Currently browsing posts about: Food-systems

Yesterday, I posted information about the forthcoming UN Summit on Food Systems (UNFSS) and its Pre-Summit.  The Summit has been heavily criticized on the grounds that it:

• Sets agenda themes determined by corporate entities such as The World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation.
• Favors corporate technological solutions to food system problems.
• Ignores agroecology, organic farming, and indigenous knowledge.
• Excludes meaningful representation from people most affected by food system transformation.
• Promotes corporate control of food systems.
• Ignores the conflicted interests of its organizers.
• Is fundamentally undemocratic.

These criticisms are so severe that The Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism for Relations with the UN (CSM) is organizing counter events July 25 to July 27.

• Download and share this call to action
• Learn more about CSM’s position as regards the UN Food Systems Summit

Much has been written to document such concerns.

Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism, North America: UN Food System Summit “Dialogue” events spark renewed concerns of corporate capture in North American food system and rural economies globally

In March 2020, 550 civil society organizations sent an open letter to the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General condemning the involvement of the World Economic Forum in the UNFSS, the appointment of Ms. Agnes Kalibata as UNFSS Special Envoy due to her links to corporate agribusiness, the failure of the UNFSS to elevate the primacy and indivisibility of human rights frameworks as foundational to the governance of food systems, and the necessity of civil society organizations to have an autonomous, self-organized, and equal ‘seat at the table.’ These concerns have not been addressed despite numerous CSM interactions with UNFSS organizers.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES): An IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] for Food?”  How the UN Food Systems Summit is being used to advance a problematic new science-policy agenda.

Behind what sounds like a technocratic question is in fact a high-stakes battle over different visions of what constitutes legitimate science and relevant knowledge for food systems. This, in turn, is part of a broader battle over what food systems should look like and who should govern them.

Matthew Canfield, Molly D. Anderson and Philip McMichael.  UN Food Systems Summit 2021: Dismantling Democracy and Resetting Corporate Control of Food Systems.  Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 13 April 2021. [Note: this paper has an especially useful historical account of attempts to establish global food system governance]

Although few people will dispute that global food systems need transformation, it has become clear that the Summit is instead an effort by a powerful alliance of multinational corporations, philanthropies, and export-oriented countries to subvert multilateral institutions of food governance and capture the global narrative of “food systems transformation”…It elaborates how the current structure and forms of participant recruitment and public engagement lack basic transparency and accountability, fail to address significant conflicts of interest, and ignore human rights.

Independent scientists:  Open letter to policy makers: No new science-policy interface for food systems.

We call on governments and policymakers to…Support participatory processes that actively and meaningfully include plural perspectives and voices in food system governance. Farmers and other citizens need inclusive, participatory, and safe spaces within the CFS-HLPE process to co-create the knowledge necessary to govern food systems at global, national and local levels.

Maywa Montenegro, Matthew Canfield, and Alastair Iles.  Weaponizing Science in Global Food Policy.

Nobody disputes the need for urgent action to transform the food system. But the UNFSS has been criticized by human rights experts for its top-down and non-transparent organization. Indigenous peoples, peasants, and civil society groups around the world know their hard-won rights are under attack. Many are protesting the summit’s legitimacy and organizing counter-mobilizations.

Scientists are also contesting a summit because of its selective embrace of science, as seen in a boycott letter signed by nearly 300 academics, from Brazil to Italy to Japan.

Through the Summit, “science” has been weaponized by powerful actors not only to promote a technology-driven approach to food systems, but also to fragment global food security governance and create institutions more amenable to the demands of agribusiness.

Scientists: An open letter from scientists calling for a boycott of the 2021 Food Systems Summit.

Some critics of the UNFSS have suggested ways that the process could become less problematic: (1) it could incorporate a human rights framing into all of its “action tracks”; (2) it could create an action track led by the CSM on the corporate capture of food systems; and (3) it could designate the UN Committee on World Food Security as the institutional home to implement recommendations coming out of the summit.

Nisbett N, et al.  Equity and expertise in the UN Food Systems Summit.  BMJ Global Health. 2021;6:e006569.

…time is not late to take action in rebalancing powers and enabling a greater diversity of knowledge, not simply among a multiplicity of voices in multiple public forums, but explicitly engaged at the summit’s top table of expertise and summit leadership. It is also not late to adopt mechanisms that limit the engagement of those actors whose primary interests have driven our food systems to
become unhealthy, unsustainable and inequitable, so the voices of the people can be clearly heard..

