Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
1
“Food Security” ............................................................ 2
Food ...................................................................... 13
Right to Food ............................................................. 14
Moral Obligation .......................................................... 20
Multiple Causes of Food Insecurity ........................................ 22
Free Trade Causes Hunger .................................................. 23
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Undermine Food Security ................ 25
Food Price Volatility Causes Hunger ....................................... 33
Lack of Tech Access Causes Food Insecurity ................................ 34
Grain Overproduction Destroys Food Security ............................... 35
Hunger Increasing ......................................................... 37
Hunger is a Political Problem ............................................. 39
Food Insecurity Impacts ................................................... 40
Racism Impacts ............................................................ 42
US Food Insecurity ........................................................ 43
A2: Food Aid Solves ....................................................... 44
A2: Green Revolution Solves ............................................... 45
Indigenous Foods .......................................................... 46
Biodiversity .............................................................. 61
US Action Plan ............................................................ 64
Right to Food Key to Promote Food Security ................................ 65
SSM Plan .................................................................. 66
Biotech Plan .............................................................. 68
Cutting Food Waste Promotes Food Security ................................. 71
Cutting Food Waste Key to Ensuring Right to Food .......................... 74
Empower Women Plan ........................................................ 76
Environmental Protection Plan ............................................. 79
A2: Neoliberalism Good Argument ........................................... 80
A2: Government Food Programs Fail ......................................... 85
A2: Food Sovereignty ...................................................... 86
Global Food System Bad .................................................... 87
Local Food Practice Should Be Prioritized ................................. 88
Negative .................................................................... 95
Green Revolution Answers .................................................. 96
SSM Answers ............................................................... 98
GMOs Answers .............................................................. 99
Green Payments Will Not Solve Corporate Control of Agriculture ........... 101
Biofuels Good Link ....................................................... 103
Right to Food Answers .................................................... 104
Free Trade Good Link ..................................................... 106
US Approaches Bad ........................................................ 109
Neoliberalism Bad Link ................................................... 110
Neoliberalism Good Link .................................................. 115
Globalization Good Link .................................................. 117
Biotech Good Link ........................................................ 118
Kritik of Food Security .................................................. 119
Food Sovereignty Alternative ............................................. 127
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
2
“Food Security”
“Food security” includes availability and affordability of food
Stephanie Rugolo, October 2014, Stephanie Rugolo is the managing editor of HumanProgress.org and a
research associate at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. Before joining Cato in 2012, Rugolo
conducted academic research in the West Bank; advised public programs for persons with disabilities in Kerala, India;
and expanded the autonomy of Native Americans in Arizona. Her research interests include human progress and
domestic economic development. She holds two BAs from Arizona State University and an MA from the Maxwell School
at Syracuse University. (2014-10-14). A Dangerous World? Threat Perception and U.S. National Security (Kindle
Locations 8092-8096). Cato Institute. Kindle Edition.
Most Americans have reliable access to food. When evaluating “food security,” human
security scholars often consider not only the availability of food but also its
affordability. (2014-10-14). A Dangerous World? Threat Perception and U.S. National
Security (Kindle Locations 3646-3647). Cato Institute. Kindle Edition.
FOOD SECURITY: PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC ACCESS
Carmen G. Gonzalez, Professor-Seattle University School of Law, 2004, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and
the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development,” Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, Fall, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 419, p. 426
Food security is "physical and economic access by all people at all times to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to
maintain a healthy and active life." n20 Contrary to popular misconception, food insecurity is not caused by food scarcity. n21
Indeed, global food production since 1950 has kept far ahead of population growth, and many of the countries experiencing rampant hunger routinely
export more agricultural products than they import. n22 Food insecurity is therefore not due to lack of food or even lack of productive
capacity. n23 Rather, people go hungry because of economic inequalities that prevent them from obtaining food.
“Food security” is the absence of the threat of hunger or famine
Stephanie Rugolo, October 2014, Stephanie Rugolo is the managing editor of HumanProgress.org and a
research associate at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. Before joining Cato in 2012, Rugolo
conducted academic research in the West Bank; advised public programs for persons with disabilities in Kerala, India;
and expanded the autonomy of Native Americans in Arizona. Her research interests include human progress and
domestic economic development. She holds two BAs from Arizona State University and an MA from the Maxwell School
at Syracuse University. (2014-10-14). A Dangerous World? Threat Perception and U.S. National Security (Kindle
Locations 8092-8096). Cato Institute. Kindle Edition.
The Human Development Report defines the following human security threats: • Health
security: the threat of injury and disease • Environmental security: the threat of pollution,
environmental degradation, and resource depletion • Economic security: the threat of poverty •
Political security: the threat of political repression • Food security: the threat of hunger and
famine (2014-10-14). A Dangerous World? Threat Perception and U.S. National Security
(Kindle Locations 3495-3500). Cato Institute. Kindle Edition.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
3
“Food security” includes physical and economic access to food as well as the food
systems people have to feed themselves
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 169
Founded in 1945, the FAO is the world leader in international efforts to defeat hunger by providing expertise,
information, technical assistance and support, and by providing a neutral forum to negotiate agreements and debate
policy. The FAO, who also partners with the WTO to give guidance on this topic, defines food security as "the
physical and economic access for all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life with no risk of
losing such access and as such is directly connected with livelihood in the developing countries." Food security
not only deals with the basic issues of malnutrition and hunger, but also the system that a country has to feed
itself.
FOOD SECURITY IS A QUESTION OF ENTITLEMENTS
Carmen G. Gonzalez, Professor-Seattle University School of Law, 2004, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and
the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development,” Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, Fall, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 419, p. 428-30
The notion of food insecurity as a consequence of food distribution, rather than food scarcity, is a product of the pioneering work of Amartya Sen,
winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in economics. n25 In Sen's view, food security is a matter of entitlements, which he defines as the ability
to command food using the legal means available in society. n26 Sen's analysis of the role of entitlements transformed the debate on
food security from a scarcity-based [*429] approach to one that emphasizes the political, economic, and legal institutions that determine how
available food is distributed. n27
Sen identifies food security at the household level as a function of the household's package of entitlements. n28 This
package may consist of all or some of the following: (i) production-based entitlements (the right to consume the food
produced); n29 (ii) labor-based entitlements (the right to the income obtained through the sale of labor); n30 (iii) tradebased entitlements (the right to purchase food in the market); n31 and (iv) transfer-based entitlements (the right to food
donated by others, such as family, friends, and government aid programs ). n32 Utilizing this framework, food security in rural
households in developing countries will turn on access to land, the availability of employment, income earned from
employment or from the sale of agricultural output, food available for purchase in the market, and assistance from
family members or the state. n33 For urban dwellers, food security will depend on employment earnings, the consumption and sale of crops
grown in backyards or common lands, food available for purchase on the market, publicly-subsidized food programs, and assistance from family
members. n34
Food security at the national level parallels food security at the household level. n35 Like household food security, the food
security of a state is a function of (i) production-based entitlements (domestic food production capacity), n36 (ii) trade-based entitlements (ability to
earn foreign exchange in order to import food), n37 and (iii) transfer-based entitlements (ability to obtain food as aid). n38 Thus, a food-secure
state is one that can produce, purchase, or obtain as aid the food necessary to satisfy the needs of its population.
Food security built on three pillars
World Health Organization, no date, “Food Security,” http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/ DOA: 2-8-15
The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people
at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a
healthy and active life”. Commonly, the concept of food security is defined as
including both physical and economic access to food that meets people's dietary
needs as well as their food preferences. In many countries, health problems
related to dietary excess are an ever increasing threat, In fact, malnutrion and
foodborne diarrhea are become double burden.
Food security is built on three pillars:
Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent
basis.
Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a
nutritious diet.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
4
Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care,
as well as adequate water and sanitation.
“Food security” exists when people have access to safe and nutritious food needed for a
healthy life
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Fall 2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY?
CONFRONTING EXPANDING COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND
DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=davi
d_fazzino, p. 393-6
The United Nations standard definition of food security is in the World Food Summit Plan of Action, a product of
the 1996 World Food Summit. According to the Plan of Action, "Food security exists when all people, at all times,
have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food
preferences for an active and healthy life." This food security concept considers that adequate food must not only
be produced but also distributed and consumed. This definition also allows for consideration of the preferences
of individual people to access foods so that they can live active and healthy lives. It allows for a qualitative, if
partial, discussion of what food security means for differently situated individuals. This definition fails to
specifically account for cultural factors in determining food consumption at the household and community level;
however, several sections within the World Food Summit Plan of Action expand the notion of food security
beyond the individual, situating food security with indigenous peoples' approaches to economic and social
development and utilization of traditional foods. The World Food Summit Plan of Action, like other international
law policy statements, conventions and declarations offers a broad normative framework within which governments
may act as appropriate to implement such policies at the state level. Hence, although the World Food Summit Plan
of Action addresses several aspects of food security for indigenous peoples, the extent to which these are implemented
is left to the discretion of individual states within which the indigenous communities are continually negotiating
appropriate sovereignty, autonomy and access to resources. The World Food Summit Plan of Action also cites other
international human rights and environmental instruments as imperative to confront challenges to food security.
“Food security” is access to enough food for a healthy and active life
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 397-8
III. Food Security Law and Policy in the United States
As previously mentioned, these international concepts of food security are adopted as appropriate by countries,
including the United States. Food security has also been defined at the federal level for consideration of national
and international food security policy. One operational definition for measuring food security in the United
States was formulated by the USDA. According to the USDA, food security is "access by all people at all times to
enough food for an active, healthy life." By utilizing this definition, the USDA determined that "most U.S.
households have consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living--they are food secure." The
U.S. approach to food security at the international level has been developed by the United States Agency for
International Cooperation and Development (USAID), which defines food security as, "When all people at all times
have both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life."
The current food security policy of the United States, both nationally through the USDA and internationally through
the USAID, focuses primarily on quantitative measures of food security--in terms of physical and economic
access to enough foods--without considering actual household utilization of these foods or psychological and cultural
values attached to food consumption and preparation. Former President George W. Bush described U.S. food security
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
5
policy in his speeches. In his address to the Future Farmers of America on July 27, 2001, he noted the high importance
of producing enough food to feed people in the United States and linked this to national security and freedom from
international pressure. He stated: It's important for our nation to build--to grow foodstuffs, to feed our people. Can you
imagine a country that was unable to grow enough food to feed the people? It would be a nation that would be subject to
international pressure. It would be a nation at risk. And so when we're talking about American agriculture, we're really
talking about a national security issue.
US government definition of food security
Angela Duger & Davis, 2012, Formerly Ford Foundation Fellow, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy,
Martha F. Davis, Professor of Law Codirector, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy, Clearinghouse
Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, September-October, A Human Rights Based Approach to Food Security,
p. 202-3
The U.S. government defines food insecurity as "limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe
foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways." Food insecurity is
chronic in the United States: 17.2 million households were food-insecure in 2010. Further, food insecurity falls hardest
along familiar lines of poverty, family structure, gender, and race, being higher than average in households with
incomes near or below the federal poverty line (33.8 percent higher) and households with children headed by single
women (35.1 percent higher) or single men (25.4 percent higher) and in black (25.1 percent higher) and Hispanic (26.2
percent higher) households. These numbers have barely budged since the U.S. government began measuring food
security in 1995. Stagnation persists despite the approximately $ 62.5 billion the United States spends each year on food
and nutrition programs.
Four key concepts in food security
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations,
Within food security are the following four central concepts:
Food availability--The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate quality, supplied through
domestic production or imports (including food aid);
Food access--Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for acquiring appropriate foods for
a nutritious diet. Entitlements are defined as the set of all commodity bundles over which a person can establish
command given the legal, political, economic and social arrangements of the community in which they live
(including traditional rights such as access to common resources);
Utilization--Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a
state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met. This brings out the importance of non-food
inputs in food security;
Stability--To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access to adequate food at all
times. They should not risk losing access to food as a consequence of sudden shocks (e.g. an economic or
climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore refer to
both the availability and access dimensions of food security
Definitions that focus on how much food is available and distributed reinforce notions of
US superiority (Development K link)
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
6
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 401
X-When the operational definitions of food security are limited to measuring how much food is created and
distributed, then the United States emerges as a superior nation in terms of its overall food security and food
surpluses. At the same time, the relative inability of so-called less developed countries to meet the caloric needs
of their populace--due to chronic or acute instability in environmental, economic or political sectors--is described as
vulnerability and reflective of their inferiority. Those in international development circles would also point to the
poor transportation infrastructure in these less developed countries, which limits the distribution of food to areas that
may be in the greatest need of food assistance. In the United States, the temporal unfolding of science and
technology is perceived as leading directly to the continual emergence of progress. Notions of this superiority are
reflected in the literature concerning food production and security where the locus of food insecurity is
consistently placed in the so-called less developed world, while the United States occupies the role of provider
and breadbasket of the world. The stated superiority of the U.S. international agro-industrial complex is
intimately connected with economics and politics; it is a historically produced discourse. This growth-oriented
approach to agriculture has been particularly apparent since U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz challenged U.S.
farmers to expand production by planting from "fence row to fence row" and by scaling up operations. Indeed most
farmers did answer the challenge of "get big or get out" with the deployment of this production regime in agriculture
law and policy. The industrialization of agriculture has condensed the processes of production into fewer hands via
market forces. In the United States, this reduction in the number of agricultural workers is strikingly apparent as 137
hectares are farmed by the average American agricultural worker. While the number of farmers has decreased in the
U.S., adoption of Green Revolution technologies worldwide has been successful in increasing grain yields from 1.1 tons
per hectare in 1950 to 2.8 tons per hectare in 1992. At one point in the 1970s, the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations estimated that the earth could support 157 billion people through Green Revolution technologies.
This technological optimism, as well as the belief in the ability of the United States to act as a compassionate nation to
help feed the world has remained, despite reports of decreased yields, the degradation of soils and communities
throughout the U.S. Great Plains, diminishing water supplies in the American West, and chemical and genetic
contamination throughout the United States. In public discourse, the United States re-emerges time and again in
self-congratulatory discourse as the exemplar of not only a big brother offering a less fortunate sibling assistance
in time of need, but also the global center of innovation. This optimism, sense of superiority, and patriotism were
reaffirmed in a 2007 speech by former President George W. Bush:
“Community food security”
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 413-4
B. Community Food Security
The community food security concept offers an alternative way of envisioning and working to create food systems,
which can confront contemporary concerns. The Community Food Security Coalition, a California-based NGO, has
extended the food security concept to "all persons in a community having access to culturally acceptable, nutritionally
adequate food through local, non-emergency sources at all times."
Quite different from the internationally formulated definition of food security put forth by USAID, the Community
Food Security Toolkit was developed at the 1999 Community Food Security Assessment Conference and was designed
for local organizations and individuals in the private, public and third sectors. The toolkit provides a much broader
definition of food security at the community level such that community food insecurity may manifest if any of the
following are present:
. There are inadequate resources from which people can purchase foods.
. The available food purchasing resources are not accessible to all community members.
. The food available through the resources is not sufficient in quantity or variety.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
7
. The food available is not competitively priced and thus is not affordable to all households.
. There are inadequate food assistance resources to help low-income people purchase foods at retail markets.
. There are no local food production resources.
. Locally produced food is not available to community members.
. There is no support for local food production resources.
. There is any significant level of household food insecurity within the community.
These criteria offer a much more realistic point of departure than USAID's measures for examining the current
state of food insecurity on the Tohono O'odham Nation. Certainly, large-scale agricultural production and distribution
systems are capable of offering immediate solutions for food insecurity crisis management. Yet, as the preceding
section on diseases of affluence demonstrates, these systems do not address the unique needs of indigenous peoples who
have co-created the landscapes which they have historically occupied. Small-scale agricultural production and
distribution systems, while not as capable in short-term crisis management, offer the potential for long-term food
security by taking into account the unique nutritional needs of the populations that they serve. Critics of small-scale
agricultural systems as a primary means for ensuring food security point to the increasing advancements in applications
of chemical, breeding, and biotechnology technologies, which have allowed for increasing gains in the production of
foods for the ever increasing global population.
Many O'odham noted, "Knowledge of place and process provides a knowing of the overall quality of foods
including taste and nutrition." The O'odham critiqued food systems in much the same way that proponents of
sustainable and bioregional-based agriculture would, by noting the difference in food quality between distant and local
whole foods.
Eating locally for some O'odham, much like for proponents of sustainable agriculture becomes a way to eat
"natural" and . . . "real" foods that are not tarnished with the chemical residues typical of foods available in most
supermarkets and fast food restaurants.
For some O'odham, eating local provides a greater sense of security from increasing uncertainty in supply chains
and potential terrorist attacks.
“Traditional food security”
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 414-5
C. Traditional Food Security
Traditional food security extends the community food security concept and draws on indigenous peoples' rich
history of interactions with the landscape.
The Tohono O'odham view food as intimately connected not only with identity but also health and well-being.
Acts of procurement, preparation and sharing of traditional foods amongst the Tohono O'odham are moments of
intimacy with the human and the non-human worlds.
....
This [author's] research has shown that for the Tohono O'odham Nation traditional food security would be present
if all of the following conditions were true[:]
. Availability of not only local and healthy foods but also traditional foods which enhance the overall health and
well-being of individuals and communities.
. Revitalization, redevelopment and maintenance of traditional farming systems (in the case of the Tohono
O'odham this would be floodwater farming including ak chin farming) to serve as sites of interaction of individuals with
their environmental companions.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
8
. Enhancement and spread of household and community knowledge concerning traditional foods, including the
knowledge of where to find these foods and how to prepare them.
. Adequate time or financial resources available to engage in procurement and preparation of traditional foods, at
the household and community levels.
. Equivalence of desired consumption of traditional foods and actual consumption of traditional foods.
“Food security” definition from a campaign in India
Angela Duger & Davis, 2012, Formerly Ford Foundation Fellow, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy,
Martha F. Davis, Professor of Law Codirector, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy, Clearinghouse
Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, September-October, A Human Rights Based Approach to Food Security, p.
206
Some of the elements necessary for a parallel campaign in the United States are already present. Despite the absence of
a federal constitutional right to live, the federal government has incorporated human rights language into the standards
embedded in the nation's domestic food programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service, of
which programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are a part, defines food security in terms parallel to human rights law:
Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for an active,
healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum:
The ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods. Assured ability to acquire acceptable
foods in socially acceptable ways (that is, without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging,
stealing, or other coping strategies
Such linkages between domestic and international standards give U.S. activists advocacy opportunities to work with
treaty bodies and U.N. experts and to use international standards to critique domestic practices.
“Food security” defined by the Rome declaration
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent
Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of
International Law and Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 277-8
The meaning of food security was best identified by the Rome Declaration drafters when they said:
Food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels ... exists when all people, at all times,
have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food
preferences for an active and healthy life.
Many definitions of “food security” but the ’96 World Food Summit definition is the most
commonly accepted one
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1048
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
9
Food security is a concept which includes diverse elements, as reflected by the many attempts to define it in both
research and political practice. More than a decade ago, there were already about two hundred such definitions in
published writings. The most widely accepted definition of food security can be found in the 1996 World Food Summit
Declaration, which understands food security as a situation in which "all people, at all times, have physical and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and
healthy life."
“Food security” is now defined as more than availability, it includes access
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, , p. 36-7
The concept of food security was put forth by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization ("FAO") in 1974
in the aftermath of the food crisis that devastated a number of third world countries. This concept was initially given a
very narrow meaning, as it referred solely to the global availability of adequate food supplies necessary to meet
the needs of a growing world population. It has since evolved considerably, thanks to a more sophisticated
understanding of the many factors and conditions that affect the capacity of individuals to obtain adequate and
sufficient food. Food security is now defined as the capacity of individuals to "have physical and economic access
to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy
life." The purpose of this Article is to highlight the need to recognize and critically examine the link between the
challenge of food security and the efficient legal protection of the traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering activities of
the Inuit people of Alaska.
Ability to pursue subsistence activities is critical to food security
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 38
A substantial body of literature on the political and symbolic dimensions of the Alaska subsistence debate exists;
however, other implications of the debate have not yet been explored, such as the relationship between subsistence and
food security. This Article demonstrates that the ability of Alaskan Inuit to pursue their subsistence activities is closely
linked to their food security. In other words, even if it is essential to ensure that the Inuit have access to healthy
marketed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grain cereals, and dairy products, protecting their subsistence
harvesting of renewable natural resources is a fundamental requirement for their food security as well. The Article
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
10
analyzes some of the effects of the subsistence debate and federal and state resource management regimes regarding
Alaskan Inuit food security.
“Food Security” includes access to culturally appropriate food
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 48-9
The concept of food security, currently defined as the capacity of every individual to access sufficient, safe, and
nutritious foods corresponding to their preferences, has an objective as well as a subjective component. It is not enough
that sufficient, safe, and nutritious food supplies be available; they must also be accessible to every individual. Food
security also requires that people have access to adequate foods, notably, foods "corresponding to the cultural traditions
of the people to which the consumer belongs." The requirement of cultural acceptability "implies the need also to take
into account, as far as possible, perceived non[-]nutrient-based values attached to food and food consumption." It
recognizes that "food culture" is part of a group's wider cultural identity. As such, food security amounts to the practical
objective of the "right to food" protected under international law, specifically, the right to adequate food affirmed in
section 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food interprets this right as follows: the right to have regular, permanent and free access,
either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food
corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and
mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear. As the following sections will explain, Inuit
subsistence activities and foods are not valuable merely from a nutritional and health perspective. They also correspond
to the food preferences of a large number of Alaskan Inuit and promote both the cultural vitality and the food economy
of Inuit communities.
