Emerging Issues of Justice in the Global Food SystemThere are many ways of carving up the issues posed by the transformation of agriculture. Ultimately, the assessment of whether any set of social and institutional arrangements that make up the global food system is a just - one that involves a fair distribution of benefits and burdens, risks and opportunities - is a matter of how the various components of that system of production and distribution operate in totality.
Nonetheless, the following are some of the distinct features that matter from seed to shelf: 1. industrialization - the large-scale creation of unevenly distributed negative externalities affecting water, soil, and climate; 2. market concentration - the entrenchment and magnification of asymmetries of economic and political power and the consequent loss of choice for other producers and consumers; 3. biotechnology - the further adverse effects on local environments, food sovereignty, and the self-determination of individuals, local communities, and lesser developed nations; 4. the profound and pervasive impact of domestic and international institutions and rules that shape the range of feasible decisions by individuals and corporations; 5. emerging features of global food supply chain bearing on environmental and economic sustainability, especially for the world's most disadvantaged, most vulnerable persons |
1. What makes industrial agriculture 'industrial' and what are the distributive implications of the industrial mode of production ?
One set of issues arises from the transformation of agriculture into an industrial system. Thus, a consideration of what makes the mode of production "industrial" is the first step in developing a critique or defense of what has emerged. There are both burdens and benefits - and risks and opportunities - associated with each aspect of industrialization. Justice issues then arise when thinking through how these are distributed.
For example, many modern agricultural techniques produce higher yields per acre than previous modes of production (though this is not to suggest that no other possible mode might not become superior still in this respect). But whatever benefits these changes have made possible is not an an outcome without negative consequences or winners and losers. The use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as various land use decisions, such as fence-row to-fence-row planting, create advantages for some producers and consumers while imposing negative externalities on others.
Examples of negative externalities are water degradation and decreases in water availability, severe and not readily reversible loss of useable soil, food insecurity that might result from over-dependence on monocultural agriculture, the longer-term risk of a dangerous loss of crop biodiversity, and of course, the contribution of agriculture to climate change. Some persons may gain (especially in the short-term) while others bear disproportionate burdens and risks.
For example, many modern agricultural techniques produce higher yields per acre than previous modes of production (though this is not to suggest that no other possible mode might not become superior still in this respect). But whatever benefits these changes have made possible is not an an outcome without negative consequences or winners and losers. The use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as various land use decisions, such as fence-row to-fence-row planting, create advantages for some producers and consumers while imposing negative externalities on others.
Examples of negative externalities are water degradation and decreases in water availability, severe and not readily reversible loss of useable soil, food insecurity that might result from over-dependence on monocultural agriculture, the longer-term risk of a dangerous loss of crop biodiversity, and of course, the contribution of agriculture to climate change. Some persons may gain (especially in the short-term) while others bear disproportionate burdens and risks.
2. What are the potential distributive consequences of market concentration?
A second set of issues arises out of the prospect of market concentration of economic power. The first point to make is that market concentration in agriculture would not have been as easily achieved or as economically attractive but for the development of technological basis for standardization and perceived economies of scale. But industrialization, even if it sets in motion the tendency toward greater market concentration, whatever concerns it brings to the fore, differs from the new concerns that come with the subsequent transformation of the marketplace.
Thus, it is useful to distinguish the primary concerns about the creation of so many negative externalities that arise from industrialization, in whatever market shape it takes, from the further distributive consequences that flow only from a fundamental alteration in agricultural markets. The primary new distributive consequence that occurs with the move away from a more decentralized system of buyers and sellers are sharper asymmetries of power and control over key decisions that affect both the public good and the private good of the more vulnerable participants in the overall food production and distribution system.
There are new distributive concerns arising from horizontal integration - for example, when the economic clout is concentrated in the hands of a few buyers of cattle, chicken, or pork, or corn - insofar as the buyers are then able to press their demands for standardized products (e..g, broilers) by retail-oriented producers of "final products" (i.e., packaged of prepared food products). Both the bargaining strength of farmers and their choices in deciding what and how to produce are reduced. Ultimately, consumer choices in the kind of products available to them are constrained as well.
The vertical integration of the food supply chain - encompassing more production sectors from seed to shelf- also means that control of the overall market is vested in a very few decision-makers. A few vertically integrated industries can overwhelm all other market competitors operating at every stage of the food supply chain. They can win out in the downstream competition for premier shelf space in retail settings, and they can dominate the most basic terms of interaction upstream by dictating initial farm production decisions, weakening other sellers' commodity price negotiation strength, and exerting political clout that gives them greater control over the regulation of environmental and health standards used in the production process.
Thus, it is useful to distinguish the primary concerns about the creation of so many negative externalities that arise from industrialization, in whatever market shape it takes, from the further distributive consequences that flow only from a fundamental alteration in agricultural markets. The primary new distributive consequence that occurs with the move away from a more decentralized system of buyers and sellers are sharper asymmetries of power and control over key decisions that affect both the public good and the private good of the more vulnerable participants in the overall food production and distribution system.
There are new distributive concerns arising from horizontal integration - for example, when the economic clout is concentrated in the hands of a few buyers of cattle, chicken, or pork, or corn - insofar as the buyers are then able to press their demands for standardized products (e..g, broilers) by retail-oriented producers of "final products" (i.e., packaged of prepared food products). Both the bargaining strength of farmers and their choices in deciding what and how to produce are reduced. Ultimately, consumer choices in the kind of products available to them are constrained as well.
