):
Quoting Lappé in the 1981 edition of "Diet for a Small Planet":
"In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein ... was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought. ... (I) helped create a new myth— that to get the protein you need without meat you have to conscientiously combine nonmeat sources . . . With a healthy, varied diet, concern about protein complementarity is not necessary for most of us."
John Robbins continues: "It is very rare when well-known figures are willing to reverse themselves publicly, especially when the issue is the very one which made them famous. I can't help but admire this kind of integrity. And obviously, Frances Moore Lappé is convinced that her earlier emphasis on protein combining was unwarranted. In the original 1971 edition of Diet for a Small Planet, over 200 of the 280 pages dealt specifically with the ins and outs of protein combining. In the 1981 edition, only about 60 of the 455 pages deal with the matter, and much of this is an explanation of how her thinking has changed. The details of protein complementarity, which comprised the bulk of the original book, are relegated in her revised edition to a short appendix, at the back of the book."
I still have her original book "Diet for a Small Planet" from about 35 years ago. She's a wonderful human being; this article needs to be spread about so people begin to understand what's wrong and how we can begin to take back our natural world.
How now brown cow, Monsanto? Farmers don't want your rBgh GMO growth hormone anymore, because We, the People, won't buy their milk if they use it.
It seems to me this manmade growth hormone in milk virtually all children and many adults drink (unless they drink organic milk) may well be a major, even primary, cause of the obesity epidemic amongst children and many adults.
Labeling all foods containing genetically-engineered ingredients, along with all the other stuff Monsanto et al put into the plants' DNA (antibiotics as their marker, bacteria that causes tumors in many of our food plants, and who knows what else) would make people think - - and stop buying these genetically-altered "foods."
Growing one's own chemical-free food is a step towards self-sufficiency and independence from corporate rulers.
If you are dependent upon corporate gmo products, they can cease supplying them at any time if they wish compliance of the populace with some new edict or other.
Help your neighbors build 2' high raised beds (no more stoop labor!) in their yards and in your own, too, so you can simply walk along while seeding, weeding, and harvesting your very own wonderful, chemical-free, food.
It's a great feeling. Now I'm going out to pull some potatoes out of the ground for supper!
American corporations have a sociopathic approach to life. As Ms. Lappe points out, people should worry about the fact in 1999 attorney Steven Druker reported that in 40,000 pages of FDA files secured via a lawsuit, he found “memorandum after memorandum contain[ing] warnings about the unique hazards of genetically engineered food,” including the possibility that they could contain “unexpected toxins, carcinogens or allergens.” Ms. Lappe says most of the processed food in the US contains GMO. What about the groceries themselves?
The article doesn't talk about the other criminal actions by American food corporations, like poisoning Americans, especially children, with high fructose corn syrup and other adulterants. We should have statutes making it a crime to feed HFC to children. We have a major diabetes epidemic spreading around the world, all caused by poor American style diets. Multiple studies have shown that a change of diet can cure most cases of type II diabetes in a few weeks, but most doctors don't know this. The American Diabetes Association still claims diabetes has no cure, yet tens of thousands of former diabetics no longer have it.
Great article. Right here in the national capital area there is a battle going on to save a historic organic farm located in Potomac, Maryland. For 30 years Nick Maravell has rented more than a 100 acres from Montgomery, Co. Now the County wants to lease the land to a profit making soccer enterprise. Nick's farm is especially important because it focuses on (a) non-GMO seed preservation (b) ecological cropping principles (c) building healthy sustainable soils (d) creating a hub of farm-food activity in the DC area.More than 40,000 have signed a petition urging the County Executive to change his mind. Here are two websites: http://ecosquared.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/save-nicks-organic-farm-a-cause-and-a-job-opening-organizer/ and http://www.savenicksorganicfarm.org/
Great article even though it is clear right now we are losing this war. When black and Latino children born after 2000 have a 50-50 shot at Type 2 Diabetes more people should be downright angry. This is why I want to start a different approach to food change. Both involve fundamentally shifting power by altering voices of control.