An alternative: The Global People’s Summit on Food Systems

The People’s Summit is composed primarily of movements of landless peasants, agricultural workers, fisherfolk, indigenous people, rural women, and youth—or small food producers who produce 70% of the world’s food, yet remain among the world’s poorest and food insecure.  “The issue of landlessness and land grabbing is not on the agenda of the UNFSS.  Nowhere in its so-called Action Tracks do discussions highlight critical trends such as on land concentration and reconcentration in the hands of big agribusiness firms and their network of local landlords and compradors, nor on the massive displacement of rural communities to give way to big private investments and large development projects,” said Chennaiah Poguri, chairperson of the Asian Peasant Coalition (APC).

Additions

• Video explaining “multistakeholderism”
• Links (ongoing) to papers on the UN Food System Summit

A notice to journalists reminds me that it’s time to talk about the UN Summit on Food Systems, scheduled for September.  The notice is about the forthcoming Pre-Summit in Rome:

WHEN: The Pre-Summit will take place from Monday, July 26 to Wednesday, July 28.

The tentative programme is available online and virtual media briefings will take place daily. To be able to attend, journalists can register for accreditation here.

WHERE: The Food Systems Pre-Summit is being held in Rome under the leadership of the UN Secretary-General and in partnership with the Government of Italy. A series of affiliated events will take place alongside the Pre-Summit.

WHO: A few of the high-level speakers and delegates expected to participate include:

• Mario Draghi, Prime Minister of Italy
• Katrin Jakobsdottir, Prime Minister of Iceland
• António Guterres, UN Secretary-General
• Amina Mohammed, UN Deputy Secretary-General
• Agnes Kalibata, UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the 2021 Food Systems Summit
• María Juliana Ruiz, First Lady of Colombia

WHY: Ahead of the UN Food Systems Summit, which will take place in September 2021 in New York, the three-day gathering aims to deliver the latest evidence-based and scientific approaches from around the world, launch a set of new commitments through coalitions of action and mobilize new financing and partnerships.

The event will bring together youth, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, civil society, researchers, the private sector, policy leaders and ministers of agriculture, environment, health, nutrition and finance, among other players. More than 70 ministers and commissioners of Member States and the EU are confirmed to participate.

Previous UN press releases explain the preparation for the Pre-Summit and the Summit itself.

January 27: The five action tracks

• Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all
• Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns
• Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production
• Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods
• Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress

April 26: More than 100 countries sign on to develop ways to transform food systems to meet the Sustainable Development Goals.

June 9: the UN announces the results of more than 100 Independent Dialogues on food system transformation.

Independent Dialogues, convened by any interested group on any topic, are one of three main components of the Summit Dialogues along with government-led Member State Dialogues and thematic Global Dialogues. More than 10,000 people took part in the independent sessions that submitted feedback to the Summit by the end of May. Among the 10 common themes that emerged in a new synthesis report published today were diversity, equity, transparency, the need to shift perspectives, and the need to adapt solutions to local contexts.

June 25: the UN announces solutions to problems of food system transformation:

The solutions, published on the online Summit Community, are an extensive menu of possible actions expected to support Member States as they work through national pathways for food systems transformation…The solutions were refined from more than 2,000 ideas proposed during 18 months of dialogues, surveys and open fora with Indigenous Peoples, youth, producers, researchers, NGOs and governments, and represent key areas to address some of the world’s most pressing issues, from hunger and poverty to climate change. Among the game-changing solutions are initiatives to reimagine school meals programmes as well as proposals to include the cost of a healthy diet when calculating poverty lines.

The UN has also issued position papers defining:

• Food Systems
• Healthy Diets

And it has an FAQ on the Summit.

All of this sounds thrilling, useful, and much needed, but is it?  What’s really going on here?

Tomorrow: The critique—Corporate control of the Summit agenda.

As I mentioned yesterday, everyone seems to be doing reports on food systems—a deluge.  Here are the most recent ones I’ve collected.

Food and Water Watch: Well-Fed:  A Roadmap To A Sustainable Food System That Works For All

The report outlines the alarming degree of corporate consolidation in the food industry and its impact on consumers and small farms. For example:

• 83 percent of all beef is produced by just four processing companies;
• 65 percent of consumer grocery market share is held by just four retailers; and
• 67 percent of crop seed market share is held by just four corporations.