The vertical integration of the food supply chain - encompassing more production sectors from seed to shelf- also means that control of the overall market is vested in a very few decision-makers. A few vertically integrated industries can overwhelm all other market competitors operating at every stage of the food supply chain. They can win out in the downstream competition for premier shelf space in retail settings, and they can dominate the most basic terms of interaction upstream by dictating initial farm production decisions, weakening other sellers' commodity price negotiation strength, and exerting political clout that gives them greater control over the regulation of environmental and health standards used in the production process.
3. What difference, if any, does the biotechnology revolution make to the justice of a food system?
click to read about the genes
It is difficult to say whether market concentration on the scale we are now seeing (and many are predicting) would have been economically viable, or even feasible, without the push given by the 'green revolution'. While the biotech revolution is bit a new phase in the industrialization of agriculture, there are consequences of a unique sort. It has transformed not only what is grown and where, but it has transformed the nature and scope of both positive and negative externalities, by adding both to yields and cheaper food for some people, and more environmental side-effects as well.
Biotech and the creation and legal protection accorded to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) also transformed the underlying incentive structure such that investment decisions are shaped by the new opportunity GMOs offer to capture more economic value at every stage of the production process. Biotech thus not only paved the path toward a higher level of industrialization, but through horizontal consolidation, it paved the path toward more monopolies (the asymmetric power of some sellers) in markets for some crops, and through accompanying vertical consolidation in many of the key stages of production, it facilitated the shift toward more monopsonies (the asymmetric power of large buyers).
All of these consequences stem, in part, from the shift to industrial agriculture and the shift toward market concentration. But we also need to understand the further distinguishable implications that attach to GMOs, in contrast to large scale monocultures and significant market concentrations, in order to assess what is new about adding biotech into the mix. The page on GMOs begins by attempting to isolate a number of separate lines of criticism and defense of GMOs in order that we might evaluate each line of argument in its own terms.
Biotech and the creation and legal protection accorded to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) also transformed the underlying incentive structure such that investment decisions are shaped by the new opportunity GMOs offer to capture more economic value at every stage of the production process. Biotech thus not only paved the path toward a higher level of industrialization, but through horizontal consolidation, it paved the path toward more monopolies (the asymmetric power of some sellers) in markets for some crops, and through accompanying vertical consolidation in many of the key stages of production, it facilitated the shift toward more monopsonies (the asymmetric power of large buyers).
All of these consequences stem, in part, from the shift to industrial agriculture and the shift toward market concentration. But we also need to understand the further distinguishable implications that attach to GMOs, in contrast to large scale monocultures and significant market concentrations, in order to assess what is new about adding biotech into the mix. The page on GMOs begins by attempting to isolate a number of separate lines of criticism and defense of GMOs in order that we might evaluate each line of argument in its own terms.
4. What are the potential sources of injustice in the domestic and international institutions and rules underpinning the global system of food production and distribution?
One criticism of the globalized, industrialized system of agriculture is that the rules are unfair. The complaints are various, and the sources of objection are as diverse as anti-capitalist and anti-globalist protesters in the streets adjacent to IMF meetings to advocates of free trade who see the current scheme of trade rules as a betrayal of free market ideals.
Some complaints are aimed at practices prominent in the recent history of IMF and World Bank conditionalities imposed on balance of payment lending and access to development grants and loans. In many instances, developing countries were required to open their markets to international investment and trade by eliminating local subsidies for agricultural products and eliminating tariffs on agricultural imports. But at the same time, domestic subsidies and tariffs imposed by developing nations remained in place. IMF advisors prodded developing nations to move away from subsistence agriculture and focus almost exclusively on one or two mass-scale export crops. In many cases, that shift made countries even more vulnerable to global commodities price shocks and currency fluctuations.
The creation of the WTO in 1995 was meant to remdy those in-practice defects of the scheme of global agricultural trade, but progress has been slow and new impediments to local food security, sovereignty over domestic food production, and the ability of nations to determine many aspects of food production, including what food is grown, with what methods, and with what health and environmental risks. Today, the rules of the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and those contemplated in the Doha Development Round leave in place a variety of production and export subsidies, food aid policies that penalize and create obstacles to domestic agricultural production within developing nations, and leave them with virtually none of the promised remedies contemplated by the creation of the WTO adjudication process.
In short, the complaints are against the rules, and in order to understand those complaints, you have to know something about what the rules require and permit, how they are interpreted, how they get implemented and adjudicated, and how they get imposed upon nations lacking high levels of political and economic clout.
Some complaints are aimed at practices prominent in the recent history of IMF and World Bank conditionalities imposed on balance of payment lending and access to development grants and loans. In many instances, developing countries were required to open their markets to international investment and trade by eliminating local subsidies for agricultural products and eliminating tariffs on agricultural imports. But at the same time, domestic subsidies and tariffs imposed by developing nations remained in place. IMF advisors prodded developing nations to move away from subsistence agriculture and focus almost exclusively on one or two mass-scale export crops. In many cases, that shift made countries even more vulnerable to global commodities price shocks and currency fluctuations.