One project involves organizing the world's supplies of local honeys and cheeses, and making them available in pairing combinations through an online database. I call it Green Gold. Honeys are perceived as a poor persons commodity while specialty cheeses as something of appeal to the wealthier. Marrying their availabilty links the value of these truly green and golden treasures and may keep corps from buying their deliciousness. See http://www.honeycheeseguys.wordpress.com.
The second model I call Burgers Against Obesity. It uses the power of consumers to take a bite out of the credit card/ATM system so that a single nickel can be voluntarily collected through each and every McWhichever special and instantly deposited in the coffers of regional food empowerment triple bottom line initiatives of charities. As such, each purchase fuels change! And a lot of change. Estimates are we could capture 200 million nickels this way as a source for funding all kinds of projects. Oh, that's 200 million nickels EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR! See http://www.NickelaMeal.wordpress.com.
Both are doable and can build the movements and badly needed dollars for a smart food future.
I was very pleased to read that there are grass roots organizations that are bring effective challenges to the Clarence Thomas "right to patent life forms." This one ruling sits right up there along with Citizens United as one of the gravest threats to people while being the greatest coup de tete for the plutocrats. These rulings must be reversed.
I'll give this article a good rating for the fact that we're trying to reverse the trend but this article is mostly classist and reminds me of rightwingers telling us that "progress" is happening in Iraq when things are getting worse. The truth is that no matter how positive you try to spin it, we're still fighting on Corporate America's turf while our turf has yet to be recreated long after it was destroyed. The big food and oil goons have all the rules and regulations stacked in their favor while the local independent farmers have to worry about government raiding their farm. Gardening is good and we should do it while we can but I'm afraid we're only 10% less dependent on the supermarket. Don't get me wrong. I like solutions but telling us in a flowery manner that "progress" is coming when it's not is just pushing it. Small changes are nice but we also need to unite or it won't matter. We can all learn to turn the other cheek but that doesn't mean we have to be blissfully ignorant about the situation. Let's face it. Getting good soil isn't easy and it's not because of population numbers. Our long term addiction to oil from driving all the way down to eating is as high as it was since the 1970s and I haven't seen Mother Nature approving of it if the last 10-15 years of record-braking natural disasters are any indication. If we could also get back our regulated capitalism that existed up to the 1980s, then perhaps the Food Movement might gain some real ground and poor people will find healthy food cheaper than eating another fast food meal.
In connection with ecological agri-culture and IAASTD one could also include The Land Institute and their exciting work in developing perennial and deep-rooted grains.
This is only tangentially related to this article but I would highly recommend a book by T.Colin Cambell PhD, called the China Study -the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted.
A very readable book written by a very human and extremely honest man (and his son) who has impeccable qualifications in research and a very simple message distilled from thousands of studies -that Western diseases are expressed through a Western diet. Heart disesase ,Cancer, Diabetes, autoimmune diseases like MS and a host of others are next to non-existent in parts of the world (except when they adopt a western diet), that genetics is only a few percent responsible and that for genetic markers to turn on requires the Western diet. Same for environmental chemicals; without the western diet they have a minor effect.
The enemy: high protein that is animal based (and the government food industry lobby)
The worst animal protein: dairy.
The answer: a whole food, plant based diet. Vegans can rejoice, and I am trying to join you.
I think your recommendation is quite relevant here, Sanctuary. I have recommended that book a few times in the past. I truly believe that people should give serious consideration to the points made in that book. Everytime I see on TV about someone passing away due to cancer, and I hear about others suffering from cancer, I cannot but wonder if those deaths could have been prevented and if those suffering today could get cured faster if only they would switch to a vegan diet. Actually, not just vegan, but preferably organic, as well. At least, to the extent possible. After all, these are small adjustments compared to the painful treatments when carried out over long periods of time. Those treatments can still be continued even after the switch to a vegan diet and it is my sincere belief that these people would see faster improvements in their condition.
I actually tried to contact some people with cancer to recommend this book. I once got a Chinese version of this book for a friend whose little daughter had some autoimmune disorder (some myelitis, forgot the exact term). During the treatment, they switched to a mostly vegan diet. Together with Chinese medicine (the mother actually went to China for about 6 months with the little girl) and a vegan diet, the girl recovered completely and is now in elementary school.