Biodiversity critical to food security
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. 431
"Biodiversity for Food Security" was the theme for the 2004 World Food Day, which celebrates the founding of the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Quebec City, Canada in 1945. Biodiversity, but more
specifically agrodiversity, is an important tool for feeding the 800 million persons around the world who are starving
and those who are under-nourished or have micronutrient deficiencies. A diverse supply of plants and animals provides
human nourishment and protects these species for future food needs.
In addition, a few of these crops and animal products can be sold locally and in overseas markets for unique or
niche high value foods. While not all agrodiversity should develop into export crops, financial, and cultural benefits can
be obtained through indications of quality and commercial sales terms. By adding value to agrodiversity, it is possible to
encourage production to meet local and other needs, to increase family income, and to recognize local know-how. The
Global Cassava Strategy illustrates that traditional crops, a part of agricultural biodiversity, may play a positive role
regarding local food security, communal traditions, and know-how.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
11
Access is a critical component of food security
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 532
B. Food Security
Food security refers to a situation "when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life."
Food security therefore refers not only to the ability to produce sufficient quantities of food, but also to the ability to
access food. Despite burgeoning populations worldwide, global food production is actually sufficient to feed everyone
in the world. Because the distribution of the food is highly uneven, providing access to those in need is the crucial
solution to food availability for everyone.
Seeds a critical part of food security
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 162
Seeds are the ultimate symbol of food security... Free exchange among farmers goes beyond mere
exchange of seeds; it involves exchanges of ideas and knowledge, of culture and heritage. It is the
accumulation of tradition, of knowledge of how to work the seed. Farmers learn about plants they want
to grow in the future by watching them grow in other farmers' fields. --Vandana Shiva
To sum up world history rather quickly: ten thousand years ago humans began planting seeds, which enabled them
to stay in one place year after year, no longer subjected to the whims of migrating animals. Thus simply put, through
seed, civilization was born.
Food security means everyone must have access
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 176
As defined above, food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient,
safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs, and food preferences for an active and healthy life. An example of
food security is embodied in the UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology
for Development (IAASTD). This groundbreaking assessment, sponsored by five UN agencies and the World Bank, and
authored by over 400 scientists and development experts from more than eighty countries, concluded that there is an
urgent need to increase and strengthen further research and adoption of locally appropriate and democratically
controlled agro-ecological methods of production. The assessment relies on local expertise and farmer-managed, local
seed systems, and concluded that this local control of the direction of the global food system is critical to the process of
increasing food security, decreasing poverty, and reaching the UN's Millennium Development Goals.
Food security includes a focus on the politics of distribution
Angela Duger & Davis, 2012, Formerly Ford Foundation Fellow, Program on Human Rights and the
Global Economy, Martha F. Davis, Professor of Law Codirector, Program on Human Rights and the
Global Economy, Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, September-October, A
Human Rights Based Approach to Food Security, p. 202
Eradicating extreme hunger ranks as one of the most urgent--and most daunting--challenges of the twenty-first century.
That persistent hunger represents a failure of political will rather than inadequate food production is now widely
recognized; during the 1980s economist Amartya Sen used rigorous case studies to demonstrate that the root cause of
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
12
famine is not food scarcity but poor distribution and institutionalized inequality. Sen's work introduced a concept that
incorporates this political element--"food security"--but the definitional shift alone has not been enough to resolve the
problem.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
13
Food
“Food”
Marsha A. Echols, 2007, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law and Director, The World Food Law
Institute, October, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Paths to Local Food Security: A Right to Food, A
Commitment to Trade, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Echols.pdf DOA: 2-8-15, p. 1118-9
III. Defining Food
Most governments, as well as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, have defined food. These definitions agree, in
varying degrees of specificity, that a food is a substance that is consumed or ingested by humans. With the constant
changes in food technology, one current difficulty with this definition is distinguishing a food from a food used as a
drug.
The Codex Alimentarius defines food as "any substance, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, which is
intended for human consumption, and includes drink, chewing gum and any substance which has been used in the
manufacture, preparation, or treatment of "food,' but does not include cosmetics or tobacco or substances used only as
drugs." n20 The U.S. definition of food is simpler: "The term "food' means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or
other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article." In Europe, "food" (or
"foodstuff") means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or
reasonably expected to be, ingested by humans.
The diets of many people, particularly those in urban areas, are evolving. Trade and world media are partially
responsible for these changes. Food "grown in one country can now be transported and consumed halfway across the
world. People demand a wider variety of foods than in the past, they want foods that are not in season and they often eat
out of the home."
At the same time, millions of people continue to survive on traditional, local foods, such as corn, rice, tubers and
fish. In affluent communities of developed countries, the interest in natural, organic, and locally grown foods is
increasing. One manifestation of this increased interest is the Slow Food Movement. Slow Food says that our "defense
should begin at the table with Slow Food. Let us rediscover the flavors and savors of regional cooking and banish the
degrading effects of Fast Food."
Definition of “food’
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. n3
"Food" is defined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to mean "any substance, whether processed, semi-processed
or raw, which is intended for human consumption, and includes drink, chewing gum and any substance which has been
used in the manufacturing, preparation or treatment of 'food' but does not include cosmetics or tobacco or substances
used only as drugs." Codex Alimetaruis Commission Procedural Manual, Definitions for the Purposes of the Codex
Alimentarius, available at http://www.codexalimentarius.net/procedural manual.stm (last visited June 3, 2004).
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
14
Right to Food
Food Security protects the right to food
Marsha A. Echols, 2007, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law and Director, The World Food Law
Institute, October, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Paths to Local Food Security: A Right to Food, A
Commitment to Trade, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Echols.pdf DOA: 2-8-15, p.
1116-7
Most international experts agree that there is a right to food, and categorize it as one of the basic human rights. The
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food." In 1963, the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights added, "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an
adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food... . The States Parties will take
appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of
international cooperation based on free consent." The 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights reiterated "the right of everyone to ... adequate food," and emphasized "the fundamental right of everyone to be
free from hunger." The Rome Declaration on World Food Security adds "the right of everyone to have access to safe
and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from
hunger." Several agreements concerning the welfare of children have addressed food security. The U.N. Convention on
the Rights of the Child, for example, directs that "States Parties shall ... take appropriate measures ... to combat disease
and malnutrition ... through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of
adequate nutritious foods." The obligation of governments is mentioned in Article 27 of the 1984 United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child: "States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means ...
shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition." The
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has a unique role related to the right to food and food
security. According to the FAO Constitution, the FAO is comprised of members that are "determined to promote the
common welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the purpose of: raising levels of nutrition
and standards of living ... and thus ... ensuring humanity's freedom from hunger."
Food security part of the human right to food
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1048-9
A. Legal Instruments
In this Article, food security is reviewed under a rights-based perspective, which is thus conceptualized as being
included in the human right to adequate food. The right to food has been recognized as a human right in numerous
binding and non-binding legal instruments since it was first established in 1948 as part of Article 25(1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Of all these documents, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights of 1966 contains the most important codification of the right to food: "The StatesParties ...
recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living ... including adequate food." The first link between the
realization of the right to food and international trade is expressed in Article 11(2) of ICESCR, which states that the
States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take,
individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed[,]
... taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable
distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
15
FOOD IS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT
Lauren Birchfield and Jessica Corsi, Law Students, Harvard 2010, “Between Starvation and Globalization: Realizing
the Right too Food in India,” Michigan Journal of International Law, Summer, 31 Mich. J. Int’l L. 691, p. 692-3
India is starving. While its gross domestic product has been climbing steadily in recent years, n1 its rates of malnutrition and starvation-related disease
and death remain staggeringly high. n2 These numbers are even more surprising when examined in contrast to countries in a similar development
position, such as China, n3 because such comparisons reveal the paradox of India's increased aggregate wealth combined with its stagnant and in
some cases decreasing nutritional intake. The right to food is a vital human right that, if denied, renders human life stunted,
painful, or null. Logically, because humans must eat to stay alive, and because they must have adequate nutrition in order to flourish - that is, to
undertake the social, economic, cultural, and political activities that define our modern human existence - food security should be treated as
a core human right and attended to with commensurate vigor . And yet, people continue to doubt the justiciability of the right to food,
or how it might be enforced and realized at a national level. India, however, has taken a different approach, opting not to allow the violation of what it
recognizes as a human right to occur without remedy. Rather, India has found the right to food to be both legally justiciable n4 and deserving of
national legislation. n5 It is this landmark initiative by India to establish and explicate the right to food that is the subject of this paper.
ADEQUATE FOOD CRITICAL HUMAN RIGHT
Anthony Paul Kearns, JD Candidate, 1998, “The Right to Food Exists Via Customary International Law,” Suffolk
Transnational Law Review, Winter, 22 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 223, p. 240
Human potential and fulfillment derive from an individual's ability to satisfy the basic need for food. n73 Psychological theorists hold that human
beings possess a pyramidal hierarchy of needs. n74 The first level of this hierarchical pyramid consists of the most basic needs necessary for human
existence, including access to adequate and sufficient food. n75 Without access to sufficient and adequate food, the individual lacks the ability to
journey through life and experience the ability to develop a moral sense, love and be loved, and participate as a productive member of society. n76
"No right has meaning or value once starvation strikes" therefore, the world communities pursuit of international human rights will remain futile as
long as the right to food remains unprotected. n77
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PLACES RIGHT TO FOOD ABOVE OTHERS
Anthony Paul Kearns, JD Candidate, 1998, “The Right to Food Exists Via Customary International Law,” Suffolk
Transnational Law Review, Winter, 22 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 223, p. 250-2
Multiple international and regional documents address and consider the right to food as superior to all other rights,
because without access to food all other rights become nonexistent . n124 The United Nations Charter, the UDHR, [*250] the
ICCPR, the ICESCR, and the World Food Summit Declaration establish and confirm the legal right to food. n125 The Charter emphasizes the
economic, social, and physical well being of all peoples and implicitly calls for the United Nations to address wrongs
suffered by individuals in the international community. n126 The Charter contains the "groundwork" for all subsequent international
right to food rules. n127 The language utilized by the Charter: "higher standards of living" implies that the international community must eliminate
hunger to permit an individual to grow beyond the achievement of mere survival. n128 The language, "solutions to international health problems"
and "universal respect for human rights," implicitly demands a solution to starvation and the grant of rights basic to securing the necessities of life to
all people. n129
The UDHR remains a continuation and authoritative interpretation of the Charter. n130 The UDHR calls on all nations, organizations,
and individuals to implement the right to food for all. n131 Article twenty-five of the UDHR [*251] explicitly provides for a right to
food: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food . . . ." n132
Additional articles of "the UDHR implicitly grant a right to food by explicitly recognizing rights such as a right to life, economic rights, and the
entitlement of all peoples to international order. n133 The UDHR explicitly and implicitly proclaims the right to food as a
common standard belonging to individuals and nations alike . n134
The ICCPR and the ICESCR respectively provide for the right to food. n135 Article one and article six of the ICCPR recognize a right to selfdetermination, and article six, the right to life. n136 The ICESCR explicitly grants the right to [*252] food and reiterates those guarantees
enumerated in the UDHR. n137 Article 2(1) of the ICESCR obliges a party to comply with all terms of the covenant to the extent that the state has
the resources available to comply. n138 Article eleven of the ICESCR recognizes the right to food and requires an international cooperation to ensure
the equitable distribution of world food supplies. n139 ICESCR identifies the only fundamental right in the International Bill of Human Rights as
"right to be free from hunger." n140
RIGHT TO FOOD BOTH AN INTERNATIONAL MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHT
Anthony Paul Kearns, JD Candidate, 1998, “The Right to Food Exists Via Customary International Law,” Suffolk
Transnational Law Review, Winter, 22 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 223, p. 253-6
Legal theorists have traditionally defined a right as requiring either action or the abstention from an action on the part of
a duty holder toward the one who holds the right. n141 Human rights enable the existence of dignity and apply to individuals because of
their humanness. n142 Historically, human rights have been held as social and moral imperatives without the benefit of legal
recognition. n143 The right to food has, however, received legal status in the twentieth century. n144 Despite having achieved the status of a legal
right, the right to food lacks concrete remedies against violators and is, therefore, violated more than any other right. n145
The United Nations sought to define the fundamental principles of all nations and the responsibilities of individual governments to their own citizens
and all peoples of the world. n146 Among these fundamental principles, the United Nations addressed the issues surrounding human rights.
n147 Later through various and sundry organizations, covenants and declarations, this world body recognized, defined, and imposed
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
16
obligations regarding these rights. n148 The right to food became a fundamental part of these lists of rights and
obligations. n149
This fundamental right to food though acknowledged by philosophical, social and moral principles did not enjoy legal status until the twentieth
century. n150 World history, filled with tyranny and abuse, has paved the way for the [*254] legal recognition of this most fundamental of all
human rights. n151 As a fundamental right it precedes other rights the world holds inalienable. n152 The satisfaction of other rights will remain
futile as long as a person lacks access to that which sustains all other rights namely, food. n153
Hunger exists as a consequence of social, economic and political policies, not as the result of the incapability of food production. n154 Since
human determination causes the hunger that impacts individuals, nations, and in turn the global community, human
determination needs to provide legal remedies that provide legally binding remedies both nationally and internationally .
n155 Without legal remedy the injustice and abuse will continue to multiply and destroy all other rights that humanity attempts to safeguard. n156
In addressing the issue of the legal right to food the global community does not work in a vacuum; rather it has already established legal precedent to
assist in creating the legal underpinnings guaranteeing access to nutritional sustenance. n157 The precedent finds its roots in the United Nations
Charter which implicitly recognizes the right to food. n158 Further, the UDHR, an authoritative interpretation of the Charter explicitly
provides for the right to food. n159 The ICESCR and vehicles such as the World Food Summit have continually reinforced the right to food. n160
This ongoing and evolving process represents customary international law. n161 The international community should avoid an overdeveloped sense
of rights while enforcing those rights that have achieved the status of customary international [*255] law according to the principles of jus cogens.
n162
Legal justice demands that individual nations and governments uphold their duty to either abstain from interferencing
with access to food or to assume the necessary actions to assure adequate and sufficient nourishment for all citizens .
n163 International Law requires all nations, regardless of their ideology, to grant and protect economic and social rights, as well as political and civil
rights because according to international law both sets of rights must coexist interdependently. n164 Mistakenly, some nations of the world
community, i.e., the United States, refuse to recognize the legal status of Second Generational rights when it comes to food. n165 Consequently,
human beings continue to starve or remain malnourished in a world clearly capable of producing sufficient amounts of food for all of its citizens.
n166
The larger more powerful nations consume disproportionate amounts of nutritional resources while lesser nations struggle with inadequate food
supplies. n167 The multidimensional impact of this stance creates additional issues such as famine, war, and political upheaval. n168 Food
essentially becomes a weapon as opposed to a right. n169
The legal right to food does exists according to the principle of jus cogens, therefore, all nations, states, governments and sovereignties
regardless of whether they endorse the United Nations Charter, declarations, or covenants, remain obligated to honor the
right to food. n170 It [*256] matters not whether a nation accepts the philosophical, social, or moral imperatives of any one particular religious or
cultural group, the right to food exists according to the principle of jus cogens. n171 The right to food has become a part of the principle of jus cogens
based upon the multiple international documents that explicitly and implicitly grant the right to food and accepting this right as a norm of international
law. n172
The world community has accepted the right to food as a norm of international law as evidenced by the fact that the
right to food exists as the only right explicitly labeled and defined in the International Bill of Human Rights as
fundamental. n173 The world community must therefore do more than hold summits and conferences that merely expose the magnitude of hunger
and present goals for reducing the problem of hunger. n174 The world community must instead utilize its authority as established by the principles of
jus cogens to enforce the right to food against violators and hold these violators liable under customary international law as it does against nations
who violate political and civil rights. n175 If the United Nations remains impotent in its address of world hunger, hunger will
steadily grow more pervasive and destructive and the entire world will suffer . n176
Right to food includes physical and economic access too food
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1050
General Comment No. 12 defines the right to food as being "realized when every man, woman and child, alone or
in community with others, have physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its
procurement." For the one hundred and fifty-seven states party to the Covenant, this constitutes an authoritative
interpretation of their obligation to progressively realize the right to adequate food as enshrined in Article 2(1) and
Article 11 of ICESCR.
Right to food includes an obligation by governments not to interfere with food access
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
17
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1052
1. The Obligation to Respect
According to Jean Ziegler, current UN-Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the obligation to respect means that the
Government should not arbitrarily [deprive people] of their right to food or make it difficult for them to gain access to
food. The obligation to respect the right to food is effectively a negative obligation, as it entails limits on the exercise of
State power that might threaten people's existing access to food. Violations of the obligation to respect would occur, for
example, if the Government arbitrarily evicted or displaced people from their land, especially if the land was their
primary means of [subsistence]. Further examples include the government lifting social security provisions without
ensuring alternatives for vulnerable groups to feed themselves, or the government knowingly introducing toxic
substances into the food chain, and thus violating the right to access to food that is "free from adverse substances." The
extraterritorial obligation to respect the right to food requires states to "do no harm." In other words, it requires states to
ensure that their policies and measures do not lead to violations of the right to food for people living in other countries.
In addition, states have to ensure that the right to food is given adequate consideration in international agreements. "The
failure of a state to take into account its international legal obligations regarding the right to food when entering into
agreements with other States or with international organizations" therefore amounts to a violation of its obligations
under the ICESCR.
Core concepts of the right to food
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1050
In response to the invitation in objective 7.4 of the World Food Summit Plan of Action, the United Nations
Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) adopted General Comment No. 12 in May 1999, in
which it developed the normative content of the right to adequate food as reflecting the core minimum obligations of
states, as well as the obligations of the international community. According to the CESCR, the core content of the right
to adequate food implies: (a) "the availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of
individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture;" and (b) "the accessibility of such food
in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights."
There is a right to food
Marsha A. Echols, 2007, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law and Director, The World Food Law
Institute, October, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Paths to Local Food Security: A Right to Food, A
Commitment to Trade, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Echols.pdf DOA: 2-8-15, p. 1115-6
International bodies and nation-states attending international meetings on the subject have agreed that there is a "right
to food." The first Millennium Development Goal, in which members of the United Nations General Assembly agreed
to halve the number of persons without adequate food by the year 2015, complements this right to food. Many persons
believe that the right to food - especially at the national level - is linked to national food self-sufficiency. Opponents of
this view argue that self-sufficiency is economically irrational in many territories. Others believe that for many
countries, particularly nations in sub-Saharan Africa, a government's obligation to ensure food security can be achieved
only through markets open to basic food imports, combined with some local production and probably with
biotechnology.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
18
Right to food protected in international law
Angela Duger & Davis, 2012, Formerly Ford Foundation Fellow, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy,
Martha F. Davis, Professor of Law Codirector, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy, Clearinghouse
Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, September-October, A Human Rights Based Approach to Food Security, p.
203-4
A well-developed body of international law articulates the right to food and elaborates on the contents of the right. The
right to food was first identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 25, which states that "[e]veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including
food . . . ." To articulate rights to adequate food and to be free from hunger, Article 11 of the International Convention
on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights codifies the right expressed in the Universal Declaration to a standard of
living adequate for health and well-being, including food. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities also recognize the right to food.
The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the body responsible for monitoring progress in
implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, has identified adequacy,
availability, and accessibility, both physical and economic, as the three dimensions of the right to food. Adequacy refers
to quality and quantity sufficient to satisfy dietary needs and has recently been interpreted to recognize obesity caused
by overnutrition. Adequacy also encompasses both present and future and so includes issues of sustainability. The
United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food defines the right to include "sufficient food corresponding to
the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual
and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear." In sum, the international right to food is significantly more
complex than simply a right to be free from starvation; rather, it fully acknowledges the multifaceted problem of food
insecurity.
Right to food obligates governments to protect it
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 529-30
A. The Right to Food
The right to food requires that everyone have adequate access to food or the means to procure it. This right requires
states not to take measures that would limit access to productive resources needed to produce food. States also have the
obligation to ensure that such access is not encroached upon by private parties and that such access and the utilization is
strengthened with a view to guaranteeing food security and the livelihood of their populations. n85 Further, the right to
food requires governments to ensure that they and corporations from their countries do not engage in practices or
policies that undermine this right in other countries.
Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees everyone the right to
"an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the
continuous improvement of living conditions." Article 27(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child makes
provisions for the "right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental or spiritual, moral
and social development." The right to food includes the availability of food in a quantity and of a quality that can satisfy
the dietary needs of individuals, and sustainable accessibility that does not interfere with the enjoyment of other rights.
These provisions are buttressed by the following Articles of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights: Article 1(2)(a), which provides that "in no case may a people be deprived of their own means of
subsistence"; Article 11(2)(a), which provides that states "shall take measures to improve methods of production,
conservation and distribution of food ... by developing or reforming agrarian systems"; and Article 11(2)(b), which
provides that states shall "ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need." These provisions,
and in particular those in Article 11, oblige states to take affirmative steps to ensure that the right to food is realized.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
19
The use of the word "shall" connotes a heightened level of the responsibility that requires states to uphold all humanrights contexts, to respect, protect, fulfill, remedy, and ensure guarantees of process and results.