The creation of the WTO in 1995 was meant to remdy those in-practice defects of the scheme of global agricultural trade, but progress has been slow and new impediments to local food security, sovereignty over domestic food production, and the ability of nations to determine many aspects of food production, including what food is grown, with what methods, and with what health and environmental risks. Today, the rules of the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and those contemplated in the Doha Development Round leave in place a variety of production and export subsidies, food aid policies that penalize and create obstacles to domestic agricultural production within developing nations, and leave them with virtually none of the promised remedies contemplated by the creation of the WTO adjudication process.
In short, the complaints are against the rules, and in order to understand those complaints, you have to know something about what the rules require and permit, how they are interpreted, how they get implemented and adjudicated, and how they get imposed upon nations lacking high levels of political and economic clout.
5. What other emerging features of the global food supply chain pose threats to environmental and economic sustainability, especially among the world's most vulnerable, most disadvantaged people?
click image for link
Many criticisms of the emerging global food production system go well beyond complaints about unfair rules. In addition, the objections include the undemocratic and largely irresistible exercise of economic and political dominance of developed nations that protect the perceived interests of their own consumers and agricultural producers at the great expense of the developing world as well as the power of some large multi-national corporations whose growing footprint has meant economic dislocation and environmental degradation for lesser developed nations. Not only are the rules unfair but so too is the overall global economic structure within which nations interact in the production of food and the distribution of benefits and burdens associated with that production.
The complaint is not always as much about global capitalism per se as it is about the framework within which profit-seeking behavior by the world's most powerful interests is unrestrained while the interests of some of the world's most vulnerable people are overridden because of their substantially weaker bargaining power.
The issues within this larger scheme of complaint include the environmentally destructive cultivation of non-native crops for cheap export to the developed world, the burdens of the WTO and internationally imposed intellectual property rules, the consequences of the global land grab and struggle for control and ownership of scarce resources such as water and rare earth materials, and the destruction of any glimmer of hope for the emergence of democratic institutions and the ability of lesser developed nations to maintain any reasonable measure of sovereignty over some of the most significant determinants of well-being and the environment.
There are a number of books and articles that articulate some of the major grievances and identify some of the most important grassroots organizations around the world who have coalesced under the banner of "food sovereignty" but one of the better introductions is Agriculture and Food in Crisis, edited by Fred Magdoff and Brian Tokar.
The complaint is not always as much about global capitalism per se as it is about the framework within which profit-seeking behavior by the world's most powerful interests is unrestrained while the interests of some of the world's most vulnerable people are overridden because of their substantially weaker bargaining power.
The issues within this larger scheme of complaint include the environmentally destructive cultivation of non-native crops for cheap export to the developed world, the burdens of the WTO and internationally imposed intellectual property rules, the consequences of the global land grab and struggle for control and ownership of scarce resources such as water and rare earth materials, and the destruction of any glimmer of hope for the emergence of democratic institutions and the ability of lesser developed nations to maintain any reasonable measure of sovereignty over some of the most significant determinants of well-being and the environment.
There are a number of books and articles that articulate some of the major grievances and identify some of the most important grassroots organizations around the world who have coalesced under the banner of "food sovereignty" but one of the better introductions is Agriculture and Food in Crisis, edited by Fred Magdoff and Brian Tokar.
Some Documentary Films On Emerging Issues of Food Policy
What Industrial Food Production Really Involves and its Consequences
FRESH (Joanes, 2009):
This documentary serves as a critical analysis of modern industrialized agriculture, particularly scrutinizing the monoculture system and the corresponding abuse of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The primary effects of these practices include global loss of biodiversity and mutation of pests and diseases, which increases the quantity and intensity of regional food insecurities. More optimistically, FRESH also follows some of the commercial and urban farmers, food retailers, and community activists who are working to improve the quality of our food by offering healthy, ethical alternatives for conscientious consumers. Several key points highlighted in the film are:
The official website offers a variety of ways to participate in the growing fresh food movement – petitions, events, job and volunteer opportunities, and more! You can sign up for the FRESH e-mail list in order to stay updated on the latest information and actions, or you can explore the website to see what interests you most. The website also includes educational resources for grades K-12 as well as for Christian, Jewish, and Interfaith groups.
This documentary serves as a critical analysis of modern industrialized agriculture, particularly scrutinizing the monoculture system and the corresponding abuse of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The primary effects of these practices include global loss of biodiversity and mutation of pests and diseases, which increases the quantity and intensity of regional food insecurities. More optimistically, FRESH also follows some of the commercial and urban farmers, food retailers, and community activists who are working to improve the quality of our food by offering healthy, ethical alternatives for conscientious consumers. Several key points highlighted in the film are:
- what exactly makes the industrial model of farming industrial, and the ways it differs in its environmental impact from farms that produce a number of products simultaneously and in an interactive manner
- the fact that 70% or US row crops are grown to feed herbivores while the remaining 30% goes to feed pigs, people, and poultry
- the limited markets farmers have for the sale of their crops, given the concentration of large-scale food producers
- the nature of the poultry industry, with the chicks, feed, and standard specifications of processes determined by long-term contractual arrangements with large poultry producers
- the vast difference in economic yield per acre for industrial farms (estimated at $150) and Joel Salatan's $3000
- the arguments for decentralization of agriculture: public health, national security, individual farm profitability, crop biodiversity, expanded consumer choice, environmental impacts of enhanced soil preservation and safer waste disposal
The official website offers a variety of ways to participate in the growing fresh food movement – petitions, events, job and volunteer opportunities, and more! You can sign up for the FRESH e-mail list in order to stay updated on the latest information and actions, or you can explore the website to see what interests you most. The website also includes educational resources for grades K-12 as well as for Christian, Jewish, and Interfaith groups.