Thanks for your post, Alcyon. Yes, the implications are quite significant, ethically, environmentally, financially and globally for the health of people, the planet and the welfare of animals.
I have several anecdotal examples similar to yours and because this book is big picture and not some detail or particular component of nutrition and health or some fad the evidence is overwhelming.
I am reminded too of the cardiovascular health during WWII England, when meat was severely rationed and people made up the difference with home-grown vegetables. The rate of major illnesses went way down -they had never been fitter as someone put it. Other risk factors such as alcohol and smoking were probably much the same -and there is evidence of discounting these other environmental/lifestyle factors with the China study. China has 30% of the world population but smokes 40% of the world's cigarettes yet don't have the levels of lung cancer you'd expect. China is polluted too. It takes a high protein animal diet to fully express these major western diseases like cancer and heart disease and diabetes. Imagine being able to eradicate all Type II diabetes just with a vegan diet. Just imagine.
I forgot to mention that cardiovascular disease etc. went way up again in the 50's in England.
What does a person like me do who has an allergy to the protein in all vegetables?
It is a mild allergy but an allergy test proven one nevertheless.
Sanctuary, I know of people who are allergic to peanuts and I've heard of others allergic to soy. I do not know the range of vegetable protein you have access to in your location. But I would suggest you please look into various types of beans, lentils, chickpeas (even in chickpeas, there are varieties, and in North America, you can find at least two kinds in South Asian food stores), etc. If you have stores selling South Asian food or if you have South Asian stores (Indian, Pakistani), you may find a few different kinds of lentils (they are called "dhal" or "dal" - a generic term). But then you will have to find new recipes - not difficult, but maybe new for some - to go with rice or some kind of bread.
Although soy is more common in East Asia (Japan, Korea, China), it was not so common in South Asia until a few decades ago - almost non-existent. I have never heard of anyone being allergic to these other non-soy vegetable proteins. If you are somewhat adventurous enough to try vegan food from different regions of the world, you may find some recipes that may be practical for you to adopt.
I have one simple question for Ms Lappe: WITHOUT BIOTECHNOLOGY AND OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES, HAVE YOU CALCULATED HOW MANY MORE HUNGRY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THERE WOULD BE? 2 BILLION? 2.5 BILLION? TAKE A STAB AT THE MATH--LOGICALLY.
We need all forms of help in producing food. Organics, urban farming, vertical farming, smallholder development and technology-based sustainable commercial agriculture to just keep pace, much less reduce the number of hungry people to below 1 Billion.
Logically, it's not an "either"--"or"; its BOTH. Do the math and let's do all we can to feed starving people, including the 50 million hunger challenged here in the U.S.
Dear AJ Weber Jr.
Thank you for your concern for the 1 billion world wide that do not have enough food to eat. Our hearts are aligned in caring for this population both in the U.S. and abroad. As you bring up, there is currently a dialog about how to feed the growing population. There is a giant piece missing from that mainstream conversation, however, and that is a discussion of the massive amount of food we are currently wasting all over the world.
Nearly 50% of all the food produced in the United States is wasted each year. Meanwhile 49 million Americans are unsure where their next meal will come from. Wasted food is costing the US economy approximately $100-160 billion per year. Food waste squanders water, depletes soil, wastes fossil fuels and adds greatly to the world’s carbon footprint. When the resources used to grow, process, and transport are considered, 25% of freshwater use, 4% of oil use and 23% of all methane emissions in the United States are a result of wasted food.
The global economy remains in recession, population is rising rapidly and concerns about hunger and food security are increasing as climate change is already negatively impacting global agricultural production. An exploration of solutions that improve the efficiency of our food system is today more critical than ever. Making use of what we already produce will be an essential component of adequately feeding a global population that is approaching 7 billion. Our national food waste habit is an enormous opportunity. By trimming our waste and recovering food we can feed the hungry, create jobs, combat global warming and improve the ethicality of our society.
When discussing how to feed to world's growing population we must include USING WHAT WE ALREADY GROW in the conversation. We need systems, like the one I am working to create to recover otherwise wasted food and redistribute it in communities.
Thanks for raising this important issue.
