Hall 1

Jamie Hall
CRD 20
Final Exam, Question #1
December 6, 2010

"Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate
domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the
extent to which they want to be self reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets; and to provide local
fisheries-based communities the priority in managing the use of and the rights to aquatic resources. Food sovereignty
does not negate trade, but rather, it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of
peoples to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production." -"Statement on Peoples' Food Sovereignty" by Via
Campesina, et al.

The term “sustainability” has many definitions but this paper will seek to

demonstrate that sustainability in the food system is a learning process rather than a goal

or perfected “end state”. To participate in sustainable cycles and processes we must learn

a way of existing in the world that facilitates the harmonious balance between social,

environmental, and economic issues while pursuing values and ideals that help to sustain

that state of being. Two large-scale proposals aimed at increasing sustainability in the

food system are food sovereignty and decentralization. Both of these proposals would

begin to solve the complicated global issues surrounding agricultural pollution, power

inequalities, meat consumption, genetic engineering and energetic inefficiencies in the

food system. Food sovereignty would accomplish this by defining sets of values that

govern structural change while decentralization would readjust governing bodies to local

levels allowing for specific and relevant policies to be made on the community level. In

order for these large-scale proposals to work, societal structure will have to change

fundamentally. Although these proposals cannot perfect the world we live in, they can

change the relationships we have to our bodies, environments, governments and

communities for the better, thereby facilitating a hopeful setting to rebalance what has

been destroyed by our industrialized, profit-seeking, capitalistic societies.

The term “food sovereignty” was coined through ”La Via Campesina” movement. La

Via Campesina translates to “The peasant way”, and the philosophy of the movement

includes “the right of nations and peoples to control their own food systems, including

their own markets, production modes, food cultures and environments” (Martinez-Torres,

Rosset) (Galt) As a pluralistic, autonomous movement that rose in response to the WTO

and FTAA, food sovereignty seeks to protect natural resources. By valuing healthy soils

and the reduced use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, this movement will

sustainably conserve land, water, seed and bio-diversity. This can be accomplished

through achieving freedom from restrictive markets and laws that perpetuate harmful

practices. (Galt) (Saragih) In order to attain freedom from restrictive markets and other

embedded norms involved in regulation, the problem of monopolized power structures in

concentration must be addressed. This means that decentralization will become key. “The

economic environment in which farmers work is increasingly established by agribusiness

retailers, not by farmers” (Levins) By removing control from the top and allowing for a

bottom-to-top flow of decision-making, communities can form governing bodies that

uphold specific, value based regulations with less influence from political and market

driven forces.

The food sovereignty movement can directly address power inequalities in society

through the understanding that the social control of markets must change. Also, more

importantly that food is a basic human right. “Food sovereignty is about an end to all

forms of violence against women” (Patel 2010:124) As well as an end of all forms of

violence, oppression and marginalization against indigenous peoples, poor people, ethnic

minorities or small farmers. (Galt) Through Agrarian reform policies, Food sovereignty
 Hall 3

seeks to empower people with access to food that is healthy and nourishing while giving

people fundamental land ownership and growing rights free of all forms of

discrimination. “They believe that low prices are the worst force that farmers face

everywhere in the world, and therefore that we need to effectively ban dumping, apply

anti-monopoly rules nationally and globally, effectively regulate overproduction in the

large agro-export countries, and eliminate the kinds of direct and in-direct, open and

hidden subsidies that enforce low prices and overproduction.” (Martinez-Torres, Rosset)

“Everyone has the right to honest, accurate information and open and democratic

decision-making.” (Saragih) These quotes exemplify the understanding that restructuring

society will be key. Decentralization can accomplish this, while also handing power back

to the people. By reconstructing systems of authority and redistributing control to the

level of the community, large corporations can no longer control food; it’s production,

distribution and disposal. Communities may have their own difficulties in power

inequalities, however the power structures that define what we eat will be removed and

our freedom to choose where our food comes from will be enforced. This can be

problematic, however, because of unforeseen structural issues. The question that remains

is, will local foods really be more free? (Dupuis)