Learn More About the Political and Social Consequences of Consolidation in Agribusiness
Food, Inc. (Kenner, 2008):
This landmark documentary explores the effects of the corporate consolidation of economic and political influence on the American agrifood system. Simply put, it is the story of the rise to power and contemporary consequences of Big Agribusiness. More broadly, Food, Inc. seeks to better inform the general public about the nature and origins of what we eat, as well as the legal, economic, and socio-political institutions that maintain the status-quo. With expert commentary from Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food), Eric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation), and Joel Salatin (farmer and owner of Polyface Farm in Swoope, VA), among others, the film aims to persuade its audience to try to change the food system in Congress as well by better informed decisions of individual consumers.
Even though the film ends on a positive, hopeful note, its central message is that agribusiness is not only a powerful global force in the marketplace, but that it owes much of its continuing social dominance to its political clout in federal and state government. The Farm Bill, periodically updated by Congress, essentially codifies the rules of the entire farm economy. Through influence on the Farm Bill, and on a host of other laws and agency regulations: it builds in subsidies; it ensures that food safety inspectors and inspections actually decline; it preempts legal restraints on the use of pesticide and other chemicals; it stalls action on farmworker safety regulation; and it fights against regulations that would bring "non-point source" feedlot wastes under the purview of federal water quality laws.
Whatever the accomplishments of agribusiness over the last 50 years they could not have done it without a little help from their friends. Make a note of some of the names of those who pass in and back through the "revolving door" of industry and government. Look them up online to see where they have been and where they are now. The same names apear in The Future of Food as well. And take note also of industry lobbying successes at the state level, where most states have passed "food libel laws."
Another key message is that market concentration translates into enormous economic power over farmers whose options for buying seeds and selling their products have shrunk, and over consumers, whose options have also diminished - almost invisibly - as the largest commercial purchasers determine what is produced and to what specification. The large purchasers include not only the handful of chicken and cattle packing and processing chains and the mega-retail grocery chains, but also the fast food industry. As one of the narrators says of one large chain, "even if you don't eat there, your choices are determined by their choices."
The official website is an excellent source for the latest news and photos about the American agrifood system, as well as lists of actions you can take and organizations you can support in order to be part of the solution.
This landmark documentary explores the effects of the corporate consolidation of economic and political influence on the American agrifood system. Simply put, it is the story of the rise to power and contemporary consequences of Big Agribusiness. More broadly, Food, Inc. seeks to better inform the general public about the nature and origins of what we eat, as well as the legal, economic, and socio-political institutions that maintain the status-quo. With expert commentary from Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food), Eric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation), and Joel Salatin (farmer and owner of Polyface Farm in Swoope, VA), among others, the film aims to persuade its audience to try to change the food system in Congress as well by better informed decisions of individual consumers.
Even though the film ends on a positive, hopeful note, its central message is that agribusiness is not only a powerful global force in the marketplace, but that it owes much of its continuing social dominance to its political clout in federal and state government. The Farm Bill, periodically updated by Congress, essentially codifies the rules of the entire farm economy. Through influence on the Farm Bill, and on a host of other laws and agency regulations: it builds in subsidies; it ensures that food safety inspectors and inspections actually decline; it preempts legal restraints on the use of pesticide and other chemicals; it stalls action on farmworker safety regulation; and it fights against regulations that would bring "non-point source" feedlot wastes under the purview of federal water quality laws.
Whatever the accomplishments of agribusiness over the last 50 years they could not have done it without a little help from their friends. Make a note of some of the names of those who pass in and back through the "revolving door" of industry and government. Look them up online to see where they have been and where they are now. The same names apear in The Future of Food as well. And take note also of industry lobbying successes at the state level, where most states have passed "food libel laws."
Another key message is that market concentration translates into enormous economic power over farmers whose options for buying seeds and selling their products have shrunk, and over consumers, whose options have also diminished - almost invisibly - as the largest commercial purchasers determine what is produced and to what specification. The large purchasers include not only the handful of chicken and cattle packing and processing chains and the mega-retail grocery chains, but also the fast food industry. As one of the narrators says of one large chain, "even if you don't eat there, your choices are determined by their choices."
The official website is an excellent source for the latest news and photos about the American agrifood system, as well as lists of actions you can take and organizations you can support in order to be part of the solution.
The Origins and Consequences of Industrial Agriculture, Seed Patenting, and Market Consolidation
The 2005 documentary, The Future of Food, occupies a special niche among the various food documentaries produced during the last decade. Its focus is on the linkage between the market proliferation of GMOs, leading to vertical consolidation in agriculture, which in turn, leads to loss of genetic diversity, and in turn the potential for increased food insecurity and diminished consumer choices.
The film begins by reminding viewers of historical instances of food crises precipitated by farming practices that relied upon a narrow genetic base for crop production and as a result, suffered when insects or disease decimated monocultures.