Global Alliance for the Future of Food: Beacons of Hope: Stories of Food Systems Transformation During COVID-19

Building on a program of work launched in 2019 — “Beacons of Hope: Stories of
Transformation” — this short report shares stories of food systems initiatives and the
people who responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with creativity, adaptability, and resilience.

Global Alliance for the Future of Food:  How to Transform Food Systems: 7 Calls to Action

The Global Alliance advocates for increased systems-based research into the future of food and positive food environments that are adapted to meet regional conditions and cultural contexts. We also call for transformed governance and decision-making, with additional investment and support for agroecology and regenerative approaches, and excluding harmful subsidies and incentives.

World Resources Institute: Food Systems at Risk: Transformative Adaptation for Long-Term Food Security

Food security, people, climate. These three words are inextricably linked; changes to one will inevitably affect the others. As climate change threatens food-producing regions, what changes are needed to feed a growing population? How can we shift food systems to better adapt to the changing climate? More explicitly, how can policymakers help hundreds of millions of small-scale agricultural producers to enhance food security and improve livelihoods despite the challenges that climate change brings?

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development): Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2021: Addressing the Challenges Facing Food Systems

Food systems is the hot new term, referring as it does to everything that happens to a food from production to processing to consumption to waste.  Reports about food systems constitute a deluge.  This one deserves special mention.  Others follow tomorrow.

FAO announces a new report on indigenous people’s food systems:

Nearly 500 million people in more than 90 countries self-identify as Indigenous Peoples, with unique traditional knowledge offering rich opportunities for food security and biosecurity preservation.  Eight Indigenous Peoples’ food systems are examined in depth and revealed to be among the most sustainable in the world in terms of efficiency, no waste, seasonality and reciprocity.

The 420-page (!) report is here.

It is enormously detailed about foods, climate, geography, sustainability, resilience, and needs of the people in each community studied.

The eight groups studied:

• Forest-based Baka of South-eastern Cameroon
• Reindeer herding Inari Sámi of Nellin, Finland
• Fishing and gathering Khasi of Meghalaya, India
• Fishing and agroforestry Melanesians of Solomon Islands
• Pastoralist Kel Tamasheq of Aratène Mali
• Agro-pastoralist and gathering Bhotia and Anwal of Uttarakhand, India
• Fishing, chagra, and forest Tikuna, Cocama, and Yagua of Puerto Nariño, Colombia
• Milpa practicing Maya Ch’orti’ of Ciquimula, Guatemala

For each group, the report gives detailed information about food sources, production methods, sustainability, resiliency, problems, and issues.

And example from the Baka:

This is an astonishing resource and FAO deserves much praise for doing a deeply scholarly report like this.

The Rockefeller Foundation has produced what I view as an incredibly important guide to describing—“framing”—food system issues in ways that will encourage support for transforming the U.S. food system.

For effective advocacy, issues have to be “framed” in a way that the public can understand and respond to.

“Framing” is a concept made famous by George Lakoff.  It refers to the way political messages are designed to resonate with voters.  But it also refers to how public health messages can be designed to be more effective in encouraging people to act in the interests of their own health (wear masks, for example).

For food system change, the Rockefeller Foundation issued an action guide:  Reset the Table: Messaging Guide,

One of the consistent needs expressed by those seeking to transform the food system is a shared narrative to motivate and sustain the needed changes in the system. This narrative and messaging guide focuses on the long-term food system transformation while responding to the evolving circumstances presented by the pandemic, economic downturn, and racial justice reckoning being experienced in the United States.

Its guide is part of a longer report giving the research basis behind the messages: Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System.

Here is an example of how this kind of research-based framing works:

And here is an example of the messaging in action:

These are great suggestions for ways to talk about food issues.

Required reading!

New York City is taking big steps to improve its food system.   Two reports are worth noting, one from the Mayor’s office and one from the Health Department.

I.  Mayor Bill de Blasio and Kate MacKenzie, Director of the Mayor’s Office of Food Policy (MOFP) have released Food Forward NYC: A 10-Year Food Policy Plan.

Here’s how they introduce this impressive report:

Food Forward NYC is the City’s first ever 10-year food policy plan, laying out an comprehensive policy framework to reach a more equitable, sustainable, and healthy food system by 2031.

Food Forward NYC emphasizes the importance of equity and choice – enabling a food system where everyone should be able to access the food they want wherever they may want it. To enable this choice, we need to support both our food workers and our food businesses. To strengthen the sustainability and resiliency of our food system, we need to rethink our food infrastructure and deepen our connections with the region.