The Doha Declaration, which launched the Doha Round of Trade Talks, made it a goal to enable developing
countries to meet their food needs as part of an agenda referred to as "Non-Trade Concerns" and the reform of Article
20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which requires countries to take into account non-trade concerns, such as food
security in negotiations on agricultural liberalization. These negotiations have included submissions that made direct
reference to the right to food "as being particularly relevant to the future negotiations" on non-trade concerns in the
Agreement on Agriculture. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has recommended that trade
negotiations ensure that "the right to food is given adequate consideration." The Committee has noted that the failure to
take into account the right to food in negotiating new trade agreements would violate this right.
The Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) World Food Summit's Plan of Action recognizes "the right of
everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food, and the fundamental right
of everyone to be free of hunger." The FAO's work in this respect affirms Article 8 of the Declaration on the Right to
Development, which obliges states to undertake "all necessary measures" for the realization of the right of access to
food.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
20
Moral Obligation
States have an obligation to ensure minimal access to food
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1055-6
The ICESCR requires state parties to take steps toward the progressive realization of the right to adequate food.
Progressive realization implies moving "as expeditiously as possible" toward this goal. According to the Special
Rapporteur, "the concept of "progressive realization' cannot be used to justify persistent injustice and inequality. It
requires governments to take immediate steps to continuously improve" the enjoyment of the right to adequate food.
This also implies the "principle of non-regression": if state parties deteriorate access to food through policy or
legislation without implementing compensatory measures, those policies or laws would be inconsistent with the
obligations under the Covenant. A prominent example of this is an increase in the country's military budget at the
expense of food production or food imports. While the right to adequate food in Article 11(1) is a "relative" standard,
the right to be free from hunger in Article 11(2) is "absolute," and is the only right in the Covenant termed
"fundamental." To further clarify, the CESCR stated in General Comment 3 that state parties "have a minimum core
obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels." Thus, states have a core obligation
to take action to ensure that, at the very least, people under their jurisdiction have access to the minimum essential food
necessary to achieve their freedom from hunger.
Governments have an obligation to fulfill a right to food
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1053-4
3. The Obligation to Fulfill
According to General Comment 12, "the obligation to fulfill (facilitate) means the state must pro-actively engage in
activities intended to strengthen people's access to and [use] of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including
food security." Given its positive nature, the obligation requires a government to actively "identify vulnerable groups
and implement policies to improve ... people's access to adequate food and their ability to feed themselves." The FAO
states that "these activities do not necessarily entail the provision of substantial financial resources and could [simply
entail] ensuring access to information regarding opportunities to satisfy the right to food." The FAO elaborates that
"examples of typical measures to facilitate access to food include education and training, agrarian reform, policies
supportive of urban and rural development, [and] market information," among others.
"Finally," General Comment 12 states, "whenever an individual or a group is unable, for reasons beyond their
control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal, states have the obligation to fulfill (provide)
that right directly." Direct assistance may take the form of safety nets such as food voucher schemes or social security
provisions to ensure freedom from hunger. General Comment 12 goes on to say that "this obligation also applies for
persons who are victims of natural or other disasters."
The extraterritorial obligation to "facilitate [the] realization of the right to food does not necessarily require
resources or international aid," but rather international cooperation to meet the goal of creating an environment that
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
21
allows for the realization of the right to food in all countries. States claiming that resource constraints make it
impossible for them to fulfill the right to food are obliged to actively seek international assistance. The Special
Rapporteur to the United Nations states that to support the fulfillment of the right to food ... states have a joint and
individual responsibility ... to cooperate in providing disaster relief and humanitarian assistance in times of emergency...
. Each state should contribute to this task in accordance with its ability.
Governments have an obligation to protect the right to food
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1052-3
2. The Obligation to Protect
General Comment 12 also states that "the obligation to protect requires measures by the state to ensure that enterprises
or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food," i.e., to ensure horizontal effectiveness. If
private subjects are to be held directly responsible, relevant domestic provisions, usually in constitutional law, are
necessary. In sum, governments must establish bodies to investigate and provide effective remedies, including access to
justice, for investigating potential violations of the right to food.
Extraterritorially, the obligation to protect requires states to ensure that their citizens and the institutions within
their jurisdiction do not violate the right to food of people living in other countries. As mentioned above, fulfillment of
this obligation can be ensured best by establishing domestic regulations which make sure that activities by private
actors, including business enterprises, do not undermine their home state's obligation to protect the right to food in other
countries.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
22
Multiple Causes of Food Insecurity
Many causes of food insecurity
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent
Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of
International Law and Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 279-80
The pressure from a growing human population is but one source of the food security problem. There are many other
causes of food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa, including natural disasters, like drought and pestilence, and humanmade problems, like corruption in government, warfare, and civil strife. Food security transforms into an emergency
when its long-term (growing population) and short-term (drought and warfare, e.g.) causes converge. In the time it takes
to read this paragraph, fifty human beings were born into the world: human population grows exponentially every single
moment of every single day.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
23
Free Trade Causes Hunger
Free trade causes cheap food to be dumped in developing countries, driving local
producers out of business and triggering starvation
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 166
Free trade in agricultural products offers both benefits and complications for developing countries. Lowered trade
barriers and increased access to other markets give an opportunity to developing countries to modernize and grow their
farming systems while stabilizing food prices to allow for greater food security. However, developing countries can be
at risk of increasing poverty and starvation through a flooding of their markets with highly subsidized goods, including
those from trade-altering food aid programs from the United States and the European Union, driving small and medium
sized farmers out of business and increasing poverty and hunger. This is particularly a threat in developing countries
with a significant percentage of their workforce engaged in subsistence farming.
India food insecure
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 172-3
Unlike China, India's food security issues are not diminishing as its economy and position in world trade continue to
grow. While GDP has been steadily increasing, rates of malnutrition, disease, and death related to starvation have not
improved, with some areas having instead seen a decrease in nutritional intake. Nearly 60% of the population in India
earns its living through agriculture sold on the domestic market. Almost 85% of Indians live on less than two dollars per
day, with many households participating in an unequal sharing of food resources based on gender, in which women and
children facing malnutrition live in a household with a male who is sufficiently fed.
Conflicts between trade liberalization and the right to food
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1056-7
According to Christine Breining-Kaufmann, a leading scholar on the intersection of trade and human rights, "the
similarities between the legal approach that emphasizes the manifold obligations of states with regard to the right to
food, and the acknowledgement of the [concerns regarding non-trade issues] are striking." This is particularly true
regarding food security in the legal framework of trade in agriculture: "both put the right to food and the liberalization
of agricultural trade within the broader context of development and [the enhancement of] general welfare." In this sense,
the text of the WTO Agreement appears to have been carefully drafted so that countries would not be compelled to
make commitments that contradict their obligations under other multilateral frameworks.
Indeed, states party to the WTO have human rights obligations concurrent with their commitments in the area of
international trade. Of the WTO's 151 members, 125 have ratified the ICESCR, and all are bound by customary human
rights law and have ratified at least one human rights treaty. n136 Consequently, a number of human rights bodies have
addressed the relationship and tensions between trade and human rights in general, or between trade in agriculture and
the right to food.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
24
Despite these similarities, in reality, conflicts between the right to food security and international trade
liberalization occur.
A. Conflicts Between the Right to Food Security and Liberalized Trade in Agriculture
Food aid is one of the most sensitive areas when it comes to ensuring food security and liberalizing trade in agriculture
at the same time. On one hand, non-emergency food aid can easily undermine the system of the AoA if it is a disguised
commercial transaction that would otherwise be subject to export competition rules. On the other hand, foodstuffs that
are bought at subsidized prices under the current regime will be accounted for in the AMS regardless of whether their
purpose is to fight hunger and poverty. One of the issues currently being discussed in the ongoing AoA negotiations is
re-exports of food aid. Some countries have developed a practice of selling food aid received from other countries
abroad. Since food aid does not always fit the needs of a particular country, such re-export may actually improve the
situation in certain countries by creating the financial means to buy more appropriate foodstuffs for that country. The
principle of non-discrimination between foreign and domestic products may affect culturally significant foodstuffs, such
as Japanese rice or Mexican corn. Both have an important cultural value and are generally produced domestically. For
instance, over forty percent of Mexican corn is grown by subsistence farmers. The production costs of these farms,
however, are relatively high compared with U.S. farms; American farmers not only benefit from economies of scale, but
are also heavily subsidized. The result is the so-called "Mexican Corn Crisis." A similar situation for Japanese rice has
led to a great deal of Japanese pressure on the WTO to remove its very restrictive rice import policy. On the other side
of the coin, the risk of using cultural importance as an argument for unneeded protectionism is real. This makes it
difficult to find a solution that accommodates both culturally acceptable food security and the principle of nondiscrimination. Possible approaches are being discussed in ongoing negotiations and will be addressed in Section V of
this Article.
Trade liberalization threatens India’s food security. Protectionism is a way for India to
maintain food security
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 173
As a member of the WTO, India has liberalized its trading regime over time, including agricultural products, but the
effects have not been beneficial; India has gone from a net exporter of agricultural products in 1991 to a net importer in
2008, losing its "self-sufficiency in wheat, rice, oilseeds, milk, and fisheries [through the] removal of protectionist
measures and the corresponding dumping of highly subsidized imports." Trade liberalization is seen as a threat to
rural jobs for an inefficient and uncompetitive agricultural sector, where farmers cannot adapt to changes in the
market, nor can easily rotate crops. The Government of India has vocally protested having to open its borders
through trade liberalization, such as tariff reduction or elimination, fearing that the increase in food imports from
developed countries can create rural job loss, followed by an increase in domestic prices which would further
erode food security, to which the only answer they see is government intervention and protectionism to maintain
food security. Indian efforts on food security must also factor in the "longest written constitution in the world" which
has taken what most countries have as an aspirational goal, the human right to food, and made it judiciable. The
Supreme Court of India is an active player in food security, often enforcing the right to food through its decisions, even
when it is at odds with the policies of the Government of India and the requirements of India's international
obligations under treaties such as the WTO. Although India's food security problems cannot be blamed on the WTO
or trade liberalization per se, India has been vocal about the need to adapt the trade liberalization process to take
developing countries' needs into account when negotiating the Doha Development Agenda.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
25
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Undermine Food Security
Intellectual property rights (IPR) block food security research
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A
Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of International Law and
Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 306
B. Intellectual Property Rights Block Access To Food Security Research
1. Blocking Patents
When a patent covers an agricultural biotechnological research tool with wide application in agricultural research to
address food insecurity in developing countries, then that patent may block important food security research and
innovation. A "blocking patents" strategy is one in which a firm in a complex industry, such as agricultural
biotechnology, will build up its portfolio of patents to create "bargaining chips" for cross-licensing negotiations with
rival firms and to also secure the freedom-to-operate to develop new inventions using the needed technology protected
by their rivals' patents. According to one survey of complex industries, this "blocking" capability served as motivation
for patenting technology second only to the motivation in securing protection from copying. It has been noted that
when firms patent to block their rivals, they do so "to hold their rivals hostage by controlling technology that [their
rivals] need."
It is the threat of legal action, which blocks the use of patented technology. Firms can counter such threats by
holding patents of their own: patents that their rivals may wish to utilize in their own product development. Therefore,
in complex industries, blocking patents can be used offensively or defensively as a counter-measure to a threatened
infringement suit.
This blocking phenomenon chills agricultural research. For example, one public research organization in Africa, the
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), headquartered in Nigeria, has been calling for assistance in
increasing its capacity to conduct biotechnological research. The main thrust of the call was for increased research
capacity (researchers, equipment, etc.), but IITA also stated the need for legislation on intellectual property rights, "for
countries to take full advantage of biotechnological tools." Unlike private agricultural biotechnological firms,
researchers at IITA do not hold portfolios of patents on their technology. As has been stated, there has been little
agricultural biotechnological research on the staple crops which thrive in sub-Saharan Africa's soil with its low fertility,
for example on cassava. Patents which block such research from going forward blocks the research needed to treat food
insecurity.
IITA is one of fifteen public research centers worldwide that together comprise the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a result of the Green Revolution, founded in 1971. n233 When the
research centers of CGIAR seek to derive new agricultural crops through biotechnology, say by using upstream research
tools, the number and breadth of the patents covering today's technology make establishing clarity in "freedom to
operate ... an onerous task."
Yet, many patent holders waive their blocking rights by freeing up access to new technology and products. An
example is the Vitamin A enriched, GoldenRice(R), which was developed with technology covered by patents owned
by dozens of corporations and researchers. To lawfully produce such a downstream product could require obtaining
licenses from upwards of more than forty enforceable patents. Because there is no international patent, and the
components used to develop GoldenRice(R) are not patented in every country, some countries will have fewer
enforceable patents than others. That is, the laws of those countries would require fewer licenses to use and sell rice
grown with GoldenRice(R) technology.
What is at issue, then, is whether researchers whose goals and missions are to treat food insecurity have the
freedom-to-operate in their research to develop crops which can satisfy their goals.
2. Researchers Need the Freedom-to-Operate
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
26
Even though there is no such thing as an international patent, widespread intellectual property rights may be blocking
research which could benefit sub-Saharan Africa. Many researchers may not have the freedom-to-operate and conduct
research on crops which may best treat food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. While the use of technology patented
elsewhere may be legal in an African country, patents still chill research from going forward. Less research occurs in
agriculture for the sub-Saharan region because the African researchers cannot share their developments with researchers
from the developed world. African research is blocked by intellectual property rights. What is more, the focus of
international trade is gearing towards more IPR protection. This means the freedom-to-operate with patented
agricultural biotechnological research technology may become more difficult for researchers working in (or for) the
benefit of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa.
Even when patent owners want to "give it away," patents and intellectual property rights chill researchers' freedomto-operate. To illustrate, we shall return to GoldenRice(R), whose inventors and patent holders have been seeking for
years to "donate" for "humanitarian use" (i.e. use that is free of most intellectual property protection) their technology to
poor farmers in the developing world.
Proprietary biotechnology undermines food access
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent
Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of
International Law and Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 281-2
Today, agricultural productivity continues to improve largely because of the biotechnological methods used to develop
more productive agricultural crops. While improved agricultural productivity addresses the supply-aspect of global food
security, the proprietary nature of today's agricultural biotechnology contributes to the access-to-food problem because
plant biotechnology patents impede access to new technologies that researchers concerned with today's food security
problem need.
Intellectual property rights protection for seeds threatens developing country agriculture
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 443-4
C. Intellectual Property Rights
The establishment of an 'appropriate' or business friendly intellectual property rights regime is essential for
agribusiness reentry into 'Global Souths,' as in the past they are the purveyors of the latest technology that promises
to bring 'food, health and hope,' this time in the form of custom packages protected by Intellectual Property Rights
(IPRs) which include genetically modified seeds specifically designed for the company's own regiment of
chemical inputs. IPRs are becoming increasingly standardized - patents for example, offer protection for: 20- year
terms; the first applicant and for inventions in all industries and technologies. Article 27(3)(b) of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) states: "[World Trade Organization] Members shall provide for
the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof."
The 1991 Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is a sui generis
system, which favors plant breeders over farmers thorough its plant variety protection (PVP) system and is
viewed by agribusiness as a step towards assuring that a country will adopt the patent regime of intellectual
property rights. In June 1999 ASSINSEL, a global seed industry association, adopted the Statement on the
Development of New Plant Varieties and Protection of Intellectual Property, which noted that developing country
members of ASSINSEL consider it too early to develop utility patents for plant varieties in their country. Thus, rather
than push for utility patents, agribusiness interests are calling on developing countries to adopt PVP, as a step
towards the adoption of a patent system of intellectual property rights protection in developing countries.
Whereas patents provide for no exemption for unauthorized intellectual property utilization, PVP allows exemptions for
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
27
breeders, who are allowed to use protected varieties for breeding purposes and for farmers, who are allowed to save
seeds. The intellectual property system has been criticized for its inability to adequately address the technologies
that have been developed collectively by local communities while at the same time allowing for protection of that
same material once it has been slightly altered. Indeed the standardization of patents, which includes that they be
capable of industrial applications as well as first to file provisions, favor those corporations or individuals that
have greater experience and resources to utilize the legal system over local communities or indigenous peoples
who would more than likely lack similar capacity. A recent cases in Canada indicates that a corporation will likely be
successful in seeking compensation and an injunction of continued seed saving for farmers in the developing world
where the genes owned by a corporation via patent protection are present in the farmer's field. In addition, courts in
the U.S. have found the provisions of 'technology agreements' for genetically modified organisms enforceable.
n65 Such utilization of IPR would have dire ramifications on food security for the "1.4 billion people who live in
farm families that are still largely self-provisioning in terms of seed".
CGIAR has deprived the South of access to agricultural resources
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1645
Part of the Green Revolution was the creation of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Resources
(CGIAR), which controls an international network of agricultural research centers (IARCs). This network grew out of
the efforts of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations in collaboration with the U.S. and the World Bank. This system was
used to collect and store genetic material world wide, which, until the mid-1980s, was considered the common heritage
of humankind. Then the U.S. placed conditions on the board of the CGIAR that stated the U.S. would house and store
the germplasm only if it would then "become the property of the U.S. government."
Criticism fell on CGIAR, alleging that "common heritage" was a vestige of colonialism, where the material did not
belong to the world but rather to the peoples that created them, and led to the "tragedy of the commons." Further, the
IARCs created a flow of genetic material from the global South to the global North, continuing the legacy of
colonialism, and denying the former colonies their own resources. NGOs and others have widely criticized these moves,
and a call for farmers' rights has begun.
The Green Revolution resulted in a loss of democratic control over the food system and a loss of biodiversity on a
vast scale. Indeed it is these social, economic, and ecological changes that people have seen impact their communities,
as well as limitations within the current regulatory framework, which have fueled the Global Justice Movement and
groups such as La V[#xED]a Campesina.
US patents undermine global food security
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 323-5
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
28
A. Overview
This Article addresses the impact of American patent policy on access to modern agricultural biotechnology in
some of the world's least developed countries, including some African nations. Substantial improvement in agricultural
productivity is essential in many of these countries to achieving sustainable food security and reducing chronic rural
poverty. Modern biotechnology can solve some of the basic productivity problems that plague small and subsistence
farmers and impede the development of successful agricultural systems in sub-Saharan Africa. However, important
components of the biotechnology tool kit -- gene traits, plant transformation tools, and genetically improved germplasm
-- have been patented by companies with little economic incentive to develop and disseminate the technology to meet
the needs of small-scale farmers, the backbone of African agriculture. This Article analyzes how United States patent
policy affects the development and dissemination of biotechnology that would improve African agriculture and argues
for expanding these countries' access to patented agricultural technology in a food security context.
U.S. patent policy in the agricultural biotechnology field calls into question the Unites States' general commitment
to worldwide food security. In international forums, senior officials of the current U.S. administration have emphasized
the importance of improving the agricultural capacities of developing countries as a means of reducing poverty and
achieving food security. The United States embraces the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, of which the
first objective is eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. President George W. Bush told a World Bank audience
early in his term that a "world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $ 2
a day is neither just, nor stable," and Undersecretary of State Alan Larson recently declared that "food security is a
serious foreign policy concern that profoundly threatens human health, economic prosperity and political stability." The
policies the United States has in place, however, do not always align with its interests in global food security. The
portion of U.S. development assistance devoted to improving agriculture in developing countries remains small. Food
aid, the largest single component of U.S. development assistance, tends to undermine support for agriculture in recipient
countries. The government's subsidy of agricultural overproduction in the United States, which was increased and
extended in the 2002 Farm Bill, distorts global commodity markets and contributes to the creation of an uneven playing
field -- one on which many developing-country farmers cannot afford to compete. Given the substantial impacts of U.S.
policies and programs on agriculture in Africa, it is important to consider whether they can be modified in ways that
will help achieve the declared goals of reducing poverty and achieving food security.
The U.S. government's stances on biotechnology and patents invite such an inquiry. U.S.-based companies and
researchers generate much of the world's innovation in plant biotechnology. The U.S. government is a strong advocate
of developing biotechnology for the needs of not only U.S. farmers, but also farmers in developing countries. n10 The
U.S. patent system has enthusiastically embraced plant biotechnology by issuing thousands of patents, and the United
States generally champions strong patent protection worldwide, favoring international adherence to the stringent U.S.
model. It is thus important to explore how U.S. patent policy might be changed to harmonize U.S. positions on patents,
biotechnology, and the need for progress in developing-country agriculture, thereby enhancing both food security of
developing countries and broad U.S. foreign policy interests. It is particularly important and timely to address these
questions as the "development round" of trade negotiations launched by the World Trade Organization ("WTO") at
Doha unfolds with heavy emphasis on agriculture, and as the international debate heats up about the role of intellectual
property in development.
Privatization of patents and agriculture has undermined food security
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
29
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 331-2
C. The Privatization and Patenting of Agricultural Innovation
The access problem addressed in this Article arises from the recent shift of investment in agricultural innovation
from the public to the private sector and biotechnology companies' use of the patent system to protect their investments.
These developments are well described elsewhere. Research breakthroughs in the use of recombinant DNA techniques
to modify plants, coupled with the 1980 Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, have spawned substantial
investment in biotechnology by large agricultural chemical companies and small biotech startup companies, primarily in
the United States and Europe. This shift has resulted in rapid development of the technological tools required to
genetically transform plants; discovery of some specific, agronomically useful gene traits; and application of these traits
in commercially significant food crops. Another result has been the extensive patenting of the tools of modern
biotechnology and of the plants that result from their application.