What then is the linkage between GMOs and loss of genetic diversity? The patenting of GMO crops and subsequent legal decisions has allowed owners of patented seeds to enforce their patents aggressively, in many jurisdictions, holding landowners legally liable for inadvertent (e.g., cross-pollination, wind-blown seeds) contamination of existing seed stocks. But why would large corporations act pursue such aggressive legal strategies when the economic value in each instance is often quite insubstantial. Some of the interviewees in the film speculate that the underlying business model is one designed to eliminate competition in the seed markt by forcing farmers to destroy their own, now contaminated seed stocks, and thus leave farmers with few market options but to buy their GMO seeds for staple crops.
The consequence then is increased market concentration in seeds. But the market concentration does not end there. Seed companies are now chemical/pharmaceutical companies that own seeds that are genetically modified to make them resistant to the herbicides and insecticides that the companies also own. In the case of Bt corn, for example, is registered for patent purposes as an insecticide. So in addition to horizontal consolidation of the seed market, the conglomerate industries control more of the inputs to farm production and this achieve vertical consolidation of more parts of the food supply chain. Market consolidation occurs as well at the other end of the food supply chain with fewer buyers controlling where farmers can sell and ultimately what they can plant, given the demands of fewer and fewer buyers for their products.
The film also provides a scientifically informed, but broadly accessible elementary discussion of the processes by which plants are genetically modified. They emphasize that these techniques are designed to modify a single gene in order to produce one trait - e.g., fungal resistance - but every gene modified affect other traits as well, which may not be known for years or may be adverse to human health or the environment. However, the film does not exploit fears but merely explains the scientific basis of theoretical risks.
The central message pertains to the role of GMOs as the economic gateway to market consolidation and the attendant risks to food security as genetic crop diversity is lost by patent-driven mechanisms for achieving market consolidation.
The film begins by reminding viewers of historical instances of food crises precipitated by farming practices that relied upon a narrow genetic base for crop production and as a result, suffered when insects or disease decimated monocultures.
What then is the linkage between GMOs and loss of genetic diversity? The patenting of GMO crops and subsequent legal decisions has allowed owners of patented seeds to enforce their patents aggressively, in many jurisdictions, holding landowners legally liable for inadvertent (e.g., cross-pollination, wind-blown seeds) contamination of existing seed stocks. But why would large corporations act pursue such aggressive legal strategies when the economic value in each instance is often quite insubstantial. Some of the interviewees in the film speculate that the underlying business model is one designed to eliminate competition in the seed markt by forcing farmers to destroy their own, now contaminated seed stocks, and thus leave farmers with few market options but to buy their GMO seeds for staple crops.
The consequence then is increased market concentration in seeds. But the market concentration does not end there. Seed companies are now chemical/pharmaceutical companies that own seeds that are genetically modified to make them resistant to the herbicides and insecticides that the companies also own. In the case of Bt corn, for example, is registered for patent purposes as an insecticide. So in addition to horizontal consolidation of the seed market, the conglomerate industries control more of the inputs to farm production and this achieve vertical consolidation of more parts of the food supply chain. Market consolidation occurs as well at the other end of the food supply chain with fewer buyers controlling where farmers can sell and ultimately what they can plant, given the demands of fewer and fewer buyers for their products.
The film also provides a scientifically informed, but broadly accessible elementary discussion of the processes by which plants are genetically modified. They emphasize that these techniques are designed to modify a single gene in order to produce one trait - e.g., fungal resistance - but every gene modified affect other traits as well, which may not be known for years or may be adverse to human health or the environment. However, the film does not exploit fears but merely explains the scientific basis of theoretical risks.
The central message pertains to the role of GMOs as the economic gateway to market consolidation and the attendant risks to food security as genetic crop diversity is lost by patent-driven mechanisms for achieving market consolidation.
The Environmental Consequence of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
River of Waste is a film about factory farming and its environmental impact. It is a vivid portrayal of the enormous impact that large poultry and hog farms have on the land, air, and water. The narrator - Don McCorkell, a former member of the US Congress from Oklahoma - asks the viewer to think of the challenge of waste disposal that these large facilities face in comparison to similar challenges that would be faced with large concentrations of human beings in comparable circumstances. US factory farms are responsible for 1.3 billion tons of sewage per year. That's 5 tons per person annually in the US, or more than 100 times the quantity of human waste produced by entire US population each year.
We have long ago learned the health hazards of not dealing effectively with human sewage, but we have not done a very good job with animal waste. By comparison, the EU regulations are much stricter. Concentration of animals, spreading of waste by-products and run-off into streams is carefully monitored and limited. Chemical additives to food in the US result in massive air pollution (ammonia) and water pollution (phosphates and arsenic).
The scale of the problem is put into perspective by the recognition that 95% of all US poultry is produced in CAFOs. (See similar discussions of how the poultry industry works and its scale of concentration in Poisoned Waters and Fresh).
The film points out that the American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on CAFOs, and that among the more serious health problems is the use of sub-therapeutic doses of essential human antibiotics in animals threatens both the inventory of medically effective drugs and contributes to drug resistance through bioaccumulation of these antibiotics in food products.
While problems are much worse in the US than in the EU or Japan, where regulation is far stricter, the practice is gaining currency in other regions of the world, including Viet Nam and Thailand, where an FAO report on their impact on the South China Sea reveals the same problems that the US has created for itself.
We have long ago learned the health hazards of not dealing effectively with human sewage, but we have not done a very good job with animal waste. By comparison, the EU regulations are much stricter. Concentration of animals, spreading of waste by-products and run-off into streams is carefully monitored and limited. Chemical additives to food in the US result in massive air pollution (ammonia) and water pollution (phosphates and arsenic).