Food Sovereignty also directly addresses the problems involved in the consumption

of meat. The industrialized meat industry is a system that is majorly responsible for

global warming. It is a system that exploits its workers, tortures animals in horrible

conditions, wastes energy, damages and pollutes our bodies and environments because of

its reliance on large amounts of petroleum, water and land. By focusing on protecting

natural resources, Food Sovereignty movement wouldn’t allow for the industrialized
 Hall 4

production of meat because it is entirely wasteful and is destroying our environment. By

focusing on safe, humane alternatives the consumption of meat would become a

respected luxury, rather than a cheap expectation. The conditions of labor forces would

change. It would allow for the local control of natural resources involved in the

production of meat, revitalizing economic issues on the community level.

Decentralization addresses problems in the meat industry as well. By taking power from

industrialized meat production companies and giving individuals and communities

control over their food consumption choices, the production and consumption of meat

will become a community decision based on specified ideals. This means that some

communities will choose to produce meat in ways that will put small farmers in control.

This can potentially be safer for the consumer because consuming meat safely in the

current industrial conditions is abysmal. (Schlosser) The question then is, who will

regulate?

Biodiversity, health and safety are important parts of food sovereignty. If we are to

be free of buying and growing seeds that are genetically modified, let alone eating

genetically modified foods, we will be growing the healthiest and best foods for our

environments and bodies. It is a fundamental right for us to be able to produce healthy

and safe food. Because Genetic Engineering is potentially damaging to our bodies and

environments, food sovereignty would change these practices by requiring labels on,

and/or banning genetically engineered foods. Decentralization will follow similar patterns

by forcing genetic engineering to be labeled and/or banned while lifting the “veil” off of

the genetically modified foods that are currently available on the market.
 Hall 5

By reorganizing food trade through the understanding that food must be practiced

through self-sufficiency and local production methods, the use of fossil fuels will be

conserved and monitored. By allowing communities to self-govern, with minimal

influence from the top, the energy crisis can be solved. Communities can prioritize local

food growth, transportation and self-sufficiency. This can create healthier soils and

environments, healthier bodies and minds. In the film “The power of community: how

Cuba survived peak oil”, Cuba is shown to have struggled through the crisis of

developing methods of living with 80% less oil than normal. The purpose of this film is

to show that Cuba solved some of the complicated problems involved in restructuring and

rethinking the need for fossil fuels. Through community development, organic farming

practices and necessary lifestyle changes that were more ecologically sound, Cuba

become self-sufficient. This is important because “peak oil” is a problem that the world

will face in the next hundred years. If we learn from what Cuba already went through,

perhaps we will be prepared to deal with the required alternative energies and developing

technologies beforehand so that we will not have a massive global crisis.

How can social movements effect billion dollar industries that have a strangle hold on

government policies that support and perpetuate damaging practices? How can these

paradoxical cycles be interrupted and changed? Individuals must claim agency in

defining social and moral values while assigning these values to movements geared

toward changing these systems. However, in order for individuals to create movements

that change systems, people must first understanding the power structures involved.

Ideally, by understanding these power structures, individuals can create social

movements that will influence policy changes that can help to decentralize the damaging
 Hall 6

powerful sectors responsible for these problems and corporations can be given financial

incentives to change. Through the decentralization of powerful industrial monopolies and

uniting people in community-based, analytical decision-making, we can begin to solve

these problems at a local level, effectively changing wasteful practices into more

sustainable processes.

These are complicated problems that cannot be solved by defining extreme

binaries and setting the course for oppositional states of existence. The important thing is

to try and understand all the pieces that fit together. Food Sovereignty and

decentralization must be viewed as a process just as sustainability must be viewed as a

process. We must ask ourselves what we have in common and how we can come together

to solve these huge problems. If these food movements have to do with being against the

exploitation of people and the environment, then being able to see the grand vision of our

ideals, of the ideal future and being able to implement analysis necessary to facilitate

change, will be our saving grace. In this way, community based action working for niche

solutions can have the ripple effects large enough to produce a global impact. This is how

we must move forward with such complicated problems. By having hope, leading and

living by example, we will change our world.