These developments are producing significant changes in how agricultural innovation occurs, how it is paid for, and
who controls it. For most of history, innovation in seed technology has been considered a public good. Farmers freely
shared the higher-yielding, better-performing varieties they developed with neighbors. From its founding in 1862, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") has invested in research to develop improved seed. n Until 1925, USDA's
largest budget item was a program that provided the latest seed free to farmers. Not until the late 1920s did a large-scale
private-sector seed industry, based on hybridization technology, develop in the United States and other industrialized
countries.
In most developing countries, farmers produce, save, and share improved seed, and national and international
agricultural research laboratories produce innovations in seed technology that are commonly distributed through public
channels. Internationally, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research ("CGIAR"), which is
sponsored by the World Bank and funded largely by donor countries in the industrialized world, has played a leading
role in seed innovation, and many of its laboratories are exploring the use of modern biotechnology to solve agronomic
problems in developing countries. There are fledgling seed industries in developing countries that are marketing
privately developed hybrids and serving as distribution channels for publicly developed seed innovation, n38 but in
many areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, innovation remains largely a public enterprise and a public good.
With the advent of biotechnology and the availability of plant patents, the balance between the public and private
sectors -- in terms of research and control of technology -- has shifted. In the United States, most of the investment in
research to produce improved seeds is now financed and conducted privately, much of it by biotechnology companies.
n39 Innovation in seed technology is commonly patented. This includes the tools used in the laboratory to transfer DNA
and produce genetically modified plants -- such as transformation vectors and systems, gene-expression promoters, and
transformation marker systems -- as well as specific gene traits that perform some useful agronomic function and the
plants that contain these traits. Gregory Graff has compiled a database of 2,428 patents related to agricultural
biotechnology that were issued from 1975 to 1998. Of these, 76% are assigned to private individuals or corporations,
with the remainder assigned to universities or public institutions. The four organizations holding the most patents are
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Mycogen, USDA, and Monsanto Company, which together hold 26% of the patents. Of
the top thirty patent holders, twenty-two are U.S. or European corporations, which together hold 50% of the patents.
n41
The dominance of the private sector may be even greater than these numbers reveal. Since the Bayh-Dole Act of
1980, public and university research institutions have been allowed and encouraged to patent their results and to enter
into public-private partnerships. These cooperative agreements often include an option for the private partner to receive
an exclusive license to any resulting patents filed by the public institution or university. Consequently, not only are the
majority of biotechnology patents in private hands, but some important patents remaining in public hands, or developed
by university researchers with public money, are exclusively licensed to private corporations. Furthermore, the ability to
patent has given public institutions and universities the incentive to treat their patents less as a public good than as a
source of institutional revenue. In other words, this policy encourages public institutions to behave like the private
sector. The biotechnology industry cites the ability to patent the laboratory tools and marketable products of modern
biotechnology as a crucial incentive for their investment in the technology, and many observers see this incentive as the
catalyst for important innovation in seed technology. The role of the patent system in fostering innovation will be
discussed later in this Article. One clear consequence of the widespread patenting of biotechnology, however, is that the
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
30
technology is to a large extent in private hands or in the hands of universities or public institutions that have a new
interest and ability to control access to the technology.
The privatization of research affects the kinds of research done and types of products developed. Private
development companies have invested heavily in the technology and in the seed companies required to bring new
products to market. To capture a return on this investment, they have focused their commercial efforts, including
product development, on applications that have mass appeal to farmers who can afford the technology. Thus,
commercialization of agricultural biotechnology to date has consisted almost entirely of instilling two traits in cotton,
corn, or soybeans for sale to farmers in the United States and a few other countries: insect control based on the Bt toxin
and resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. This focus on commercially valuable traits and large-scale farming and
markets is economically rational and, perhaps, the only thing that could reasonably be expected of companies working
within our market system.
This economic reality creates a problem, however. The private-sector holders of biotechnology patents have little or
no economic incentive to use the laboratory tools or gene traits they own to develop solutions to developing-country
agricultural problems. The market infrastructure and opportunity required to earn rates of return that would be
acceptable in Western financial markets simply do not exist in most developing countries, where agriculture is carried
out largely by small-scale and subsistence farmers. As a result, the finite capital resources of biotechnology companies
will, for the foreseeable future, continue to be focused on meeting the needs of farmers in Western industrialized
countries and will not be deployed in substantial measure to meet the needs of farmers in developing countries.
Patents undermine work on food crops that benefit the developing world
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 174-5
1. Direct Legal Impacts of U.S. Patents
The clearest cases are the ones in which U.S. patents directly block the researcher's access to a technology. This
occurs when the researcher works in the United States, where the patent monopoly is a legal bar to unlicensed use of a
patented technology, or the patent thicket creates obstacles that can be difficult to overcome, as discussed in Section III.
Many researchers in U.S. universities and other nonprofit institutions are working on, or may have an interest in
working on, applications of biotechnology that could benefit farmers in developing countries and improve food security
for the poor in those countries. To do so with U.S.-patented technology, they must obtain the necessary licenses or else
risk liability for patent infringement. As discussed in Section IV, the transaction costs involved in researching the patent
status of multiple tools and gaining the necessary licenses for them can be substantial and thus act as a deterrent to
research, even in those universities and other institutions that are relatively sophisticated concerning intellectual
property.
The direct legal impact of U.S. patents can also reach researchers working in developing countries if they are
working on applications of biotechnology to crops that are intended to be exported to the United States, even on a
limited basis. Importing a crop to the United States produced with U.S.-patented technology constitutes an infringement
of the patent, unless the use is licensed. Because researchers and research institutions in developing countries frequently
lack the skills and resources required to find their way through the patent thicket, the possibility that a crop will be
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
31
exported to the United States -- where applicable patents may exist -- is a legal obstacle and a disincentive for
developing-country researchers to use U.S.-patented technologies.
Restrictions undermine agriculture development
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law, p. 359-60
B. The Patent Thicket and Its Consequences
This pattern -- the increasing number of patents, increasing patent breadth, and the issuance of patents on more
basic discoveries -- has created what some call a patent thicket in biotechnology: "an overlapping set of patent rights
requiring that those seeking to commercialize new technology obtain licenses from multiple patentees." The patent
thicket is a problem because useful innovation in biotechnology requires multiple inventive steps and technologies. The
field of biotechnology is particularly dependent on the cumulative work of many researchers, and therefore is vulnerable
to the "anticommons" problem mentioned earlier.
The access problems blend into one another and the resulting barriers to further research and innovation are similar,
whether the bar is singular, such as one broad patent on a genetically modified plant or one owner's refusal to license, or
whether the problem is cumulative, such as patents on many contributing research tools or the transaction costs of
negotiating with many owners. The logic here applies to and has been debated in a number of fields. Widely discussed
with respect to pharmaceutical biotechnology, the same observations apply to agricultural biotechnology. Academic
scientists report problems of access to important technologies that have hampered their agricultural research. Many of
their concerns are articulated in Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Biotechnology, the proceedings of a 1996 forum
at the National Academy of Sciences. The most direct barriers they cite are simple refusals by owners to license, a
problem that comes with the dominance of private ownership described earlier. Owners can refuse because they mistrust
licensees, wish to retain a field of research for themselves, or for any other reason. Even public agencies, responding to
ownership incentives, do not always promote access. These simple refusals shade into the more complex problems of
the patent thicket when the barrier is not one owner but the accumulated transaction costs:
Sometimes the shutting out of researchers from a technology or line of inquiry is less direct but no less
effective. Bennett [Associate Dean of Plant Sciences at the University of California, Davis] described
one such conundrum in California. As part of a project funded by the Strawberry Commission,
researchers had been working to insert a gene into strawberries that would cause the berries to produce
funguskilling chemicals and so reduce the need for fungicides. Researchers were using an anti-fungal
gene and a strawberry cultivar both patented by the University of California, so access to them was no
problem. Unfortunately, however, as the project progressed, those involved realized that access to other
necessary technologies -- Agrobacterium to insert the gene, promoters, and selectable markers -- was not
nearly so clear. Indeed, Bennett said, it appeared that even if the researcher succeeded in developing a
strawberry line with anti-fungal properties, difficulties in getting commercial rights to the various
technologies would make it impossible to market the line. The Strawberry Commission dropped its
funding of the program.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
32
Academic researchers may be especially vulnerable to access obstructions, but as Heller and Eisenberg argue, the logic
of the "anticommons" applies to all.
In response to the patent thicket, the commercial biotechnology industry has developed a number of strategies.
Because of the many patents outstanding on the tools of biotechnology, companies often cannot avoid infringing
patents when conducting product development research. They thus need protection from litigation, which spawns the
growing practice of "defensive patenting":
Firms now attempt to protect themselves against [infringement] suits by acquiring patent portfolios
(frequently on very minor inventions) of their own, so that they can deter litigation through the threat of
reciprocal suit. The portfolios have become so substantial that every firm is likely to infringe patents held
by each of its competitors. This is the pattern for products in the semiconductor industry; it may become
the pattern for operating methods in the online services industry and for research and production methods
in the agricultural biotechnology industry. Building the portfolio requires enormous legal cost but
contributes little to research incentives.
More cooperative responses, such as patent pooling or cross licensing, have been pursued in some industries, but
these also have their costs. Elaborate cross-license structures act as a barrier to entry to the industry, and they can raise
antitrust issues. One solution to the high transaction costs of negotiating multiple patents is for companies to merge.
Some commentators believe the extensive merger and acquisition activity in the agricultural biotechnology and seed
industries is driven in part by the need to consolidate patent portfolios and thus ensure freedom to operate. Though
many other factors are also at work, the concentration in the industry has been dramatic.
If the patent thicket is affecting access to and use of the tools of biotechnology by industrial and academic
researchers, it will probably affect public-sector researchers working on developing-country agricultural problems in a
similar way. One can see the difficulties of the patent thicket in the recent efforts by the public sector inventors of
vitamin A-enriched "Golden Rice" to make the necessary technologies available for adaptation in developing countries.
Some seventy patents and existing licenses had to be considered as possible barriers. Commentators have written about
the access problem for developing countries. Thirty-one of thirty-three (94%) respondents to our survey ranked
"multiplicity of patents and patent owners affecting product development" as highly important for access to the tools of
biotechnology by researchers working on problems in developing countries. We will explore the impact of the patent
thicket further in the next section, after a brief overview of the strongly pro-patent orientation of the U.S. patent system.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
33
Food Price Volatility Causes Hunger
Food price volatility undermines food security
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 170-1
Before the recent world economic crisis began, 1.1 billion people were living on less than one dollar a day, and 923
million people were undernourished. The crisis produced an increase in world food prices that has pummeled the
developing world. Prices of wheat, a staple food for most of the planet, increased fifty-six percent from June 2010 to
September 2010, and are now higher still, denying those who cannot afford increased access to their basic nutritional
needs, decreasing food security in many developing countries, and forcing the World Bank to extend the Global Food
Crisis Response Program until at least June 2011. Historically, food price volatility has been a constant factor in
food security, usually arising from climate volatility causing poor production or even crop failures. The problems
of the recent economic crisis have exacerbated price volatility, especially in staple goods, increasing the number of
people at risk of hunger rather than reducing it. This increase puts further strain on the development agenda with fewer
than five years to meet the MDGs, and highlights that more systemic, longer-term solutions are required by international
organizations, including the WTO, in order to meet and sustain MDG 1.
.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
34
Lack of Tech Access Causes Food Insecurity
Access to technology to produce food is the primary problem with food
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent
Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of
International Law and Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 280
Because of strides in agricultural productivity, Malthus has been wrong, up to now. Currently, our capacity in
agricultural production can sustain the food needs of the human population so that there is food supply for all. However,
the most pressing food security problem of today is not the supply of food production, but rather the access to that
supply of food, and, more importantly, access to the technology to increase food production. Improving agriculture
productivity has challenged humankind for over 10,000 years. In relatively modern times, scientific improvements to
agriculture now play a distinct role in productivity. "Darwin's theory of evolution, the pure-line theory of Johannson, the
mutation theory of de Vries, and the rediscovery of Mendel's Laws of Heredity all contributed to the rise of plant
breeding in the beginning of the twentieth century." Accordingly, the application of science and technology are crucial
to the continued improvement of agricultural productivity and treatment of food insecurity.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
35
Grain Overproduction Destroys Food Security
Subsidized grain overproduction crushes local producers
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 440
The United States government has, through its price support and subsidizing of grain production, created an
international problem of an artificially low market price for grains, which has destabilized grain market. The
ramifications for food security of US grain dumping, selling grains below the cost of production, are most strongly felt
in countries where grain farmers are unable to continue farming when forced to compete with below-cost grains. For
example, Mexican farmers are unable to compete with corn that is imported from the US at thirty percent below the cost
of production. Trade liberalization promises profits for a select few trans-national agribusiness corporations, as eighty
percent of all US corn exports are from Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Zen Noh. Proponents of free trade would
perhaps herald the destruction of Mexico's corn sector as the world realizing greater overall production by the US
utilizing its competitive advantage and hence allowing Mexico to determine its competitive advantage. Proponents of
this neo-liberal rationalization are blissfully ignorant of the ramifications not only on livelihoods, but also potential loss
of genetic diversity, not only with an exodus of corn producers but also with the introduction of genetically modified
corn. Aside from the very real impacts that the overproduction of grain in the United States has on the food security of
other countries, the overproduction in itself serves as propaganda for the validation and continued reliance on industrial
systems of food production, which rely on the application of ever more technology to overcome the limits of nature. The
technology of industrial agricultural has its greatest proving ground in the Great Plains of the United States, where in
1996 a barrage of chemicals was able to yield record harvests in the face of a predicted shortfall in harvest.
Imported food collapses local food industries
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 510-11
In the South Pacific, fatty lamb and mutton flap exports from Australia and New Zealand now compose a
significant proportion of the local population's diet. These fatty meat flaps are another indicator of trends in the global
food trade. First-world countries keep the lean and healthy meats for their populations and export the fatty and
undesirable leftovers to developing economies. In Ghana, the once-thriving local chicken industry is now in the throes
of collapse due to subsidized chicken quarters, legs, and gizzards being exported from the European Union (EU) to
Ghana. Meanwhile, Europeans are left with the healthier white meat. In the South Pacific, the fatty meat flaps are now
highly correlated with lifestyle diseases such as diabetes.
A central factor driving these trends is the enhanced commercialization of the food trade within highly subsidized
agricultural markets, primarily in the West. Many of the fatty unwanted foods in the West, such as the chicken legs and
gizzards from the EU and the meat flaps from Australia and New Zealand, are produced under conditions of heavy
subsidization. Subsidization enables multinational corporations in these first-world countries to export these leftovers at
a pittance to poor countries.
A few years ago on a mission in Brussels, I asked the then-EU Chief Trade Negotiator and Deputy Director of
General Trade, Mr. Karl Falkenburg, why the EU was allowing cheap chicken parts to undermine Ghana's local chicken
industry. These chicken parts were being sold in Ghana by importers at a cost lower than the cost of production in the
chicken industry in Ghana. Mr. Falkenburg told me that there was nothing that prevented Ghana from imposing high
tariffs to prevent EU imports from destabilizing its local chicken industry. However, in reality, several internal and
external forces act in concert to undermine local farmers in poor countries. The external forces include subsidized
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
commercial agriculture in the West and other policies adopted by international financial institutions and western
governments. The most significant internal force is unsympathetic politicians who, in the face of pressure from
international financial institutions and western governments, tend to adopt agricultural policies that further undermine
their local farmers.
36
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
37
Hunger Increasing
FOOD INSECURITY IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 480-1
Food insecurity is a chronic problem, particularly in the developing world where droughts or floods may devastate food
crops and there is no automatic government benefit plan to fill the shortfall for the dependent families . Between 2011 and
2013, about one in eight people in the world (842 million people) continued to suffer from chronic hunger particularly in
areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa. n10 While there are estimates that food production will need to increase somewhere between fifty percent
by 2030 and seventy percent by 2050 to meet the needs of an increasing population, n11 it becomes clear that states can and should invest in
reducing and preventing food waste rather than simply investing in new production to meet the increased needs.
CHRONIC HUNGER IS A SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEM
Anthony Paul Kearns, JD Candidate, 1998, “The Right to Food Exists Via Customary International Law,” Suffolk
Transnational Law Review, Winter, 22 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 223, p. 223-4
For the first time in history, international agricultural output exceeds the amount of food necessary to feed the entire
world. n1 Despite this monumental milestone, over twenty-four people will die, either directly or indirectly from hunger
in the time it takes the average reader to read this introduction. n2 Chronic hunger has many victims. n3 It afflicts people by
destroying their sense of self-dignity and excludes them from a rightful place and participation in the human
community. n4
The scourge of hunger not only impacts developing countries, it affects the entire global community because the global
community exists within an ecosystem and operates as a universal economic system. n5 This global world mentality must perceive the
larger consequences of hunger as insidious and pervasive and in need of the international communities' attention. n6 The international
community must take steps to address the right to food as fundamental, superseding any other right. n7 Paradoxically, the
international community violates the right to food more often than any other right.
HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION GROWING
Carmen G. Gonzalez, Professor-Seattle University School of Law, 2004, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and
the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development,” Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, Fall, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 419, p. 420-1
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), there are 852 million undernourished people in the world, of
whom approximately 815 million reside in developing countries. n1 Progress in hunger reduction has slowed in recent years, and the
number of undernourished people is growing in most of the developing world. n2 Rampant hunger and malnutrition
impair the economic performance of individuals, households, and entire nations , n3 and can lead to political instability
and civil strife. n4 Environmental degradation has depressed agricultural productivity, n5 and is increasingly recognized as a major factor
contributing to both food insecurity and conflict. n6 Natural resource degradation through unsustainable farming methods can exacerbate poverty,
produce large-scale migrations, sharpen social cleavages, weaken institutions, and result in outbreaks of violent conflict. n7 For example, one of the
underlying causes of the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan was the drought and desertification that prompted Arab herders to encroach upon
African tribal lands. n8 It is important to recognize that food security and ecological sustainability are closely intertwined and that both are critical to
sustainable rural development.
One billion hungry, most are agriculture workers
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 158
For the first time in history, more than one billion people on the planet are living with hunger. Of these, 75% live in
rural areas, mostly earning their livelihoods from farming. While they work in agriculture, they are hungry. There is
irony in the juxtaposition of agriculture and poverty, in the lack of access to food by the people who grow it. In June
2008, the World Bank reported that global food prices rose 83% over the last three yearsand the United Nation's Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) cited a 45% increase in just nine months.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
38
Number of people living in hunger has increased
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 168-9
Although the percentage of people worldwide affected by hunger has decreased since 1990, from 20% to 16%
depending on estimates, this is still far from the goal of a reduction by half. Worse, the overall number of people living
with hunger has increased since the creation of the MDGs, growing from 817 million people in 1990 to 830 million
people in 2007, with the total number potentially topping one billion in 2010 as a result of the economic downturn and
subsequent food crisis.
Half of those who suffer from hunger are small farmers
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 170
Half of the nearly one billion people in the world suffering from hunger are small-scale farmers, with eighty percent
directly engaged in food production and twenty percent working as landless laborers, pastoralists, or fisherman. The
ironic but tragic connection between hunger and a life in food production in developing countries highlights how
important agricultural trade policy is in achieving the realization of MDG 1.
High food prices cause hunger
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 191
In 2007-2008, environmental events affecting crop yields and the economic downturn both dramatically raised global
food prices and created the food crisis discussed earlier in this paper. This food crisis increased hunger and malnutrition
around the globe, partially reversing previous progress towards the realization of MDG Goal 1, and even though food
prices went down after 2008, lack of infrastructure and market access are still preventing food prices from stabilizing in
developing countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa. In December 2010, the FAO's benchmark index of farm
commodities pricing set a new high, surpassing the price index levels hit during the 2007-2008 food crisis. While the
FAO only calls this a "price shock" at this time, as only wheat prices have gone above previous highs while rice prices
remain below their 2008 peaks, it warns that prolonging this shock over several months could lead to a new food crisis.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
39
Hunger is a Political Problem
HUNGER IS A POLITICAL PROBLEM
Anthony Paul Kearns, JD Candidate, 1998, “The Right to Food Exists Via Customary International Law,” Suffolk
Transnational Law Review, Winter, 22 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 223, p. 241-3
Hunger exists today not because the earth lacks sufficient food to feed all of its inhabitants, but because economic,
political, and sociocultural policies promote poverty and encourage hunger . n78 For example, these economic, social, and
political policies precipitate and exacerbate the problem of hunger and prevent world leaders from reaching agreements
to guarantee adequate food supplies to famine stricken countries. n79 The mass media often reveals the devastating effects of hunger,
but fails to adequately address its causes and remedies. n80 It is a misperception that hunger exists in the world because of
increasing populations or the lack of available food . n81 Studying the patterns of worldwide food production, distribution, and
consumption demonstrate that production levels continue to exceed population growth. n82 Thus, economically driven policy decisions of
governments, not natural causes, result in world hunger . n83
The existence of the right to food remains quintessential toward the elimination of hunger because of the gross inequities in food production and
distribution patterns. n84 For instance, developing or third world countries account for seventy-five percent of the world's population; they produce
over fifty percent of the world's food and, yet, consume only forty percent of agriculture produced. n85 This disproportionate relationship
between population and consumption has resulted in the third-world countries having a per capita caloric intake of only
2474 calories per day, while the developed countries' per capita caloric intake has increased to 3415. n86 Approximately
seventy-five percent of all people make their living by cultivating land. n87 Despite the fact that a majority of the world's population engages in land
cultivation, only a small minority disproportionately control the vast majority of land through plantations and farms. n88 This small percentage of
wealthy individuals enjoy the protection of national and local governments and receive a superfluous percentage of governmental loans, subsidies,
investment incentives, and tax privileges. n89 In turn, this elite minority becomes wealthier and exercises greater control over the government, which
results in legislation that ensures the inequality between the classes and the maintenance of poverty.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
40
Food Insecurity Impacts
Food insecurity threatens hundreds of millions
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent
Domain: A Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of
International Law and Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 282-3
In sub-Saharan Africa, food security is a question of survival for hundreds of millions of people. Improved agricultural
productivity must take place in another class of crops which have not enjoyed considerable, modern-day R&D because
of their low commercial value in the global marketplace. These are the "staple crops" of the sub-Saharan diet.