The scale of the problem is put into perspective by the recognition that 95% of all US poultry is produced in CAFOs. (See similar discussions of how the poultry industry works and its scale of concentration in Poisoned Waters and Fresh).
The film points out that the American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on CAFOs, and that among the more serious health problems is the use of sub-therapeutic doses of essential human antibiotics in animals threatens both the inventory of medically effective drugs and contributes to drug resistance through bioaccumulation of these antibiotics in food products.
While problems are much worse in the US than in the EU or Japan, where regulation is far stricter, the practice is gaining currency in other regions of the world, including Viet Nam and Thailand, where an FAO report on their impact on the South China Sea reveals the same problems that the US has created for itself.
Our Daily Bread (Geyrhalter, 2005):
This German documentary seeks to capture the objective reality of the modern industrialized methods by which we produce our food. The majority of the film consists of imaginative shots that portray standard processes within the European agrifood industry, such as sowing seeds, applying pesticides, harvesting crops, inseminating livestock, milking livestock, slaughtering livestock, and processing meats. Many scenes contain only diegetic sound (i.e. sound whose source is visible on the screen), granting the film a sense of raw objectivity that one may not find in more overtly politicized food documentaries.
The filmmakers utilize the official website as a medium through which to better explain their collective vision, particularly through downloadable interviews with the director and editor.
The filmmakers utilize the official website as a medium through which to better explain their collective vision, particularly through downloadable interviews with the director and editor.
Economic and Environmental Consequences of the Global Food System
Austrian filmmaker Erwin Wagenhofer traces the origins of the food we eat. He describes his documentary, We Feed The World as "a film about food and globalisation, fishermen and farmers, long-distance lorry drivers and high-powered corporate executives, the flow of goods and cash flow–a film about scarcity amid plenty." The film offers an excellent portrayal of the global nature of the modern system of food production in which the benefits enjoyed by the affluent often come at the economic and environmental expense of others, quite often the most vulnerable members of the global poor.
In one example, he contrasts the stunning amount of food that is wasted daily in Austria’s second-largest city, Graz, with the fact that nearly a quater of the local population is at risk of starvation in the Latin American region where the soybeans used to feed Austria’s livestock are cultivated. Another example is the fact that every European eats ten kilograms a year of artificially irrigated greenhouse vegetables from southern Spain, with water shortages the result. You can view the entire film at topdocumentaryfilms.com.
In one example, he contrasts the stunning amount of food that is wasted daily in Austria’s second-largest city, Graz, with the fact that nearly a quater of the local population is at risk of starvation in the Latin American region where the soybeans used to feed Austria’s livestock are cultivated. Another example is the fact that every European eats ten kilograms a year of artificially irrigated greenhouse vegetables from southern Spain, with water shortages the result. You can view the entire film at topdocumentaryfilms.com.
Super Size Me (Spurlock, 2004):
Morgan Spurlock writes, directs, and stars in this thought-provoking documentary about the concealed costs of a fast food diet: our physical and mental health. Inspired by rising obesity levels and the corresponding media coverage (especially of fast food-related court cases), Spurlock designed a radical experiment wherein he consumed only food from McDonald’s restaurants for 30 days. Although the consequences are not always surprising, watching Spurlock’s steady decline will scare most viewers away from the drive-through and into the gym.
The film is available for free streaming here. Fast Food Nation (Linklater, 2006):
This dramatic film, based loosely on the non-fiction investigative book of the same name, seeks to capture the gritty reality of the fast food industry as it shapes and shakes the lives of several otherwise disconnected Americans. The players range from fast food corporate executives and part-time cashiers to cattle ranchers and political activists. The problems range from fast food beef contamination and injuries in the workplace to finding work as an illegal immigrant. The real world solutions are for the audience to decide.
In this promotional interview, director and co-writer Richard Linklater seeks to contextualize the film within our fast food culture as not only a portrait of the real threats we face, but also, more importantly, as a call to action.
|
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO):
FAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations whose mandate is, “to raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy.” As a major international institution, FAO has access to leading experts and cutting-edge information that make it one of the best resources for global statistics as well as for regional and country-specific news. Among the issues that FAO regularly addresses are food security, food safety, nutrition, farming practices, fisheries and aquaculture, natural resources, and animal production and health.
Perhaps most importantly, FAO produces several flagship publications that explore more nuanced issues in greater detail, such as food insecurity, food and agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, and land and water resources.
Perhaps most importantly, FAO produces several flagship publications that explore more nuanced issues in greater detail, such as food insecurity, food and agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, and land and water resources.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD):
IFAD is a specialized agency of the United Nations that was established as an international financial institution (IFI) in 1977 as one of the major outcomes of the World Food Conference three years earlier. Under its basic objectives, IFAD states that it will work towards realizing better access, skills, and organization for poor rural people with respect to natural resources, improved agricultural technologies, effective production services, opportunities for rural off-farm employment, a broad range of financial services, transparent and competitive markets, and local and national policy and programming processes. The methodologies utilized to realize these objectives are best detailed in the IFAD Strategic Framework paper for 2011-2015.
IFAD produces many other quality publications, the most important of which is the annual report. If you are looking for information on a specific issue, the IFAD website also offers an index on today. most pressing topics. In addition, the website highlights a variety of stories from the field along with the latest news from around the world.