Sincerely,
Dana M. Frasz
danafrasz@gmail.com
Oakland, CA
danafrasz, I had always known that food waste is something huge, but never knew how huge. Unbelievable! I have seen food wasted in university cafeterias, banquet halls and such, but I suppose your figures must include uncooked food and unprocessed stuff as well? In any case, thanks for this info. I always thought inability of the poor to afford food is the primary problem, and not so much as lack of enough food in the system as a whole. Now I must consider waste as well. Now I am even more convinced that providing adequate food for **all** is one problem that does **not** require hi-tech solutions, except maybe some technology in the form of storage facilities.
Everyone should view this life changing Gardening Movie...
http://www.backtoedenfilm.com/
Don't Keep It To Yourself... Pass It On! It is Time To Kill
Off Monsanto NOW!
This is a great summary of many positive things in farm and food movements today, and will contribute significantly to such discussions. It needs to be balanced out, at some point, with objective discussions of weaknesses and failures.
One huge shortcoming of this article is that she failed to address the positive steps that have recently been taken on the single largest farm policy problem in the United States. The United States is the global price leader for farm commodities, so these policies also have major global impacts.
Here's what's happened, (first on the positive side, in keeping with the spirit of the article). This very US progressive food movement has advocated in major ways against cheap farm prices, in direct solidarity with the historical farm justice (family farm) movement. They have called attention to the many problems associated with cheap corn and other commodities. Beyond that, another major positive is that this US food movement has directed attention retarding this at the US Farm Bill's Commodity Title. What that means, thirdly, is that there is a huge movement, larger than ever before, that is poised to advocate for a just farm bill. That is an incredible, unprecedented achievement.
Unfortunately, this issue cannot be adequately addressed without also mentioning some negatives. (I know this takes away from the spirit of the article, so I welcome any suggestions for other ways to frame it.) Here's the problem. Somewhere along the way, the food movement missed it's chance to root itself adequately in the farm justice movement (and historically, Frances Moore Lappe has been part of that failure). As a result, in criticizing the Commodity Title of the Farm Bill, the food movement has largely failed to understand, first, what is bad about those policies. They've seen all of the farm subsidy numbers, and understandably assumed that the presence of farm commodity subsidies is the major problem with recent policies and programs. In fact, however, the real problem is the absence of fair trade price floors (and supply reductions, as needed,) on the bottom side of price. That's what really causes cheap corn, cotton, wheat, rice, soybeans, etc. (As I prove 4 ways in "Michael Pollan Rebuttal." Farm prices don't self correct in free markets, so they've usually been low unless supported with adequate price floor, backed up by supply reduction programs (ie. in the U.S. and also in Europe). (We also need top side fair trade price ceilings, backed up with reserve supplies to protect consumers and other commodity buyers.)
This failure to accurately diagnose the policy/program problem behind cheap commodities and the problems they cause, therefore has led the food movement away from justice, and into weak and reverse policy positions. Usually we've seen only policy proposals for reducing, greening or eliminating the subsidies. Unfortunately, this does essentially nothing to stop cheap corn and etc. For example, during the Great Depression, prior to the nonsubsidy price floor programs, we had 7¢ corn here, and it wasn't caused by subsidies, as corn subsidies, for example, didn't come along until 1961, eight years after they started lowering (and later eliminating) New Deal price floors below the fair trade levels we still had in 1952. The same holds for the other commodities, with a couple of very small and very partial exceptions.
As a result, the Food Movement largely seeks to do the right thing in a major way, but, in reality, advocates for the kinds of zero price floor policies and programs that we had under Hooverism, and that have long been the primary concern of agribusiness buyers like Cargill and ADM, (the agribusiness output complex, and also the input complex, that wants no supply management, and also the CAFO complex (Tyson and Smithfield). The output complex and CAFO complex benefit by far more than the amount that farmers are compensated for the reductions and losses with subsidies (for corn, market value has gone down 6x more than compensatory subsidies paid back to farmers, and for wheat 5 x more).
This unknowing, unintended support for corporate agribusiness must be fixed immediately. Frances Moore Lappe missed a great opportunity to contribute to that effort.