Because of the proprietary nature of today's agricultural biotechnology R&D, improvements in nutritious crops that
grow well in sub-Saharan Africa's poor soil, such as cassava, may be blocked. Also, the majority of agricultural research
conducted on behalf of sub-Saharan Africa is still done in public research facilities. This important work may be
hindered by the existence of a layer of IPRs - especially upon the research tools - at the vital R&D stage of agricultural
biotechnological productivity.
Thus, the question presents itself whether IPRs exacerbate the food insecurity of the developing world - in particular
that of sub-Saharan Africa - because the means to research and develop the crops needed to sustain the developing
world are blocked by the proprietary nature of modern agricultural biotechnology. There are those who stand ready to
conduct the necessary R&D of crops to address the food security needs of regions like sub-Saharan Africa, yet find their
progress is chilled by the threat of litigation stemming from intellectual property rights. This problem could have dire
international ramifications because global security is at risk in a food insecure world. Part I of this Note examines how
food insecurity threatens global security.
Food insecurity causes conflict and military insecurity
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A
Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of International Law and
Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 283
Food security deserves its place in any long-term calculation regarding global security. Widespread chronic hunger
causes widespread instability and debilitating poverty and decreases all of our safety, for example from the increased
threat from global terrorism. Widespread instability is an unmistakable characteristic of life in sub-Saharan Africa. Food
insecurity, therefore, causes global insecurity because widespread instability in places like sub-Saharan Africa threatens
all of our safety. Food insecurity in the unstable regions of the world must be taken on now lest we find ourselves facing
some far worse danger in the days to come.
Hunger drives children to be child soldiers
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A
Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of International Law and
Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 286-7
Our concern of food insecurity is a concern for our future. The living embodiment of our future is our children, and
food insecurity is one underlying cause of a great tragedy that young people face in our world today: the rise of armies
of child soldiers. In his book on this disturbing topic, P.W. Singer describes the connection a swelling world population
has with the degradation of the environment, the depletion of safe drinking water, and the reduction of land suitable for
agriculture. n61 Mr. Singer notes that a "third of all children in Africa suffer from severe hunger. By 2010, this figure
may rise to as many as half of all African children." Africa is rife with zones of human conflict. n63 Indeed, it is ironic
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
41
that on a continent with countries "fabulously rich in natural resources, including agriculture," there are so many hungry
people. The worst areas of violence in Africa currently witness armed groups totaling over an estimated 100,000 child
soldiers; these are soldiers who are often as young as twelve years old.
Many of these children are forced into service, but that is not always the case. Singer states that, in Africa, up to
sixty percent of the child soldiers "volunteer" to join, largely due to the economic forces of hunger and poverty. For
many of these children, becoming a soldier may be "the only way to guarantee regular meals, clothing, or medical
attention." Placing this horrifying scenario into a global perspective, Singer notes a similar ratio of children soldiers
enlist in the conflicts in East Asia. The causes of this new element of global conflict are as complex as the causes of
food security, and, sadly, in many ways the same. Again and again, there is a link between the pain of poverty and the
horror of chronic hunger, and a growing world population that exists in between the two.
Lack of food security causes conflict
Robert H. Trudell, JD, 2005, Food Security Emergencies And The Power Of Eminent Domain: A
Domestic Legal Tool To Treat A Global Problem, Syracuse Journal of International Law and
Commerce, http://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol33/iss1/20/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 288
The lack of food security in sub-Saharan Africa makes it one of the least stable regions of the world. Such instability
has a negative effect on global security, especially in the poorer countries of the world, which suffer from major violent
conflicts. One cause of this instability can be seen in the connection of food insecurity with the degrading sub-Saharan
environment. In the search for sustainable agriculture, the pressures of a growing population have resulted in a reduction
of cropland. In Africa, forests are cut down to make grazing pastures, then grazing pastures erode away and become
deserts or areas of land incapable of producing any sustainable harvest because the soil has no more nutrients. One
commentator, writing about sub-Saharan Africa, noted: "the relationship that exists between human security and
environmental degradation is best illustrated in the agricultural sector." Many of the farmers in this region still use the
"slash-and-burn" method of subsistence farming. The forests of sub-Saharan Africa are cut down for agriculture
because, as will be further discussed below, the African soil quickly loses its ability to sustain plant life so more and
more land is needed to grow the same amount of food.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
42
Racism Impacts
Lack of food security has racist impacts
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 164
Meanwhile, agribusiness, much of it based in the United States, was prospering as never before. Agribusiness
heralded the idea that "one seed feeds the world." Rather than adapting seeds to different locales, they were selling
whole systems that adapted the locales to the industrial agriculture model. In this way agribusiness operated similarly to
colonial powers; the companies were profiting off the former colonies and making record profits, while the farmers, the
people, and the land, continued to suffer. This is notable also for the racial dimensions that operate both historically and
currently in the global food system. Those without food are disproportionately people of color and those who control the
means of production are disproportionately white. This is a leftover remnant of an agricultural system built on
enslavement.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
43
US Food Insecurity
Many food security problems in the US
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 402
Despite this optimism and the tremendous growth in U.S. agriculture production, there are still numerous food
security issues in the United States. Both urban and rural populations suffer from a lack of food security as
defined under international law and policy. In addition there are a number of health and nutritional disparities
in the United States surrounding both undernutrition and overnutrition; in some instances, this may occur
within the same individual who consumes an overabundance of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods. These health
disparities are particularly apparent when examining Native American populations. The remainder of this
Article will highlight the need for a more reflexive approach to food security, wherein the quantity of food
produced and distributed as assistance is but one measurement in a series of metrics necessary to understand the
ramifications of a food system focused primarily on commodity production to achieve food security.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
44
A2: Food Aid Solves
Food aid is not the solution to hunger, need to strengthen local crop production systems
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 188
Developed nations must let go of the concept that the central tool for helping the hungry is through food aid. Food aid is
a short-term solution, but must be followed up by sustainable trade mechanisms that allow developing countries to
reform and maintain food production systems to create a food secure population. If the WTO negotiators from
developed nations do not let go of this reliance on food aid, further action at the WTO level is in jeopardy of being
irrelevant. These negotiators will need to take a new view of the issues of food security to be able to realize the potential
of the SSM to help achieve MDG 1.
Food aid often undermines local producers
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October, Liberalizing Trade in
Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is Professor of Law and Co-Director of the
Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research
Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-in-agriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA:
2-8-15, p. 1054-5
Products included in international food aid programs must be "safe and culturally acceptable to the recipient
population." Studies show, however, that food aid is often not tailored to the needs of countries, but rather used as an
instrument for disposing of the surpluses of developed countries. As a result, there is not an empirically established
relationship between food crises or shortages and food aid. Additionally, food aid "should be organized in ways that
facilitate the return to food self-reliance" and do not adversely affect local producers and local markets. Again, because
of the described strategy, food aid often consists of products that, due to mass production, are much cheaper than local
foods and therefore hinder the recovery of local market structures. In addition, such a policy may also affect culturally
important goods since they are usually produced locally. In sum, the practice of disposing of food surpluses as food aid
conflicts with the obligation to fulfill the right to food in a manner that does not adversely affect local markets. The case
of Somalia, a country that reduced its own farming activities and thus became completely dependent on food aid,
illustrates this argument.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
45
A2: Green Revolution Solves
Green revolution produced a flood of crops, increasing poverty and hunger
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 163-4
What came next is more controversial. From the point of view of certain scientists, the Green Revolution was a
success as it more than doubled food production. Fear of a Malthusian catastrophe brought on by over-population left
the world looking for new technologies as the answer to the growing problem of hunger. However, as Nobel Laureate
Amartya Sen argues, hunger is not an issue of food production being in proportion to population, but rather a social
problem stemming from poverty. The complexity of the problem cannot be overstated and simple fixes are not capable
of addressing it. However unintentionally, the Green Revolution has increased hunger and inequality in many ways,
even as it increased the food supply that was available to those who could afford to buy food. It benefited wealthy
farmers who could afford the expensive inputs over poor farmers. The flood of crops on the market drove down prices,
leaving many small farmers poverty-stricken. When farmers abandoned traditional low-input ecologically sustainable
practices in favor of industrial agriculture, they harmed their environment.
Green revolution doesn’t solve food insecurity in Africa
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 328
Food insecurity is closely linked to poverty and concentrated in the developing countries of South Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. It is, however, an extraordinarily complex social, economic, and political problem whose causes and
solutions vary from country to country. In India and some other Asian countries, great strides have been made through
the Green Revolution in increasing the productivity of agriculture, albeit with well-recognized costs to the environment.
These countries produce enough food to feed their populations, and in some cases, have become food exporters, but
many people in these countries are hungry because they lack the economic means to purchase or produce the food they
need for themselves and their families. Poverty and social instability are obstacles to food security in many African
countries, but the basic problem of poor agricultural productivity has never been solved. The Green Revolution largely
bypassed sub-Saharan Africa, and areas in that region have soil, water, climate, and plant pest conditions that make
productivity gains hard to achieve and sustain.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
46
Indigenous Foods
Ability to pursue subsistence activities is critical to food security
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 38
A substantial body of literature on the political and symbolic dimensions of the Alaska subsistence debate exists;
however, other implications of the debate have not yet been explored, such as the relationship between subsistence and
food security. This Article demonstrates that the ability of Alaskan Inuit to pursue their subsistence activities is closely
linked to their food security. In other words, even if it is essential to ensure that the Inuit have access to healthy
marketed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grain cereals, and dairy products, protecting their subsistence
harvesting of renewable natural resources is a fundamental requirement for their food security as well. The Article
analyzes some of the effects of the subsistence debate and federal and state resource management regimes regarding
Alaskan Inuit food security.
“Food Security” includes access to culturally appropriate food
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 48-9
The concept of food security, currently defined as the capacity of every individual to access sufficient, safe, and
nutritious foods corresponding to their preferences, has an objective as well as a subjective component. It is not enough
that sufficient, safe, and nutritious food supplies be available; they must also be accessible to every individual. Food
security also requires that people have access to adequate foods, notably, foods "corresponding to the cultural traditions
of the people to which the consumer belongs." The requirement of cultural acceptability "implies the need also to take
into account, as far as possible, perceived non[-]nutrient-based values attached to food and food consumption." It
recognizes that "food culture" is part of a group's wider cultural identity. As such, food security amounts to the practical
objective of the "right to food" protected under international law, specifically, the right to adequate food affirmed in
section 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food interprets this right as follows: the right to have regular, permanent and free access,
either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food
corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
47
mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear. As the following sections will explain, Inuit
subsistence activities and foods are not valuable merely from a nutritional and health perspective. They also correspond
to the food preferences of a large number of Alaskan Inuit and promote both the cultural vitality and the food economy
of Inuit communities.
Alaskan Intuit consume local foods
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 50
A gradual shift in the diet of Inuit populations and increasing dependence on a more "Western" diet has resulted from
the progressive sedentarization of Inuit communities and the increasing availability of market foods. Nevertheless,
foods surveys conducted among Alaska Native adults have revealed that "country foods" are still regularly consumed in
Alaska. In 2000, 92% of Alaskan Arctic households, the majority of which are Inuit, reported consuming local game,
such as caribou, harbor and ringed seal, bowhead whale, walrus, ptarmigan, duck, and geese. Ninety-six percent of
households reported consuming fish, most frequently salmon, halibut, whitefish, and herring. The market foods reported
as most frequently consumed were coffee, sugar, white bread, tea, soft drinks, butter, and margarine. Studies have
suggested that country food intake increases with age and varies geographically and seasonally. This preference for
country foods may be explained in several ways. For example, in investigating the factors influencing individual
motivation to eat country foods, one study reported that the Inuit of Barrow believe their country foods are, among other
things, nutritious, tasty, filling, natural, and part of their identity. Many Inuit report craving country foods and state that
it keeps them strong and warm.
Consumption of country foods important to health
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 51
Current research tends to indicate that the consumption of country foods remains important for the health n89 of
Alaskan Inuit. The food security of many Inuit is favored by the consumption of traditional foods supplemented with
nutritious foods obtained from the external food market. Country foods contain many key nutrients that contribute to
individual health, and may lower the risk of heart disease, some cancers, diabetes, hyperinsulinemia, adverse birth
outcomes, and atherosclerotic diseases. For example, numerous studies have reported that the Inuit traditional diet, rich
in fish and marine mammals, protects against cardiovascular diseases. This benefit can be attributed to the n-3 fatty
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
48
acids found primarily in many marine country foods. Preliminary data suggests that a high dietary intake of these fatty
acids may also reduce the occurrence of some cancers, diabetes, hyperinsulinemia, and birth defects.
Hunting and fishing critical to normal weight and health
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 51-2
Many Inuit regard a healthy lifestyle as closely linked to hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. In numerous
aboriginal populations, however, a more sedentary lifestyle, the result of urbanization and acculturation, seems to be
associated with the increasing prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and some cardiovascular diseases. Fishing, hunting, and
gathering activities provide an opportunity for Inuit to increase physical activity, maintain normal weight, and prevent
metabolic disorders, in addition to providing various significant social and cultural benefits.
No significant health problems from local food
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 52
The risks related to Inuit consumption of country foods are mainly attributable to the presence of contaminants in these
foods, primarily heavy metals and organochlorines, from exposure to various zoonotic diseases, and food poisoning.
The contamination of the arctic food chain has been identified and investigated in great depth over the past two decades.
While the level of contaminants in some traditional foods in other circumpolar regions approaches or exceeds national
safety standards, data available n100 for Alaska suggests that exposure levels to methylmercury are, for the most part,
below or near World Health Organization ("WHO") intake guidelines. Despite knowledge of contaminant levels in
country food species, no known adverse human health effects have been observed in the Alaskan Arctic.
Reducing country food consumption threatens the Intuit
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
49
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 52-3
Recent dietary studies suggest that market foods are also important to the Inuit diet even though country foods
provide many key nutrients. The adequate consumption of nutritious market foods, such as dairy products, fruits,
vegetables, whole-grain cereals, fortified milk formulas, and iron-fortified cereals for infants, could help prevent
nutritional deficiencies among some sub-groups of the Alaska Arctic population. Substituting market foods in place of
country foods, however, is not always desirable, because of the high fat and sugar content of market foods. The exercise
of balancing or weighing the known risks and benefits of country food consumption is complex. While contaminants
found in northern country foods may pose potential public health risks, these foods constitute a valuable source of
several key nutrients. Significantly, reducing country food consumption would expose the Inuit to indirect risks caused
by changes in diet, such as social and cultural disruption and chronic diseases such as diabetes, some cardiovascular
diseases, and cancers seen at higher levels in other populations.
Local food important to Intuit self-worth and individuality
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 53-4
As previously stated, food security requires not only that individuals have access to foods that are good for their health,
but also that those foods be culturally acceptable. Considering its cultural dimension, food security goes beyond the
mere satisfaction of physical needs - it integrates the social and cultural symbolism of food, which determines what food
is and which foods are appropriate for human consumption. Subsistence activities continue to shape the life of Alaskan
Inuit communities, including their occupational structure and their material and spiritual culture, language, and
discourse. Intuit still partly derive their self-worth, individually and collectively, from traditions associated with
hunting, fishing, and gathering. More than a mere means of obtaining the foodstuffs required for physical survival, these
practices represent an important aspect of community integration.
Subsistence food activities important to social and economic organization
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
50
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 54-5
Activities related to subsistence represent an important foundation for the social and economic organization of Inuit
communities. Moreover, traditions of sharing play an integral economic role in these communities, helping each
individual, whether or not he practices subsistence activities, have access to the food he needs and the food that
corresponds to his food preferences. Subsistence activities create a space for learning and ensure the perpetuation of
traditional knowledge. This knowledge contributes to the food security of populations dependent on the harvesting of
natural resources. The practice of subsistence activities embodies a set of knowledge founded on experience and
experimentation as well as on beliefs dealing with every dimension of the subsistence way of life, including the
following: the management of the environment; the characteristics of plant, game, and fish species; hunting, fishing, and
navigation techniques; and the preparation and conservation of food. Ending or severely restricting traditional
subsistence activities would deprive the Inuit of foods that are significant from a cultural standpoint, which in itself
would be a source of food insecurity. Therefore, for cultural reasons, the legal protection of subsistence activities is a
requirement for Inuit food security.
Subsistence food economy important to Alaksa Intuit Communities
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 55-6
C. The Importance of Subsistence to the Food Economy of Alaska Inuit Communities
Many studies have underscored the high cost of living in the Arctic, including the cost of imported food. Due to the
cost of market foods, customary institutions based on subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering play an important part
in the economics of food security in Alaska. Individuals count on networks of family and community members that
make country foods available to those in the community who cannot hunt and fish themselves due to financial,
employment, age, or illness reasons. These networks existed before the increased access and availability of imported
food and have adapted to the new food supply. Today, they remain an important factor in social and family relations.
The customary country food distribution networks provide healthy and culturally meaningful foods at a lower cost
for most consumers than market food. Although efficient hunting and fishing requires sizeable investment on the part
of the hunters themselves, the food obtained from these activities is redistributed among a larger number of individuals
than is the case for imported food. Inuit systems of food production and distribution are characterized by a small
proportion of households handling a majority of the harvests (often referred to as "superhouseholds") and by extensive
cooperation among households in the production of subsistence foods. For example, while 63% of households in the
Arctic region of Alaska harvest game, a much higher percentage (92%) are actually given access to the game through
traditional food circulation channels. The figures are similar with respect to fish, which is harvested by 78% of
households and made available by family and community networks to 96% of households. In a study on the production
and distribution of wild food in the Inupiat villages of Wales and Deering, researchers found that about 30% of the
households accounted for 70% or more of the harvest, by weight. Country food therefore tends to be economically
accessible to a greater number of people than imported food. Thus, at the household level, food security is fostered by
traditional family and community networks whose continuing vitality is dependent on subsistence.
The viability of these traditional food circulation channels must be sustained. One way to accomplish this objective
is to reinforce the mixed-economy bases of the Arctic by acknowledging the importance of hunting, fishing, and
gathering activities in the context of global economic processes. The economic significance of subsistence in Alaskan
Arctic communities is perhaps best appreciated in light of one study that suggested that replacing subsistence foods
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
51
would have cost these communities between $ 30 and $ 50 million in 2000. In the context of a mixed-market
subsistence economy, monetary income is also a condition for food security because income is essential both to
purchase imported foodstuffs and to enable hunters to engage in hunting and fishing activities. Income is generated
primarily from wage work associated with government activities, transfer payments, private enterprises, and
commercial fisheries.
When one considers the occupational structure and its relationship to securing food access and availability, the
interconnection between the requirements of wage work (daily and weekly schedules, hourly pay, training and
professional qualifications) and those of hunting, fishing, and gathering activities (financial needs for hunting/fishing
gear, flexibility, climatic factors, seasonal migration of game) appears as the most relevant feature. The reconciliation of
these spheres of economic activities reflects their interaction. Because the hunter needs cash for country food
production, he will aim at getting part of this money from wage work and transfer payments. If one's available cash is
not sufficient, family and community solidarity networks will then provide the hunter with extra money devoted to the
hunting and fishing party. In order to ascertain the conditions for food security in Arctic Alaska, one must adopt an
integrated view of subsistence activities and the wage economy and consider them as a single socio-economic reality.
We conclude that the consumption of subsistence foods is a pre-condition for Inuit food security. This security, and
the capacity of Inuit people to pursue subsistence activities, is threatened by environmental pollution, reduced
biodiversity, increased competition over access to fish and game, and disruptions caused by the exploitation of
resources such as minerals and hydrocarbons. The legal framework may substantially hamper the ability of Alaska
Natives to access their traditional foods in the following ways: by forbidding or restricting fishing, hunting, and
gathering activities; by failing to protect these activities from the adverse impacts of economic development; or by
prioritizing commercial and recreational uses of fish, game, and plants. Nevertheless, the law can also play a key role in
protecting the sustainable access of Alaska Natives to their traditional foods by fostering availability, accessibility, and
safe consumption. The legal protection of subsistence must therefore be part of a comprehensive strategy for food
security among the Inuit people of Alaska.
In Alaska, the subsistence debate and related issues show that the ability of Inuit peoples to access subsistence
foods is precarious. The various facets of the debate, and its effect on Inuit food security, cannot be understood fully
without a concurrent understanding of the geographic and demographic characteristics of Alaska. Alaska is the largest
American state, comprising approximately 571,951 square miles. It is sparsely populated; roughly 648,818 people
reside there, about 16% of which are Alaska Natives. About 80% of the total population live in urban areas. The
remaining 20% of Alaskans live in rural areas, spread in about 225 communities of less than 500 inhabitants. Most of
those communities are not connected by road; food supplies are shipped by air or by sea. About half of the rural
population are Alaska Native peoples, and in some areas Native peoples constitute a great majority of the population.
For example, the population of Arctic Alaska is 56.2% Inuit in the North Slope Borough Area, 80.7% Inuit in the Nome
census area, and 87.1% Inuit in the Northwest Arctic Borough.