IFAD produces many other quality publications, the most important of which is the annual report. If you are looking for information on a specific issue, the IFAD website also offers an index on today. most pressing topics. In addition, the website highlights a variety of stories from the field along with the latest news from around the world.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR):
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a global partnership of 15 Research Centers "dedicated to reducing rural poverty, increasing food security, improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring more sustainable management of natural resources." The CGIAR Principles serve as the basic foundation for the organization's Strategy and Results Framework, which details its new structure, objectives, and methodologies for the 21st Century. CGIAR Fund, a multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank and governed by the Fund Council, finances all CGIAR operations.
CGIAR produces some of the world's finest publications on food and agriculture, all of which are available through the CGIAR Library. This collection is extensive, so first-time users may want to begin with CGIAR Annual Reports along with publications about the new face of CGIAR. Likewise, the CGIAR website is one of the best resources for new research and related news from around the globe.
CGIAR produces some of the world's finest publications on food and agriculture, all of which are available through the CGIAR Library. This collection is extensive, so first-time users may want to begin with CGIAR Annual Reports along with publications about the new face of CGIAR. Likewise, the CGIAR website is one of the best resources for new research and related news from around the globe.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI):
IFPRI has been one of the preeminent international agricultural research centers for almost four decades. The organization conducts research on food and agricultural policies throughout the developing world, with a particular focus on the role of new agricultural technologies in the pursuit of sustainable development. It is funded primarily by CGIAR.
As a research institute, IFPRI produces some of the finest publications on a variety of topics related to food and agriculture, all of which are available for free to the public. Likewise, the IFPRI website hosts other resources that may be of use to those conducting research, as well as to those who simply want to learn more about these hot-button issues.
The IFPRI website is also a great source for the latest news on food and agriculture issues around the world. Here, you can also find a list of the corresponding events that IFPRI hosts and promotes in order to help realize its broader mission.
As a research institute, IFPRI produces some of the finest publications on a variety of topics related to food and agriculture, all of which are available for free to the public. Likewise, the IFPRI website hosts other resources that may be of use to those conducting research, as well as to those who simply want to learn more about these hot-button issues.
The IFPRI website is also a great source for the latest news on food and agriculture issues around the world. Here, you can also find a list of the corresponding events that IFPRI hosts and promotes in order to help realize its broader mission.
Food and Water Watch:
Food and Water Watch is a non-government organization (NGO) that branched off from Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer rights advocacy group, in 2005 to "ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainably produced." Food and Water Watch constantly rotates its nationwide campaigns to maintain focus on the most pressing issues of the day. It is renowned for utilizing grassroots organizing in the form of events, petitions, social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Flickr), and a comprehensive e-mail list.
For more information, check out the official website's List of Issues, Blog Posts, or News Updates. Additionally, Food and Water Watch has recently expanded its YouTube Channel to cover a variety of current issues and related events.
For more information, check out the official website's List of Issues, Blog Posts, or News Updates. Additionally, Food and Water Watch has recently expanded its YouTube Channel to cover a variety of current issues and related events.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
click image to visit the website
This 40 year old Washington institution has been through some of the most important fights over the safety and nutritional value of what we eat. Check out their list of accomplishments.
But more importantly, consider their mission to provide objective information to the public and policymakers on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues related to science and technology; and to advocate for the public interest before regulatory, judicial and legislative bodies.
You can download a copy of the book, Six Arguments for a Greener Diet here. Two arguments of particular note are arguments for better soil and more and cleaner water..
But more importantly, consider their mission to provide objective information to the public and policymakers on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues related to science and technology; and to advocate for the public interest before regulatory, judicial and legislative bodies.
You can download a copy of the book, Six Arguments for a Greener Diet here. Two arguments of particular note are arguments for better soil and more and cleaner water..
Future Agricultures Consortium:
Future Agricultures Consortium (FAC) is an alliance of researchers and practitioners involved in African agriculture whose mission is, "to encourage dialogue and the sharing of good practice by policy makers and opinion formers in Africa on the role of agriculture in broad based growth." Their research treats a variety of themes ranging from land and climate change to gender issues and, perhaps most interestingly, the role of Brazil and China across the continent. FAC then uses this research to regularly produce cutting-edge publications that include policy briefs, working papers, discussion papers, and more.
The FAC website also offers several fantastic opportunities for you to get involved, including commenting on its blog, single-topic e-debates, and regional events. Additionally, young researchers who have completed their degree in an appropriate development-related field may want to apply for FAC's new Early Career Fellowship Programme.
The FAC website also offers several fantastic opportunities for you to get involved, including commenting on its blog, single-topic e-debates, and regional events. Additionally, young researchers who have completed their degree in an appropriate development-related field may want to apply for FAC's new Early Career Fellowship Programme.
Environmental Working Group
Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a non-profit organization devoted to research and advocacy in the fields of agriculture, natural resources, energy, and toxic chemicals. It is one of the finest resources for information and news about subsidies, especially for farm subsidies and, to a lesser extent, water and fishing subsidies. The remainder of EWG's agriculture branch is devoted to biofuels, land conservation, and food and water issues.
EWG is also a great source for health tips that cover a range of safety issues including drinking water, pesticides in food, sunscreen, pet care, and baby feeding. In addition, EWG's Action Center provides an outlet for users to get involved in the organization's regular rotation of policy campaigns.