Food Forward NYC is organized around five overarching goals:

1. All New Yorkers have multiple ways to access healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food.
2. New York City’s food economy drives economic opportunity and provides good jobs.
3. The supply chains that feed New York City are modern, efficient, and resilient.
4. New York City’s food is produced, distributed, and disposed of sustainably.
5. Support the systems and knowledge to implement the 10-year food policy plan.

The full report is here.  It was prepared in response to Local Law 40 of 2020 and recommendations from the New York City Council’s 2019 report, Growing Food Equity in New York City.  

New York City is a complicated place and it’s wonderful to have all this information put together in such a coherent way.  Let’s hope everyone gets behind this and puts the recommendations into action.

II.  The Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention at the NYC Health Department has an update on its  National Salt and Sugar Reduction Initiative (NSSRI).

In October 2018, the Bureau announced draft sugar reduction targets.  Now they have updated them and added targets for salt reduction, as well.  As I was informed in an e-mail,

The NSSRI is a partnership of over 100 local city and state health departments, associations, and health organizations, convened by the NYC Department of Health. We have set voluntary sugar reduction targets for 15 categories of food and beverages. The targets represent a 10% reduction in sugar content of products by 2023, and a 20% reduction by 2026 for food with a 40% reduction for beverages.

The current public health landscape demonstrates that diet remains critical, even during a public health emergency like COVID-19. Diet-related health conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, which can increase the risk of severe illness from COVID-19, are important to address right now.

Here’s what one of the sugar reduction targets looks like:

The objective of NSSRI is this:

To promote gradual, achievable and meaningful reductions in sugar content in packaged foods and beverages. This is because intake of added sugars is associated with increased risk of excess weight, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease and cavities.

The targets are indeed gradual; the hope it that they will be met by 2026.

The targets are, of course, voluntary.  The best NSSRI can do is to encourage companies to comply and hold them accountable.

It’s a start.

Nick Freudenberg.  At What Cost: Modern Capitalism and the Future of Health.  Oxford University Press, 2021.   

I did a blurb for this terrific book:

At What Cost is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand why food insecurity, low-wage work, chronic disease, and environmental degradation are such widespread and seemingly intractable problems.  Capitalism may not be their only cause, but it is common to all of them.  This important book provides compelling evidence for the need to join together to change this system to one better for people and the planet.

Here are a few excerpts to give you the idea:

…how capitalism has evolved now undermines health, widens inequality, worsens climate change, and erodes democracy.  Food, education, healthcare, labor, transportation, and social relationships constitute the most basic necessities of life.  Converting them into commodities that must bring profits to their producers if they are to be offered imposes a cost on human and planetary well-being (p. 15).

[Goals for food justice require] changing the dominant corporate system of food and agriculture.  Focusing on the separate goals of each strand rather than the common overarching ones has made the food movement less powerful, less able to win concessions from the highly organized alliance of food and agriculture businesses, and more vulnerable to co-optation by trade groups who offer some factions grants or a seat at the policy table (p. 274).

Corporate-controlled globalization, financialization, deregulation, monopoly concentration, and the corporate capture of new technologies, the defining characteristics of twenty-first-century capitalism, are fundamental causes of multiple and growing threats to well-being.  This commonality justifies a sharp focus on the system that is the underlying cause (p. 277).

To fix food system problems, means fixing capitalism.  That’s the problem that needs our focused attention.  He’s got some ideas about that too.

Tom Philpott.  Perilous Bounty: The Looming Collapse of American Farming and How We Can Prevent It.  Bloomsbury, 2020.  

Here’s my blurb:

In Perilous Bounty, Tom Philpott probes what’s wrong with Big Agriculture—examining how it depletes California’s water, poisons water in the Midwest, and ruins soil resources—and proposes ways to reconfigure the food system to better promote health and sustain the environment. This must-read book is deeply researched, compellingly written, and thoroughly inspiring.

And here’s a quick excerpt:

We have reached the limits of “market-as-movement” to transform the food system.  In an economy marked by severe inequality, wage stagnation, and persistently high levels of poverty, the market approach excludes the population that can’t afford to pay the higher prices of organic, local food or devote time to cooking from scratch.  It threatens to create an ecologically robust niche for the prosperous within a dominant food system that quietly lurches on, wrecking the environment and making people sick.  Well-off consumers should vote with their forks three times a day, but the pace of positive change they create has been no match for Big Food’s massive inertia and the rapid advance of climate change.  But something important has emerged over the same period: the stirrings of a new form of movement politics…  [p. 255]