Intuit food security is threatened
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 59-61
As demonstrated in the following sections, several aspects of Alaska law tend to make Inuit subsistence activities
insecure or unsustainable, thus threatening Inuit food security.
A. Legal Confusion Generated by Dual Land Management
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
52
Since the McDowell ruling that declared the rural priority unconstitutional under state law, Alaska subsistence hunting
and fishing activities are regulated by a highly complex and confusing jurisdictional system. In July 1990, because the
state was no longer in compliance with ANILCA, the federal government took over the management of subsistence
activities on federal lands. The United States has authority over subsistence activities exercised on federal lands, which
comprise about 59% of Alaska's total land surface. The U.S. also has jurisdiction over "reserved waters" in which it has
an interest by virtue of the reserved water rights doctrine. Reserved waters are waters adjacent to or running through
federal lands "reserved" for uses related to the federal lands. As for the state, it has jurisdiction over its lands in addition
to private lands, including the ones owned by the Native corporations. State laws and regulations that deal, for example,
with hunting and fishing methods also apply to federal lands when not preempted by Congress. State lands represent
approximately 28% of the territory, while private parties, mainly Native corporations, own approximately 13% of the
territory. The ANILCA subsistence scheme does not apply on these lands selected by Native corporations; these lands
are often the most important for subsistence hunting and fishing by Natives.
The current land management regime can be confusing, rendering hunting and fishing rights uncertain. First, the
boundaries separating federal, state, and private lands are not clearly marked. Jurisdictional borders have become even
more blurred since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Alaska v. Babbitt that federal jurisdiction extends to
reserved waters in which the United States has an interest by virtue of the reserved water rights doctrine. These waters
can include those that are adjacent to federal conservation unit lands. Unclear boundaries combined with major
differences in federal and state regimes generate confusion. Subsistence users, for instance, are not necessarily the same
people under the federal and state schemes and do not have priority at the same time and place under state and federal
law. Under state law, all Alaska residents can qualify as subsistence users; in contrast, under ANILCA, only people
residing in rural communities and making traditional and customary uses of fish and game resources can benefit from
the priority.
Moreover, management dualism sometimes results in conflicting federal and state regulations that apply to the
same species. The effects of incompatible or contradictory regulations are particularly important when migratory
species like caribou, moose, and salmon are concerned. Migratory animal populations will be subject to either federal or
state regulations in the course of their movements over the jurisdictional checkerboard. This situation hampers the
enforcement of regulations and decreases user compliance, thus weakening the sound management of fish and game
resources upon which the very availability of food depends.
The conflicts and confusion resulting from this management system are somewhat eased by the efforts made by
federal and state agencies to coordinate their actions. Dual management between state and federal agencies is currently
guided by an Interim Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA"). Specific protocols are developed under the MOA to
provide guidelines for the management of various resources or areas. Despite the fact that these protocols may help to
minimize disruptions and duplication of efforts by federal and state managers, they do not provide for the certainty and
stability required for the achievement of food security. While the protocol system provides a framework to foster
coordinated subsistence management, it does not guarantee that the parties will systematically reach an agreement on
the management of a particular resource. In certain cases, concessions in federal subsistence regulations that adjust to
state law might be overturned in federal court if the result does not provide subsistence users with meaningful
preferences.
B. Defective or Limited Subsistence Priority
The criteria used to determine the priority for subsistence uses of fish and game represent another feature of the
Alaskan legal regime that limits the ability of Inuit peoples to access their traditional foods while increasing competition
for fish and game. To a great extent, such competition is attributable to the inability of the state of Alaska to implement
the rural priority provided in ANILCA. This federal statute recognizes a rural resident's priority for subsistence hunting
and fishing activities on lands belonging to the federal government. The Federal Subsistence Board determines which
areas are rural by applying regulatory guidelines. A community or area of 2,500 residents or less is deemed rural unless
it has significant non-rural characteristics, or is considered socially and economically part of an urbanized area. n169
Communities of 7,000 residents or more are presumed non-rural "unless such a community or area possesses significant
characteristics of a rural nature." The status of communities with a population between 2,500 and 7,000 is determined
by evaluating community characteristics. In its determination of whether an area will be considered rural or urban, the
Federal Subsistence Board may consider specific characteristics, including, but not limited to, the intensity of the use of
fish and game by its residents, the development and diversity of the economy, the development of community
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
53
infrastructures, the means of transportation, and the existence of educational institutions. Applying these criteria, the
Board has determined that Fairbanks North Star Borough, the cities of Adak and Anchorage, and the areas of Homer,
Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan, Seward, and Wasilla are urban. Rural determinations are reviewed every ten years.
State law relies upon similar criteria for determining the nature of an area in order to define the extent of priority
for subsistence use of resources, although it does so in a different manner than ANCILA. In McDowell v. State, the
Alaska Supreme Court held that recognition of a subsistence priority on the basis of residency is unlawful under the
Alaska Constitution. In 1992, in order to reduce the pressure on resources that resulted from the McDowell ruling, the
Board of Fish and Game designated "non-subsistence areas," or areas of state or private lands where subsistence
activities are not permitted. A non-subsistence area is defined as "an area or community where dependence upon
subsistence is not a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life of the area and community." To
determine whether such dependence is characteristic of a specific area or community, the Board applies various criteria
to assess the relative importance of subsistence. Thus, under state law, portions of the following areas have been found
to be non-subsistence areas: Ketchikan; Juneau; Anchorage-Matsu-Kenai; Fairbanks; and Valdez.
Under the state system, all Alaska residents benefit from the subsistence priority in designated subsistence areas
regardless of urban or rural residency. Granting such a general preference to subsistence uses rather than primarily
benefiting only rural residents has given rise to major competition for access to resources between residents of
subsistence areas and urban residents who travel to subsistence areas to hunt and fish for "subsistence." Urban hunters
from Anchorage, for instance, can get a state subsistence permit and travel to a subsistence area northeast of the city to
hunt Nelchina caribou near a Native village whose residents rely upon this species for subsistence. The Alaska Supreme
Court ruled in State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe that the State may not give priority to residents of subsistence areas, even
when the conservation of resources requires restricted access to fish and game. Applying the McDowell ruling, the court
held that when subsistence resources become scarce, the State will only be allowed to restrict the taking of such
resources in accordance with the following criteria: (1) the customary and direct dependence on the fish stock or game
population by the subsistence user for human consumption as a mainstay of livelihood and (2) the ability of the
subsistence user to obtain food if subsistence use is restricted or eliminated. Limited resources, allocated among a
potentially large group of people, threaten the capacity of local people to obtain sufficient food from their traditional
fishing and hunting grounds.
The capacity to access country foods over time can also be undermined because the special status of subsistence
over other uses of fish and game, including commercial and sport uses, is so closely linked to the rural status of a region
as defined by demographic and socio-economic criteria. For example, the economic development of a rural area
resulting from the discovery and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources or tourism could have major
consequences for local residents, who depend on the resources of the land to meet their food needs. Under federal law, a
reclassification of an area or a community as non-rural would mean that its residents lose their subsistence priority and
have to compete directly with all other users. Under state law, the reclassification of a subsistence area as a nonsubsistence area would mean that residents must travel to a subsistence area in order to benefit from the subsistence
priority.
The alternative of remaining in the non-subsistence area would mean that the subsistence user would be forced to
compete directly with commercial, sport, and personal uses of the resources. To require Native people to travel in order
to exercise their hunting and fishing rights could also break their ancestral ties to their lands, resulting in the loss of
knowledge related to the lands' ancestral use.
Intuit need more food autonomy
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
54
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 66-7
C. The Challenge of Accommodating Inuit Culture in the Subsistence Regime
The ability of the Alaska legal regime to foster food security for the Inuit will also be contingent upon the extent to
which it can accommodate the Inuit understanding of and concerns related to subsistence activities. Closely related to
this issue is the relative control of Inuit peoples over the decision-making processes that affect their ability to secure
subsistence foods.
The Inuit peoples often complain that the rules governing subsistence fail to acknowledge their traditions, customs,
and beliefs. Subsistence processes are characterized by their flexibility, dynamism, and resiliency. Hunting, fishing, and
gathering patterns have always been determined by factors such as availability, opportunity, and needs. They are also
defined by the knowledge transmitted from generation to generation in the form of traditions, customs, and beliefs. An
overly strict and inflexible system that fails to take into account the practical and historical bases for subsistence
patterns could jeopardize food security by dissolving the cultural cloth into which subsistence practices are woven and
thus impede the ability of the Inuit to adapt to changing needs and environments.
The State's regime with respect to subsistence is often excessively rigid and does not adapt easily to the cultural,
social, and nutritional needs of local users. The use of Euro-American wildlife management tools is not always
compatible with customary and traditional patterns of subsistence. For example, the use of individual bag limits is
inappropriate when meat is shared among every member in the community. In addition to threatening the capacity of
individuals to obtain sufficient food, rules that are perceived either as culturally inappropriate or that prevent users from
meeting their needs will often be ignored, ultimately thwarting conservation goals. Thus, from the perspectives of food
security and resource management, legal schemes governing the use of fish and wildlife must be responsive to local
cultural, spiritual, and nutritional needs and conditions. In other words, they must "become more situationally relevant
in rural areas." The responsiveness of a management regime to customary and traditional patterns of subsistence is
measured by reference to such factors as the mandate of governmental agencies and the participation of Native users in
the regulation-making process. The federal and state subsistence management regimes differ greatly in those regards.
1. The Responsiveness of the Federal Regime to Inuit Cultural, Spiritual, and Nutritional Needs. In general, the
federal management system is more responsive than the state system to the cultural, spiritual, and nutritional needs of
subsistence users. This can be first explained by the specific mandate of federal agencies under ANILCA "to provide
the opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to continue to do so." Furthermore, in its
declaration of findings Congress affirmed:
In order to fulfill the policies and purposes of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and as a matter of equity, it is
necessary for the Congress to invoke its constitutional authority over Native affairs and it constitutional authority under
the property clause and the commerce clause to protect and provide the opportunity for continued subsistence uses on
the public lands by Native and non-Native rural residents.
Hence, after conservation, the federal resource management system's primary aim is to afford subsistence users a
priority in the taking of fish and game. Unlike the state, the federal government is not legally compelled to respond to
the competing claims of different user groups.
The ability of federal managers to accommodate the concerns of Native users can also be linked to the role played
by subsistence users within the Federal Subsistence Board's decision-making structure and processes. The Federal
Subsistence Board has set up ten Regional Advisory Councils. The members of these councils must reside in the region
for which they are appointed and be "knowledgeable about the region and subsistence uses of the public lands therein."
Though no specific requirement exists for Native participation in the councils, Native people appear to be wellrepresented. The councils collect local information and then develop, review, and present recommendations to the
Subsistence Board. The Subsistence Board must consider the councils' report and recommendations when enacting
regulations related to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife. Its discretion to refuse to implement such recommendations
is statutorily limited to situations when the recommendation "is not supported by substantial evidence, violates
recognized principles of fish and wildlife conservation, or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence
needs." If a recommendation is not accepted, the Board must disclose the factual basis and reasons for its decision.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
55
The Subsistence Board has generally proven receptive to the concerns of subsistence users and to the councils'
recommendations. n216 The Board has adopted some regulations demonstrating an improved understanding of Alaska
Native subsistence patterns. For example, in many cases federal regulations allow a federally qualified subsistence user,
or recipient, to designate another federally qualified subsistence user to take specific animal species on his behalf,
unless the recipient is a member of a community operating under a community harvest system. This flexible measure
fosters food security by recognizing traditional patterns of food sharing that have historically assured every member of
the community access to subsistence foods.
Moreover, federal courts have interpreted ANILCA's subsistence priority as requiring "meaningful priority" for
"customary and traditional uses," so that subsistence uses must be "provided first and that nonsubsistence uses be
regulated in such a manner as to have the least adverse impact on subsistence." Under the federal scheme, traditional
means, methods, and patterns ought to be considered when formulating subsistence regulations. In Bobby v. State, the
residents from Lime Village, a small Athabascan Native community, challenged the state subsistence regulations
adopted under ANILCA, arguing that seasons and bag limits restricted their customary and traditional practices and that
those limitations could not be imposed if sport and commercial uses had not been eliminated first. The federal court
agreed with them.
The following excerpt from the court's opinion is particularly interesting from a food security perspective and
illustrates the spirit in which federal subsistence regulations ought to be developed: However, the court feels constrained
... to observe that the Board of Game must in the future proceed with scrupulous care and caution in imposing seasons
and bag limits on subsistence hunting. Bag limits and seasons are game management tools which have seen extensive
use in Alaska and nationally. These restrictions have typically, if not universally, been used to regulate sport hunting. In
this case, bag limits and seasons are being applied to a very different type of game use. In its purest form, the
subsistence lifestyle is quite literally the gaining of one's sustenance off the land. Typically, the sport hunter does not go
hungry if the season ends without his taking any game or if he has taken and eaten his bag limit. The subsistence hunter
who is without meat during a closed season or who has with his family consumed a fixed bag limit will go hungry
unless some other game or fish are available and in season. Hunger knows nothing of seasons, nor is it satisfied for long
after one's bag limit has been consumed.
The court further affirmed that any restrictions to subsistence uses, notably regarding bag limits, methods, and patterns
of uses, must be justified: If bag limits and seasons are imposed on subsistence hunting, there must be substantial
evidence in the record that such restrictions are not inconsistent with customary and traditional uses of the game in
question. It must be clear in the record that subsistence uses will be accommodated, as regards both the quantity or
volume of use and the duration of the use. Need is not the standard. Again, it matters not that other food sources may be
available at any given time or place. The standard is customary and traditional use of game.
Apart from these general principles of federal subsistence management, the bowhead whale regulatory system is the
foremost example of a flexible regulatory system that favors the integration of Inuit cultural patterns into the law. Whale
subsistence hunting has, for centuries, played an important part in satisfying some Alaskan Inuit villages' cultural,
social, spiritual, and nutritional needs. Since 1946, that hunt has been governed by the International Whaling
Convention ("IWC") and ancillary regulations adopted by the IWC pursuant to the Convention. In 1949, the IWC
decided to forbid the taking of gray and white whales, including bowhead whales, "except when the meat and product of
such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines." The Marine Mammal Protection Act,
passed by Congress in 1972, also exempted Alaska Natives dwelling on the coast of the North Pacific Ocean or the
Arctic Ocean from its "moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammals' products"
when such taking is made "for subsistence purposes" or is "done for the purposes of creating and selling authentic
native articles of handicrafts and clothing."
In 1977, however, the IWC decided to end the aboriginal exemption after the National Marine Fisheries Service
("NMFS") estimated that the bowhead whale stocks were critically depleted. The Inuit, challenging the accuracy of the
NMFS estimate of bowhead whales, fought the ban by creating the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission ("AEWC"), an
organization comprising whaling captains and their crews and representing the ten Alaska whaling villages. Following
the intervention of the United States government, the IWC finally decided to lift the ban and approved a limited quota of
eighteen strikes to be distributed among member villages of the AEWC for the 1978 bowhead whale hunt. A
cooperative agreement was concluded in 1981 between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
("NOAA"), which was responsible for the management of whales, and the AEWC. Under this agreement, quotas are
still set by the IWC, but the allocation of the quotas among whaling communities, the regulation and monitoring of the
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
56
hunt, and the enforcement of the regulations are the province of the AEWC and the Whaling Captains' Associations.
Once the quotas have been distributed among the villages by the AEWC, each local Whaling Captain's Association
adopts regulations concerning the hunt in its own community. The management of the whale hunt is thus highly
localized and receptive to user needs. After receiving reports from village whaling captains, the AEWC must report to
the NOAA the results of each spring and fall whale hunt. Under the cooperative agreement, the "NOAA may assert its
management and enforcement authority" only "if the AEWC fails to carry out its enforcement responsibilities or meet
the conditions" of the cooperative agreement or the management plan.This assertion of authority can be made only after
the AEWC has been given an opportunity to present its views in a public forum.
This co-management regime strengthens food security as it provides the Inuit with the flexibility required to
manage bowhead whale hunting in a culturally acceptable manner. One of the explicit purposes of the AEWC is "to
protect and enhance Eskimo culture, traditions and activities associated with bowhead whales and bowhead whaling."
n240 For example, the AEWC has the authority to define the hunting methods and means that are presently limited to
traditional harvesting methods. The federal government has no power to intervene in the regulation of whale hunting
unless the species is determined, upon substantial evidence, to be depleted. In such a case, however, federal regulations
shall be prescribed only after a hearing and shall be removed as soon as the government determines that the need for
their imposition has disappeared. Consequently, when the bowhead whale populations are healthy, local users benefit
from a broad ability to define regulations respectful of their needs and culture. The power of the AEWC to distribute
quotas among whaling villages and its obligation to consult each village to that effect also enhances food security in that
the specific cultural and nutritional needs of every community will be taken into account.
2. The Lack of Accommodation of Inuit Culture in the State Regime. The current state management scheme is
much less flexible and receptive to the cultural patterns of subsistence and is therefore more problematic from a food
security perspective. Alaska's objectives in resource management are unambiguously outlined in Article VIII of the state
constitution, which affirms a strict conception of equal access to state natural resources. The constitution states that "the
legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the
State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people" and that "wherever occurring in their natural
state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use." Thus, "the state's primary management goal
is long-term conservation of resources to assure adequate levels of harvests for all qualified users - sport, commercial,
and subsistence." In other words, to meet its goal of recognizing equal access to fish and game for all citizens while
assuring the conservation of resources, the State tends to restrict all use (including subsistence) by general means, such
as bag limits and seasons, without considering the special features and needs of each type of use.
Under state law, the preference for subsistence uses is not translated into a "meaningful priority." State law instead
provides a "reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses." "Reasonable opportunity" is defined as "an opportunity, as
determined by the appropriate board, that allows a subsistence user to participate in a subsistence hunt or fishery that
provides a normally diligent participant with a reasonable expectation of success in taking of fish and game." Moreover,
state law provides that "takings and uses of fish and game authorized under this section are subject to regulations
regarding open and closed areas, seasons, methods and means, marking and identification requirements, quotas, bag
limits, harvest levels, and sex, age, and size limitations." The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that ANILCA's "least adverse
impact" or "least intrusive" standard is not applicable to the interpretation of state subsistence law. Additionally, the
court found that state fisheries and game boards have the discretion, but are not mandated, to accommodate customs and
traditions in regulating methods of hunting and fishing.
In practice, the state boards of fisheries and game tend to interpret the term "customary and traditional" in a
restrictive manner. They are often criticized for not being responsive to the needs and concerns of local subsistence
users, for example, in extending sport regulations to subsistence without evaluating the possible adverse affects on
customary and traditional subsistence practices. Also, it is generally recognized that the state fish and game regulatory
system is dominated by sport and commercial interests and that, at least outside the most remote regions, subsistence
users are poorly represented. The Local Advisory Committees are criticized for not being capable of effectively
defending the interests of subsistence users, at least outside the more remote rural communities where those users are in
a majority. The failures of the advisory committee system have been explained by factors such as a lack of staff and
funding, the formal nature of the system in which many Native village subsistence users feel uncomfortable, and several
other structural problems. Numerous authors have noted that the state fish and game management structure is dominated
by "non-Native urban, sport and commercial hunting and fishing interests" and that the Board members, who are mostly
from urban areas, are making "wildlife management policies in splendid isolation from the rural (predominantly Native)
populations, which are the most heavily affected by these policies." There is no mandatory rural or Native
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
57
representation on the boards and, unlike the ANILCA regime, no assurance that the recommendations of the Local
Advisory Committees will be implemented by the boards. Hence vague terms like "customary and traditional uses" are
defined and interpreted by state managers who show little awareness of the reality of subsistence in rural regions.
The state subsistence regulations have been subject to several legal challenges over the last twenty years, indicating
the discontent of subsistence users. Although the state assumed management responsibilities under ANILCA from 1982
through 1990, it failed to provide for priority for subsistence users as guaranteed by ANILCA. As a result, state
regulations were challenged repeatedly in federal courts. Since McDowell, the state regulations have also faced
numerous challenges before the Alaska Supreme Court, often because they do not provide for the subsistence priority
recognized by the state subsistence law.
Some of the foregoing cases provide prime examples of state policies that fail to accommodate subsistence uses or
that favor sport and commercial uses to the detriment of subsistence. In Bobby v. Alaska, Athabascan subsistence users
from Lime Village sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the invalidity of "Alaska Board of Game
regulations regarding subsistence hunting of moose and caribou." Lime Village is a small Athabascan community
remote from urban centers and highly subsistence-dependent. The Board of Game recognized this situation when it
found that the residents of Lime Village were extremely dependent on moose and caribou, that "the [forty] residents of
Lime Village [were] probably the most geographically isolated and subsistence dependent people in the state," that
moose and caribou "supply the highest proportion of the food eaten by residents of the area," that Lime Village
residents have "customarily harvested moose and caribou on an opportunistic basis throughout the year," and that "the
moose populations were stable and that the caribou population in the area was at a high level and growing."