The issue of farm subsidies that EWG highlights has been the subject of debate among other environmental groups interested in farming issues. Wenonah Hauter of Food and Water Watch, for example, argues that the USDA database relied upon by EWG presents a misleading picture of patterns of farm ownership in the US and a skewed perspective on the farm subsidy issue. The USDA estimates that there are 2.1 million farmers in the US, but Hauter argues that the number is grossly inflated. The figure includes 1.4 million farms where farming is not the primary source of income. These include retirement and lifestyle farms. For the bulk of mid-size farms grossing between $100,000 and $250,000 the average net farm income was only $19,270 in 2009. That strikingly low figure includes government payments.
EWG is also a great source for health tips that cover a range of safety issues including drinking water, pesticides in food, sunscreen, pet care, and baby feeding. In addition, EWG's Action Center provides an outlet for users to get involved in the organization's regular rotation of policy campaigns.
The issue of farm subsidies that EWG highlights has been the subject of debate among other environmental groups interested in farming issues. Wenonah Hauter of Food and Water Watch, for example, argues that the USDA database relied upon by EWG presents a misleading picture of patterns of farm ownership in the US and a skewed perspective on the farm subsidy issue. The USDA estimates that there are 2.1 million farmers in the US, but Hauter argues that the number is grossly inflated. The figure includes 1.4 million farms where farming is not the primary source of income. These include retirement and lifestyle farms. For the bulk of mid-size farms grossing between $100,000 and $250,000 the average net farm income was only $19,270 in 2009. That strikingly low figure includes government payments.
Center for Food Safety
click image to vist the website
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is another Washington-based non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy membership organization. It was established in 1997 for the purpose of challenging what it takes to be harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable alternatives. CFS strategies include litigation and participation in legal rulemaking, as well as legal support for various sustainable agriculture and food safety constituencies.Their presence and overall point of view is well-reflected in the documentary, The Future of Food.
Here is the CFS position (from their website) on GMO foods:
"CFS seeks to halt the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment. CFS maintains that any foods that already contain genetically engineered ingredients must be clearly labeled. Additionally, CFS advocates the containment and reduction of existing genetically engineered crops."
For an extended look at the Center Director's perspective on industrial agriculture and its impact on biodiversity, see the book by Andrew Kimbrell, Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture.
Here is the CFS position (from their website) on GMO foods:
"CFS seeks to halt the approval, commercialization or release of any new genetically engineered crops until they have been thoroughly tested and found safe for human health and the environment. CFS maintains that any foods that already contain genetically engineered ingredients must be clearly labeled. Additionally, CFS advocates the containment and reduction of existing genetically engineered crops."
For an extended look at the Center Director's perspective on industrial agriculture and its impact on biodiversity, see the book by Andrew Kimbrell, Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture.
In Recent News:
Rising Food Prices in July, 2012 - and More to Follow
In an unconventional move that drives home the gravity of the situation, the FAO published its Food Price Index for the month of July to better explain how and why most food prices increased for that month. The entire index increased by 6% from the previous month, following three months of steady decline. Since the Index seeks to measure a basket of food commodities that includes a range of products, the category-specific breakdown is particularly important to understand.
As this BBC article notes, huge increases in cereal and sugar prices, due mainly to recent droughts in the United States and other staple producers, served as the primary catalysts behind the price spikes. On the other hand, meat prices have continued to decrease, especially with respect to pork products. While the current situation is far from the severity of the 2007-08 crisis, (see FAO chart on the right) the FAO has echoed others, including the World Bank, in predicting an overall upward trend to persist over the next 30 years. Although this is not good news for consumers anywhere, the global poor are hit especially hard inasmuch as they pay a far larger proportion of their income for food than more affluent consumers.
In response to these current crises, over 18 million people in Sahel, West Africa have experienced a major food crisis. Oxfam has established a campaign to combat these tragic developments head-on.
Who are the winners and losers when global food prices spike? Rising crop prices benefit mostly large agribusiness corporations and commodity traders. A few medium-sized growers of specific staple crops may from time to time be net gainers, but for the most part, small farm producers in lesser developed nations find their profits squeezed by far higher prices for seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, while at the same time, they are consumers of staple food crops that they do not produce and have to purchase on the global market at highly inflated prices.
As this BBC article notes, huge increases in cereal and sugar prices, due mainly to recent droughts in the United States and other staple producers, served as the primary catalysts behind the price spikes. On the other hand, meat prices have continued to decrease, especially with respect to pork products. While the current situation is far from the severity of the 2007-08 crisis, (see FAO chart on the right) the FAO has echoed others, including the World Bank, in predicting an overall upward trend to persist over the next 30 years. Although this is not good news for consumers anywhere, the global poor are hit especially hard inasmuch as they pay a far larger proportion of their income for food than more affluent consumers.
In response to these current crises, over 18 million people in Sahel, West Africa have experienced a major food crisis. Oxfam has established a campaign to combat these tragic developments head-on.
Who are the winners and losers when global food prices spike? Rising crop prices benefit mostly large agribusiness corporations and commodity traders. A few medium-sized growers of specific staple crops may from time to time be net gainers, but for the most part, small farm producers in lesser developed nations find their profits squeezed by far higher prices for seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, while at the same time, they are consumers of staple food crops that they do not produce and have to purchase on the global market at highly inflated prices.