In 1987, despite these findings and without reassessing the subsistence needs of the Lime Village residents, the
Board adopted regulations imposing individual bag limits for caribou and moose hunting and closing the hunts during
certain periods of the year without analyzing their effects on subsistence practices. The Lime Village plaintiffs
challenged the validity of these regulations, alleging that they failed to provide for the subsistence priority as defined by
ANILCA. The federal court granted the remedies sought by the plaintiffs. The court found that the regulations were
arbitrarily adopted because they failed to accommodate what the Board had previously determined to be the customary
and traditional use of moose and caribou for subsistence purposes. The Board imposed closed seasons despite its finding
that "Lime Village residents customarily and traditionally take moose and caribou "throughout the year.'" It also
adopted bag limits without producing any evidence as to harvest levels. In a very interesting obiter dictum, the court
also noted that individual bag limits were adopted despite substantial evidence that "moose and caribou are taken by a
few hunters who then share their take with the whole community." The court advised that "the Board of Game must take
care to accommodate the Lime Village tradition of sharing the moose and caribou they take." Since the ruling in
McDowell v. State, however, the reasoning of the federal court in the Bobby case no longer applies to the interpretation
of state law, as was held by the Alaska Supreme Court in State v. Morry.
Morry demonstrates the propensity of the state of Alaska not to account for the specific requirements of subsistence
practices and to extend its sport hunting and fishing management tools to subsistence uses. In Morry, the Board of
Game extended its general big-game tag regulations to subsistence hunters without analyzing the effects of these
regulations on subsistence uses. The state regulations required a brown bear hunter to purchase a tag before hunting and
to affix and keep it on the animal until the animal was "stored, consumed, or exported from the state." An Inupiat
subsistence hunter challenged the validity of these regulations after he had been charged with compliance violations.
The Inupiat regard the requirement of obtaining a tag before hunting as disrespectful to the animal; showing respect to
the animal requires the hunter to refrain from discussing his intention before the hunt. The Supreme Court of Alaska
decided that the Board unlawfully extended its big game regulations to subsistence users, stating that sport and
subsistence uses are of a different nature and that state law requires the Board to adopt specific regulations for
subsistence hunting. n285 However, the court also ruled that the Board was "not mandated to take into consideration the
traditional and customary methods of subsistence takings in their formulation of subsistence regulations."
In Kwethluk IRA Council v. Alaska, the plaintiff, an Indian Reorganization Act Council for the Native Village of
Kwethluk, applied for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to allow an emergency hunt of 50 to 70
caribou from the Kilbuck herd. The hunt of the Kilbuck caribou was suspended in 1985 due to a sudden decrease in the
herd's number. The herd had recovered, however, and it was argued before the Board that the taking of 100 animals
would not cause irreversible damage. Due to economic hardship in the village and the shortage of other food sources in
the area, the plaintiff requested that the Board of Game authorize an emergency hunt. The Board agreed that there was
an emergency. Nevertheless, the Board refused to permit the emergency hunt, alleging that the "hunt was not in the
long-term best interests of the Kilbuck herd" and that "any opening for a hunt of the Kilbuck herd would likely lead to
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
58
excessive and uncontrolled harvest of that herd." The court criticized the Board for making its decision without
establishing a management plan for the Kilbuck herd and for its lack of a proper working definition of the statutory term
"sustained yield," on which it relied in refusing the emergency hunt. The court stated that "the game board appears to
have acted not on the basis of a formulated policy, but rather in an ad hoc fashion, as though it had unfettered discretion
to decide what meaning it would attribute to the sustained yield issue in any particular case." The court held that a hunt
limited to fifty caribou would not adversely affect the herd and consequently authorized the emergency hunt.
In State v. Kluti Kaah Native Village of Copper Center, the State of Alaska sought review of "a preliminary
injunction, which, essentially, replaced the State Board of Game's seven-day general moose hunt with a twenty-six day
subsistence hunt for residents of Kluti Kaah Native Village." In March 1991, the Board of Game established a sevenday season to hunt moose, which was open to both sport and subsistence hunters. The residents of Kluti Kaah applied to
the superior court for a "preliminary injunction prohibiting the state's enforcement of the seven day hunt and requesting
that the court establish a longer subsistence hunt for their benefit." They argued that they would suffer irreparable harm
if the injunction were not issued, claiming that the seven-day season would not provide sufficient moose to meet their
subsistence needs and that it would not afford them an opportunity to pass on to their children their traditional and
customary methods of subsistence hunting. Granting the preliminary injunction, the trial court prohibited the state from
enforcing the seven-day moose hunt and also requested that the Board provide at least a twenty-six day hunt. n302 On
August 21, the superior court entered a supplemental order that"limited the Kluti Kaah residents to a harvest of no more
than forty moose and required that they obtain permits."
Vacating the injunction, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the trial court did not consider the interests of other
subsistence users (under the state scheme, potentially all state residents) or guard against depletion of the moose
population. As the court explained: Although the forty moose limit imposed by the court may adequately protect the
moose population if no other similarly situated groups seek an extended hunting season, the superior court can in no
way ensure that others will not seek similar relief. If this distinct possibility, in fact, occurs, we question the Court's
acumen, given the procedural and substantive limitations of a trial setting, to accurately determine when the moose
population is taxed.
Further, the court added that "in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court should have
considered the threat that multiple injunctions would represent to the moose population and the problems it would create
for orderly game allocation. Its failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion."
Finally, in Native Village of Quinhagak v. United States, several native villages appealed a decision of the federal
district court that denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. Their motion was incidental to an action challenging
state regulations that prohibited subsistence rainbow trout fishing. The court noted that rainbow trout were an important
food source for the residents of the plaintiff villages, "especially in the winter, because they retain their fat content and
are easy to locate and catch unlike other less dependable food sources." Whereas the plaintiff villages were subject to an
absolute ban on the taking of rainbow trout for subsistence uses, sport users had access to this resource. In February
1993, after the villages filed their motion but before the district court's decision, the Alaska Board of Fisheries repealed
the ban on subsistence rainbow trout fishing. In its place, the Board adopted regulations that allowed "incidental
takings" of rainbow trout while fishing for other fish species, but continued to prohibit "directed rainbow trout fisheries
for subsistence purposes." In April 1993, after deciding that "rainbow trout are customarily and traditionally taken for
subsistence uses in the waters surrounding the Villages," the Federal Subsistence Board legalized subsistence rainbow
trout fishing "in remote, non-navigable headwaters of the Villages' river systems." However, the Federal Board did not
extend its regulations to navigable waters, which remained subject to the incidental taking regulations imposed by the
State Board. The major question on appeal was "whether, for the purposes of ANILCA, public lands include navigable
waters" and whether the federal regulations were thus applicable to the villages' subsistence trout fishing in these
waters.
The district court refused to grant the preliminary injunction, holding "that the hardships attendant to the dispute do
not tip in favor of the Villages because the actual harm involved is the collision of cultures, not the Villages' lack of
access to a traditional food source." In reversing the decision of the district court on the preliminary injunction, the court
of appeals discussed the importance of food security. The court decided that the plaintiffs had presented strong proof of
injury, as they had established that "navigable waters are critical for subsistence rainbow trout fishing." The court noted
that "rainbow trout is a critical source of fresh fat and protein, especially during the winter when equivalent substitute
food sources are not available," and that "the federal and state regulations interfere with [the villagers'] way of life and
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
59
cultural identity." The court strongly criticized the State for promoting sport and commercial fishing at the expense of
subsistence users.
These cases and the relevant literature demonstrate state resource managers' lack of responsiveness to the cultural
dimensions of subsistence and propensity to favor sport and commercial users at the expense of subsistence users. Thus,
the state regime hinders the capacity of individuals to access the food they need because its management tools
improperly respond to the culture and traditions of subsistence users and communities (the prime example being the
individual bag limits, by which the resource is shared among members of the community). The lack of effective Inuit
participation in the state fish and game regulatory process is also detrimental to their food security. Such participation
would ensure that Inuit concerns relating to food needs are known and taken into account by the appropriate regulatory
authority. The failure of the state regime to accommodate subsistence in a culturally adequate way undermines its
legitimacy among subsistence users which, in turn, results in limited compliance and potentially defective conservation
of species that are critical food sources. This problem is compounded in areas where regulations are not effectively
enforced due to a lack of resources. Any threat to the conservation of species resulting from non-compliance with fish
and game regulations represents in itself a threat to food security because it impairs the very availability of food
sources.
Need to act to protect indigenous food security
Sophie Theriault, eta all, 2005, Ghislain Otis, Gerard Duhaime, and Christopher Furgal, Sophie Theriault: L.L.B. and
L.L.M., Faculty of Law of Laval University, Quebec City; Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Law of Laval University;
Member of Quebec Bar. Ghislain Otis: L.L.B., Universite de Montreal; Ph.D., Cambridge University; Member of
Quebec Bar; Professor of Constitutional Law and Aboriginal Law, Faculty of Law of Laval University. Gerard
Duhaime: B.A. (Political Science), Universite de Montreal; M.A. and Ph.D. (Sociology), Laval University; affiliated
with Department of Sociology at Laval University; Research Chair award in Comparative Aboriginal Condition.
Christopher Furgal: B.S.c. (Biology), University of Western Ontario; M.S.c. (Biology) and Ph.D. (Environmental
Studies), University of Waterloo; Senior Researcher, Public Health Research Unit, Laval University Research Hospital;
Adjunct Professor, Laval University; Faculty of Medicine and Co-Director, Nasivvik Center for Inuit Health and
Changing Environment, Alaska Law Review, The Legal Protection of Subsistence: A Prerequisite of food security for
the Intuit of Alaska, p. 84-6
V. Conclusion
Subsistence remains a central component of Alaskan Inuit culture and identity and an important foundation of their
social and economic organizations. Moreover, country foods contribute to the physical and mental health of Alaskan
Inuit, including both the nutritional benefits these foods provide and the health benefits derived from hunting, fishing,
and gathering activities. Despite the fact that contaminants found in certain northern country foods may pose potential
public health risks, it appears that the overall benefits of country food consumption and related activities are greater than
the risks associated with the consumption of these foods. Therefore, the availability of subsistence foods is necessary for
Inuit food security as it provides sufficient, safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate foods. An inextricable link thus
exists between the legal protection of the Alaskan Inuit hunting, fishing, and gathering activities and their food security.
In Alaska, however, the legal capacity of Inuit people to access country foods could be better secured. Certain
aspects of the regimes governing subsistence activities in Alaska are detrimental to Inuit food security. One aspect is
dual federal and state land management, which creates confusion for subsistence users and hampers the sound
management of fish and game resources upon which the sustainable availability of foods depends. Another problem is
the defective or limited subsistence priority afforded by both the state and federal regimes. Under the state regime, the
subsistence priority that is accorded to all Alaskans and the designation of "subsistence" and "non-subsistence" areas
has resulted in increased competition for resources, which adversely affects the capacity of local residents to harvest the
country foods they need. Under both the state and federal regimes, the subsistence priority is precarious because it
hinges on the rural status of a region defined by demographic and economic criteria. The economic development of a
region can thus lead to its reclassification as non-rural, causing the loss of the subsistence priority for its residents,
whose dependency on subsistence does not end with the region's new status. Finally, Alaska has so far proven reluctant
to accommodate Inuit culture in its subsistence regime. State managers tend to interpret the terms "customary and
traditional" in a restrictive manner and to apply Euro-American management tools to Inuit subsistence users without
taking into account the dynamics of Inuit subsistence needs and economies. The state authorities also tend to favor sport
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
60
and commercial uses at the expense of subsistence uses. In addition, subsistence users are underrepresented in the state
resource management system and therefore have little influence on the regulatory process governing their subsistence
activities.
Lasting and comprehensive solutions to these food security issues would require not only substantive changes in
statutes and regulatory processes, but important constitutional and institutional reforms at the state level in order to
better accommodate the unique dynamics of subsistence cultures and economies. Meanwhile, changes could be made
within the existing constitutional framework to improve Inuit food security. First, the legal confusion generated by dual
land management could be minimized by moving toward more institutionalized channels of cooperative management
between state and federal agencies. Despite its shortcomings, the current MOA protocol system reduces the risk of
management failures and alleviates the confusion engendered by land management dualism. Statutory codification of
the process, comprising dispute resolution procedures, could be a means of fostering the certainty of the cooperative
management system.
In addition, accommodation of Inuit cultural, spiritual, and nutritional needs in the state system would be improved
by giving Native users a greater say in the state resource management system. Native participation could range from
mere consultation to co-management. Co-management institutions, such as the AEWC for bowhead whales, provide a
substantial degree of Native control over the regulatory process and are sufficiently flexible to allow culturally
acceptable arrangements. The further development of co-management regimes would therefore foster food security. The
state system of Local Advisory Committees could also be improved to increase the influence of Native users in the
decision-making process. For example, Native representation on local committees could be guaranteed by statute. The
discretion of state boards of fisheries and game to reject recommendations made by the committees could also be
limited so as to ensure the adaptability of the system to the needs and concerns of Native subsistence users.
Finally, Inuit food security would be enhanced by reinforcing the protection of subsistence from the detrimental
effects of competition for country food resources. Even if the Alaska Constitution prohibits the preferential treatment of
subsistence users based on residency, Inuit capacity to access country foods would be strengthened by redefining the
subsistence priority to require that non-subsistence uses "be regulated in such a manner as to have the least adverse
impact on subsistence." Likewise, Inuit food security would benefit if the state subsistence priority were defined as
encompassing traditional hunting and fishing methods.
Local control of food protects culture
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 510
In effect, I argue that food sovereignty would go a long way in helping to acknowledge and recognize not only the
importance of local control over resources and territory, but of culture and identity. This is because commercial farming
and cheaper packaged imports are rapidly displacing small-scale and subsistence farming and locally grown foods.
Proponents of this trend regard the availability of cheaper food as an example of win-win globalization because
consumers pay lower prices for what they eat and fewer people go hungry. However, the devastating effect of imported
European chicken parts on the local chicken industry in Ghana exemplifies the negative effects of the global food trade
on developing economies.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
61
Biodiversity
Biodiversity critical to food security
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. 431
"Biodiversity for Food Security" was the theme for the 2004 World Food Day, which celebrates the founding of the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Quebec City, Canada in 1945. Biodiversity, but more
specifically agrodiversity, is an important tool for feeding the 800 million persons around the world who are starving
and those who are under-nourished or have micronutrient deficiencies. A diverse supply of plants and animals provides
human nourishment and protects these species for future food needs.
In addition, a few of these crops and animal products can be sold locally and in overseas markets for unique or
niche high value foods. While not all agrodiversity should develop into export crops, financial, and cultural benefits can
be obtained through indications of quality and commercial sales terms. By adding value to agrodiversity, it is possible to
encourage production to meet local and other needs, to increase family income, and to recognize local know-how. The
Global Cassava Strategy illustrates that traditional crops, a part of agricultural biodiversity, may play a positive role
regarding local food security, communal traditions, and know-how.
Ways to improve agrobiodiversity
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. 432-3
This Article explores how value may be added to agrodiversity through quality criteria, including standards, names,
links to geographical locations, trademarks, labels, or certification marks, among other regulatory possibilities. In
addition, the traditional know-how may be recognized specifically as know-how, in the production process, as a trade
secret, by qualification for government or industry certification or in the criteria for obtaining an approved indication of
quality or geographical indication, among other possibilities. Certification, such as that which allows farmers to carry a
fair trade or organic label, is another. The goal is to offer means to increase the value and return to farmers of traditional
agrodiversity, especially by qualifying them to enter the limited market for high-value foods. From the business
perspective, these are methods of adding marketing cache to a food, provided local requirements can be met.
This Article encourages a limited dedication of some agrodiversity to sales in niche, high value markets by meeting
the highest governmental and commercial product standards, capitalizing on tradition and origin, and taking advantage
of trends. Part I of the Article explains the traditional link between farming, agrodiversity, and food security in rural
communities, and describes the current environmental focus on biodiversity. In addition, it considers the know-how
held by traditional farmers, including women, involved in the agricultural sector. Part II explores regulatory and
commercial mechanisms for indicating the quality of agrodiversity and its underlying know-how, thereby adding to the
value of commodities and semi-processed foods. In conclusion, this Article proposes that governments and
agrodiversity producers should make use of both regulatory and commercial mechanisms to create a perception of
quality and add value to food products. The goal is to establish a foundation for creating and indicating the high quality
and uniqueness of products.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
62
Agrobiodiversity defined
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. 435
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity, in part, to mean the "variability among living
organisms from all sources." Agricultural biodiversity is an important component of biodiversity but differs from the
frequent concentration on environmental diversity. One group of authors describes it as "not only the animals and plants
used for food, but the diversity of species that support food production - micro-organisms in the soil, pest-predators,
crop pollinators - and the wider environment within which the agricultural system is located." Forty percent of the land
on the planet is used for agriculture, leaving agrodiversity largely in the hands of farmers and rural communities. For
centuries, farmers have managed agrodiversity to meet local food needs and to make crops and animals suitable for
local conditions. While many of the plants and animals are unknown outside the locality where they are grown or are
produced, others are well known.
Agrobiodiversity sustains local food production
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. 435-6
The immense agrodiversity available in developing countries has traditionally been used to feed local populations.
Several African countries were at one time partially self-sufficient in food production. Their foods were "natural" and
naturally "organic," although the nutrient value of their diets varied. It is these traditional plants and foods--probably
essential to their health and contentment but unexciting--that represent the agrodiversity of Africa and novelty to foreign
buyers. The display of tropical agrodiversity in local markets was beautifully described by Nigerian Nobel Laureate
Wole Soyinka and in foreign markets by the Jamaican poet Claude McKay.
Gradually, populations have begun to vary their diets and to rely more on imported foods, whether they are
supplied commercially or as food aid. An issue of debate is whether a return to this status should be encouraged, with all
its implications for food trade, and whether the impact of exports will have a positive or negative impact on domestic
food security. Traditional agrodiversity contributes to a healthy diet in rural communities with limited access to
markets and also provides new, interesting products for consumers in other markets.
Agrobiodiversity decreasing
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. 437
According to some, however, more than 2,000 African grains, roots, fruits, and other food plants have been lost. The
constant loss of agricultural diversity is a concern to the FAO, among others, and is reflected in environmental law
texts. Most of the applicable international law is found in environmental agreements. They affirm the value of
biodiversity for the earth and its inhabitants, highlight the need for the protection of biodiversity, and recognize certain
fairness principles for farmers. Farmers and rural communities must protect agrodiversity and also reap or share in its
benefits.
Marketing agricultural products increases their protection
Marsha A. Echols, 2004, Professor of Law and Director of the Doha Roundtable, Howard University School of Law,
Focus on Biodiversity for Food Security, Expressing the Value of Agrodiversity and Its Know-How in International
Sales, Howard Law Journal, Fall, p. 438-9
Much of the world's remaining agrodiversity is under-valued both locally and globally. Certainly at the regional and
global levels, traditional agrodiversity and products thereof should be considered as assets. They have cognizable
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
63
quality characteristics with potential commercial value, just as do many forms of property recognized in domestic and
international personal, real, and intellectual property. Sales of products, either locally or internationally, can provide a
return to producers or increase family income, which encourages the producers to protect and to preserve these species
for nourishment and for international niche markets. Adding product cache and value may help to protect traditional and
endangered plants and animals indirectly. The higher values can help to offset the extra transaction and transportation
costs often faced by small farmers and small exporters. Consequently, adding market value may help to protect
traditional and endangered plants and animals. Legal mechanisms are available to recognize and to reward a community
for its traditional production when the agrodiversity is the subject of an international sale. The European Union, India,
and Switzerland, among others, have taken important steps to recognize, promote, and add value to their agrodiversity.
Marketing agrodiversity into a niche or high value market can reward the product and the underlying know-how.
Farmers and local communities have rarely benefited from their know-how and the uniqueness of their production.
Farmers possess the local knowledge and the know-how for maintaining, protecting, and using biodiversity to, for
example, match a variety or breed with the local agricultural ecosystem. Female farmers have and do play an essential
role in food production and the relevant knowledge base. The role of women varies from maintaining seed banks to
sowing seeds, harvesting of plants, and caring for animals.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
64
US Action Plan
Steps the US could take to improve food security
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 416-7
In the United States, a shift towards a community food security framework would pave the way for other policy
shifts promoting the health of Native American Nations, rural communities and other improperly nourished populations.
The following are policy recommendations that would advance and support traditional food security:
1. Restructure the U.S. Farm Bill to shift away from mass production of commodities to a qualitative approach to
food security including traditional food security which promotes health and community.
2. Increase funding to institutional cafeterias to allow for on-site food production. This will allow traditional and
local foods to be incorporated into meals.
3. Include locally grown foods (including Tohono O'odham traditional foods) in federal food programs. This will
allow low-income families the opportunity to access traditional foods, support local growers and the local economy.
4. Grant U.S. citizenship for all [Native Americans located on the U.S.-Mexico border or U.S.-Canada border] and
allow for the free flow of [Native American] peoples across . . . international borders so that cultural and social ties and
traditions can be maintained.
5. Increase and provide systematic funding at the national level to Native Americans to fund traditional food
projects. Currently this funding is sporadic and requires tribal entities to compete with other communities at risk of
dietary diseases[,] such as type 2 diabetes, for a relatively meager pool of resources relative to overall U.S. food security
funding.
Native American communities, including the Tohono O'odham, Zuni, Hopi, Navajo, Anishinaabe and others, have
already done much to restore their traditional food systems. New initiatives and current efforts will be fostered by a
paradigm shift in U.S. food security policy. Food security of Native American Nations will be determined both for and
by each Native American Nation. This shift would preface acceptance of the aforementioned policy recommendations
and assist the Tohono O'odham, Native American groups, and other communities in developing initiatives to deal with
issues related to diseases of affluence and address community concerns of cultural degradation by promoting traditional
food security.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
65
Right to Food Key to Promote Food Security
CREATING RIGHT TO FOOD KEY TO REDUCING HUNGER
Anthony Paul Kearns, JD Candidate, 1998, “The Right to Food Exists Via Customary International Law,” Suffolk
Transnational Law Review, Winter, 22 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 223, p. 244-6
The right to food must take on the status of a legal right before society is induced into taking all the necessary actions to
combat hunger. n91 Although the term "right" holds many meanings, it generally constitutes the relationship between two parties,
involving a "justified demand by someone, the beneficiary, or holder of a right, on someone, the holder of a duty, that
the latter does something or abstains from doing something." n92 Within the discipline of legal theory, rights have their basis in
law and require at least an implicit obligation between the parties to perform or respect certain action or inaction . n93
Therefore, [*244] legal theorists define an inoperative right as a moral imperative lacking legal obligation and a distinction between moral
rights and legal rights exists because moral rights carry only social or moral reprobation . n94 The legal right provides a
recourse protocol and allows the victim of a violation to receive from an authoritative third party the benefit of the enforcement of the protocol. n95
The perfect legal right exists when a system of enforcement exists to bring a violation to an end or provides redress to the victim. n96 If the world
community seeks to protect the absolute and inherent dignity of individuals, the mere assertion of a moral obligation will remain insufficient unless
the governments of the world enact legislation to guarantee those rights. n97
[*245] Human rights appropriately seek legal representation. n98 Unfortunately, human rights did not originate as legal rights, but their ideal has
always existed. n99 Human rights [*246] achieve legal status when recognized by representative authoritative bodies, such
as individual governments or collective associations. n100
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
66
SSM Plan
Plan – SSM
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 181-2
In an attempt to protect developing countries, the WTO negotiators have introduced the SSM, a mechanism
necessary to protect the food security position of LDCs, which, if included in the final ratified agreement, would
allow developing nations (and only developing nations) to impose tariffs on subsidized agricultural products
either at or above the current maximum WTO allowed rates (depending on the draft, the tariffs could exceed
Uruguay Round or pre-Doha Round bound rates). These tariffs would protect impoverished farming sectors in those
developing countries in response to a surge in imports or a drop in prices. The SSM, as currently framed in
Paragraph 123 of the draft agreement, would give developing countries the right to self-designate any product
good as "special" without previously listing or scheduling products in international trade commitments, as is
required with the SSG, as long as the product met certain criteria. However, a developing country would not be
allowed to use the SSM to protect a product that already has safeguard protection under the SSG or the GATT
Safeguards Agreement. These countries would have to apply three further criteria: "food security, livelihood
security and rural development" in order to invoke the SSM on a product. The criteria are to prevent the
designation from protecting a politically favored domestic farm sector, and to ensure the advancement of one of the
three fundamental purposes. Additionally, once a product has met those criteria, the draft SSM would require a country
to meet triggers based on the percentage change in price or import volume when compared to the average of the
previous three years. The largest disagreements over the SSM have to do with trigger levels and proposed remedies.
Plan - SSM
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 189
The global food crisis and food price volatility have eroded the progress towards achieving MDG Target la. WTO
members need to look at this reality to see the connection between trade policy and food price volatility as the reason
why their efforts to increase food security have failed, and they must negotiate action in the Doha Round that address
the needs of the world's hungry if MDG 1 is ever going to be attained. Because food prices depend heavily on trade
behaviors, a functioning SSM that both allows food insecure populations to develop an agricultural sector to meet their
needs and prevents other nations from treating food security and global hunger as a means to maneuver around trade
liberalization rules has led to negotiations that "enshrine Social Darwinism as trade policy," and the attempt at
consensus has created trade policy texts that are unworkable and have "crossed the boundary between a necessary evil
and pure hell."
Plan - SSM
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 182-3
However, the biggest conflict is between the United States, China, and India: "[w] hat the Americans see as a trade issue
China and India see as a food security issue." China and India led roughly 100 developing countries in a demand for an
SSM remedy that would allow them to protect subsistence farmers, of which there are 700 million in China and 600
million in India, out of concern of agricultural import surges, as well as surges in subsidized goods from the United
States and the European Union. China and especially India have been advocating that, in contrast to the current trade
remedies, the price decrease and volume surge triggers should be lower and allow for greater tariff increases, making it
easier to implement the SSM against agricultural imports. Specifically, India has "argued for the right to start imposing
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
67
tariffs above their existing maximum rates when imports exceed ten percent over the previous three-year average and
with a permitted increase thirty percent above existing bound tariff rates." The United States, backed by other
developed states, opposes India and China's position. The U.S. sees the SSM as a potential tool for misuse in order to
get around market access gains developed at other points in the Doha Round, and to mislabel and challenge normal
trade growth as a "surge." The United States has been unwilling to compromise on a "threshold lower than a forty
percent increase in imports." United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, argues that
the SSM is essential "to insulate fragile domestic farm markets [in poor countries] from volatile global prices and
import surges," as they need enhanced capacity to produce food and not suffer from the threats to food security that can
be imposed by the global marketplace such as price volatility, import surges, and susceptibility to food that is subsidized
and dumped by rich nations. The opposing sides have not moved from this stalemate since July 2008. Because the
SSM is a make-or-break issue for the sustainability of food security in developing countries moving forward, with
concrete effects on the sustainability of MDG 1, it is vital for these large economic powers to break this stalemate.
SSM protects food security and strengthens the trading system
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 191-2
A focus on sustainability should be at the core of any action made by the WTO members negotiating the Doha Round:
WTO members must step up and make hard commitments, not voluntary pledges as in the past, to create a scheme
allowing market access for products from developing countries to grow the agricultural sector and maintain rural
development, while putting in place an SSM system that permits a level of protectionism for a duration that allows
countries to develop, and to maintain that development in the long term. This is not just to provide food security for the
millions of people living with hunger targeted by the MDGs, but also to create a stronger world trade system of
transparency and equality that allows these people to maintain food security in the future.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
68
Biotech Plan
Plan – biotechnology, agriculture R & D
Paige Gardner, 2001, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, The Conference on Sustainable
Food Security for All by 2020 Concedes that Goal is Unlikely, p. 84-5
According to Ian Johnson, World Bank Vice President, "the effective use of science can help provide solutions for the
enormous problems facing the world's poor, including hunger and malnutrition." Agricultural science has already
resulted in new technology that has helped curb hunger in developing countries. One example of this technology
includes genetically modified maize varieties with as much as fifty percent higher yields, even in dry soil. In addition,
producing more crops than unmodified strains, these maize varieties mature faster, helping to ease the "hunger gap"
many farmers and their families experience between planting and harvest. Another genetically modified food, Golden
Rice, offers increased nutritional value. Golden Rice is rich in beta carotene and other carotenoids, which are rich
sources of Vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency continues to be an alarming problem throughout the world, causing an
estimated 500,000 cases of blindness, and as many as 1,000,000 deaths each year. Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the
director general of IFPRI, cited the value of modern biotechnology, noting that "used in conjunction with traditional or
conventional agricultural research methods, it may be a powerful tool in the fight against poverty that should be made
available to poor farmers and consumers." Research on agricultural advancements (other than biotechnology) have
shown encouraging results as well. For instance, one technique allows farmers to increase crop yields through the use of
intercropping. Studies have shown that these practices have reduced one parasitic weed by over sixty percent, thereby
increasing maize yields by twenty percent. Regardless of the type of science applied, agricultural research and
advancements could have an enormous impact on the fight against world hunger.
Improved productivity will reduce food security
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 329-30
We recognize that improving the productivity of farmers is not by itself the solution to food insecurity. Improved
productivity is, however, an important part of the picture, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. In the face of difficult
growing conditions, better access to the basic Green Revolution tools of fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds, and
irrigation can play an important role in improving African farmers' productivity. With the environmental lessons of the
Green Revolution in mind, many agricultural experts also believe that the tools of modern biotechnology (including the
use of recombinant DNA technology to produce genetically modified plants) can play a role in solving developingcountry agronomic problems. By building into the seed itself traits for drought and disease resistance, insect and other
pest control, and improved yield under specific local growing conditions, biotechnology may enable farmers to increase
their productivity without as much reliance on the external inputs that characterized the Green Revolution.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
69
Biotechnology can improve food security
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 330-1
Mindful of these potential benefits, researchers in national and international agricultural research organizations are
experimenting with biotechnology and working to produce genetically modified plants that could be useful to farmers in
developing countries. The authors conducted an informal survey of experts in this field, and 79% of respondents (37 of
47) rated the importance of access to the tools of biotechnology by researchers working on developing-country
agricultural problems as "very high" or "high" (60% and 19% of respondents, respectively). Biotechnology companies
also promote the potential of biotechnology to improve agriculture and food security in developing countries.
Support agriculture innovation in Africa
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 334-6
D. Channels for Agricultural Innovation in Africa
With the foregoing trends in mind, the ultimate concern of this Article is how innovative seed technology derived
from patented tools of biotechnology can be developed and disseminated for the benefit of small-scale and subsistence
African farmers, whose success is most vital to food security and poverty reduction. In order to analyze how U.S. patent
policy and related technology-transfer policies can affect this process, it is important to state our assumption about the
primary channels through which innovation in seed technology is likely to reach these farmers in the foreseeable future.
We recognize that both development and dissemination of locally appropriate technologies are important, but we focus
in this Article on the research and development ("R&D") stage of the process, which is most directly affected by the
patent and technology-transfer policies we are examining.
We find it useful to posit three possible channels through which innovative seed technology based on modern
biotechnology could be developed for the benefit of small-scale and subsistence farmers in Africa: the private
commercial channel, which relies on private R&D investment to develop the needed traits and incorporate them in local
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
70
germplasm; the public channel, which relies on government and other publicly funded R&D to produce the needed
innovation; and the public-private cooperative channel, which involves making privately owned tools and traits
available to public-sector researchers for the benefit of small-scale and subsistence farmers.
We assume that for the foreseeable future -- the next two decades at least -- the development of biotechnology for
the use of small-scale and subsistence farmers in Africa will proceed largely through the public and public-private
cooperative channels. This assumption is based on two factors. One is the current reality that most agricultural research
for Africa is conducted in public institutions. The other is the situation articulated in the previous subsection: that large,
private biotechnology companies lack adequate economic incentives to invest their R&D dollars in products to improve
the local crops and germplasm that are important to small-scale and subsistence farmers.
This does not mean that there will be no commercial development of biotechnology in Africa and that larger-scale
commercial agriculture will not grow and be important to the future of Africa. Such growth is both desirable and likely
to occur, especially if the recent new interest in agriculture among development-assistance donors grows and if progress
is made through the WTO and bilateral trade agreements to reduce subsidies and generally level the playing field for
African agricultural exports. The development of commercially viable private enterprises to distribute seed and other
inputs is also desirable, and is not excluded by our assumption about the primacy of public and public-private channels
of innovation.
The premise of this Article, however, is that if the benefits of cutting-edge advances in seed technology based on
modern biotechnology are to reach the vast majority of African farmers, they will have to be provided for the
foreseeable future primarily through public and public-private cooperative channels. Starting from this premise, the core
policy questions we address in this Article are whether and how U.S. patent policies could be changed to foster the
development of biotechnology for African farmers through these non-private channels.
Need to improve local food systems
Michael & Jerry Cayford, 2004, Taylor is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future ("RFF"), a non-profit policy
research organization based in Washington, D.C. Dr. Cayford is a Washington-based philosopher, public policy analyst,
and former research associate at RFF. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Rockefeller Foundation's support for the
research underlying this Article and especially thank Susan Sechler, former director of the foundation's Global Inclusion
Program. Many experts and stakeholders contributed their knowledge and opinions to the research through interviews,
response to a written survey, and participation in a workshop the authors convened jointly with Professor Walter Falcon
and the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford University. The authors thank them all, including John
Barton, Jack Clough, Carolyn Deere, Michael Gollin, Stephen Hansen, Robert Horsch, Richard Johnson, Donald
Kennedy, Robert Lettington, Bruce Morrissey, Rosamond Naylor, Carol Nottenburg, Peter Odell, Silvia Salazar,
Stephen Smith, Shawn Sullivan, John R. (Jay) Thomas, and Robert Weissman. Professor Falcon in particular was an
essential supporter of the authors' interest in this subject and a steady source of good counsel and comment throughout.
The authors alone, however, are responsible for the analysis and recommendations contained in this Article, Harvard
Journal on Law & Technology, American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy
Change, v 17, p. 328-9
There is no single solution to the problem of hunger in Africa or other developing regions. A common reality in many
developing and food-insecure countries, however, is that a large majority of the people depends on agriculture for their
livelihood, directly or indirectly. In sub-Saharan Africa, 70% of the people are rural and largely agriculture-dependent,
ranging from 39% in the Republic of the Congo to 93.7% in Rwanda. Although industrialization has fueled growth and
hunger reduction in some Asian economies, it is generally recognized among experts that the poor countries of subSaharan Africa must improve their agriculture and food systems to achieve economic growth and food security.
Moreover, according to the World Bank, global food production will have to double by 2025 to meet rising demand. By
improving agricultural productivity and local food processing and distribution systems, developing countries can
increase locally available food stocks to feed their people and also generate income, allowing workers to purchase food
in the marketplace, supplementing local production. Improving agricultural and food systems in developing countries is
critical to meeting the world's longterm food needs. Especially in sub-Saharan Africa, any solution to food insecurity
will require increased agricultural productivity, to which biotechnology can contribute.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
71
Cutting Food Waste Promotes Food Security
CUTTING FOOD WASTE KEY TO INCREASING FOOD SUPPLY/SECURITY
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 479-80
If we want farmers to grow a surplus, they need processing and safe storage facilities so they are not forced to watch their harvested crops be eaten by
pests or spoil in un-insulated sheds. They need roads that are not only paved but able to withstand more frequent and extreme weather. And they need
reliable access to electricity and clean water, as well as links to markets and information. n1
Food producers and companies that support these producers would have us believe that there is not enough food
quantity to feed the growing human population and so they urge an expansion of agricultural production . n2 Yet, these
same producers give little thought to systematically reducing food waste even though this is one of the understated
tragedies for our times. The Food and Agriculture Organization ("FAO") estimates that one-third of global food production for
humans is lost or wasted. n3 With 1.3 billion tons of food being either lost or wasted, n4 this is a topic that has shocked the moral conscience of
global thought leaders. Pope Francis gave a passionate oration on waste when he spoke in St. Peter's Square on World Environment Day in June
2013, observing that:
The culture of waste has made us insensitive even to the waste and disposal of food, which is even more despicable
when all over the world, unfortunately, many individuals and families are suffering from hunger and malnutrition ...
Throwing away food is like stealing from the table of the poor and hungry. n5
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE KEY TO FOOD SECURITY
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 481
This article urges the development of a global economic development strategy based on the human "right to food" that
takes into consideration the chronic and pervasive global food waste problems . Specifically, this article argues that the
Sustainable Development Goals offer a significant vehicle for achieving the human "right to food" by focusing global
attention on eliminating food waste. This article argues for increasing human prosperity not by pursuing new growth (literally, in this case),
but rather by investing in the full protection of already existing agricultural resources. In international food policy, the adage "waste not,
want not" should be the foundation upon which all other food decisions are made.
CURRENT FOOD SECURITY EFFORTS IGNORE WASTE REDUCTION AS A STRATEGY
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 481-2
While most intergovernmental attention has focused on increasing food availability, n12 relatively little attention has been
given to creating international, regional, and national legal frameworks for food waste reduction. In fact, only five percent of
agricultural development money is allocated to storage and processing solutions with the remainder focused on new
production. n13 This lack of support is surprising because food storage does not require substantial financial investments on the part of either host
governments or donor governments in order to make a measurable impact on improving livelihoods. n14
According to the FAO, we produce enough food for each person to have approximately 2,700 calories each day and yet there
is still chronic hunger. n15 While part of the disconnect between the available calories and the hungry communities may be attributed to ongoing
civil wars leading to internal displacement or to environmental catastrophes correlated with climate shifts, part of the story is also one of
waste due in part to a lack of basic economic infrastructure to properly manage and store food along the entire food
chain from production to consumption. Food is wasted at a number of different steps along the food chain, beginning with production losses
due to either poor harvest practices or bycatch discard practices. Waste problems are compounded by losses due to a lack of adequate storage,
processing capacity, or available markets. The consumer is the last link in the waste chain with food discarded due to a lack of storage capacity or
wasteful cultural practices. While there is less food wasted in the Global South at the consumer end than in the Global North, where the problem of
food waste is particularly acute, there is still approximately 120-170 kilograms of food wasted per person per year in Sub-Saharan
Africa and Southeast Asia with approximately six to eleven kilograms of that waste directly attributable to consumers .
n16
Given the high population densities in the Global South, the cumulative loss of food in the Global South is noteworthy. For example, researchers from
China Agricultural University observed that edible food thrown out by restaurants in China between 2006 and 2008 accounted
for almost ten percent of the country's annual crop production during that time period, or enough to feed 200 million
people. n17 FAO calculates that 300 million individuals could be fed with the lost and wasted food from Africa alone . n18
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
72
Much of this loss can be attributed to "financial, managerial and technical limitations in harvesting techniques, storage and cooling facilities in
difficult climatic conditions, infrastructure, packaging and marketing systems." n19 Some food products are more problematic than others. Cassava,
which is typically sold as a fresh root and tuber in the Global South, is highly perishable, and there have been insufficient efforts to address post
harvest handling and storage. n20 Over half of the fruits and vegetables produced in Africa and non-industrialized Asia are
wasted. n21 Most of this waste occurs at the post-harvest and processing stage due to perishability in the humid climate of many states. n22 Milk is
also frequently wasted in the Global South due to a lack of easily available cold storage facilities. n23
Unlike some global challenges that require member states to make sacrifices, reducing food waste is a relatively tractable problem that
depends largely on coupling targeted government food security interventions with pro-poor community agriculture
investment programs. Reminding individual states of their ongoing obligations to fulfill the "right to food" for their
citizens and to support other states in achieving their efforts to achieve the "right to food" may be one means of
improving food security.
FOOD WASTE IS MAJOR CAUSE OF CHRONIC HUNGER
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 487-8
When the non-binding Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition was drafted in October 2013 to improve coordination between the recently reformed Committee on
Food Security and stakeholders, food waste was briefly identified as a cause of chronic hunger. n53 The Committee on Food Security noted that states must "reduce high levels of post-harvest losses and food waste
through investment in improving rural infrastructure, including communications, transport, storage, energy ... " n54 In spite of this explicit recognition of the waste problem, reducing waste did not play a primary role in the overall
framework. Only two mentions were made in the document. First, the drafters concluded that waste needed to be addressed as a strategy for avoiding excessive food price volatility by increasing food production and availability. n55 Second,
waste is addressed as a small-scale food production problem with states, international organizations and regional organizations encouraged to implement policies "reducing post-harvest losses and increasing post-harvest value addition, and
on fostering smallholder-inclusive local, national and regional food markets, including transportation storage and processing." n56 Curiously,
the management of the food chain to avoid waste was identified as a
potential food security and nutrition issue in a final section of the report for issues "that may require further attention" with the caveat that it may not be an issue to be handled by the
Committee on Food Security. n57
The lack of prominence given in the framework to reducing food waste is surprising. While other food security themes, such as
increasing sustainable agricultural production and climate-proofing agriculture, received their own sections, n58 the mention of reducing waste was
extremely brief. The idea in the concluding section that reducing food waste may not be a priority for the Committee can be construed as irresponsible
and reflects a lack of strategy on the part of the international community for achieving short-term food security. With food waste being
downplayed in the document that reflects the most current thinking on international food security, there needs to be
other means of tackling what seems to be both an obvious and a tractable problem requiring only limited new resources
and technologies. One potential important venue for advancing the human rights agenda underlying the legal imperative to reduce food waste is
the emerging concept of the "green economy." As will be suggested in the final section of Part I, linking a "right to food" that includes an obligation
to address food waste with the concept of the "green economy" holds great promise for restoring potentially up to one-third of our food stocks.
MULTIPLE ADVANTAGES TO LINKING “RIGHT TO FOOD” TO REDUCING FOOD WASTE
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 490-2
Linking food waste to the fulfillment of a "right to food" might create new channels for accountability . The value in
approaching the food waste challenge through the well-accepted legal "right to food" is that it makes explicit that states
have legal human rights-based obligations not just to ensure opportunities for individuals to produce food but also to
protect food that has been produced. This presents an important policy development because it opens the possibility for private
ventures such as family farms to receive public support probably in the form of subsidies for the construction of food
storage and processing facilities as well as the facilitation of food transport and marketing networks. While countries may prefer to pursue this
type of infrastructure via public-private partnerships because it requires less financing from the government, the inclusion of food waste
within the contours of the legal "right to food" does not rule out the possibilities of these types of liaisons between the
public and private sector. Instead, the inclusion of food waste in a legally cognizable "right to food" centers attention on
the adequacy of the government's policies to address its most impoverished populations who have for over a decade
lived marginal lives without fundamental publicly-supported community infrastructure to assist them in achieving basic
economic development objectives.
Addressing the food waste concern has the potential to also contribute to progressive realization of other human rights
including the right to water. Agriculture, particularly in the developing world, is one of the lead users of water. n76 To the extent that
freshwater that has already been applied to grow food, eliminating food waste will also conserve water resources rather than lead to
unnecessary water losses that benefit neither humans nor ecosystems. While statistics are not easily available in the Global South,
one analysis found that the water and energy contained in food waste represent twenty-five percent of the total water usage and four percent of the
total oil consumption in the United States. n77 If the numbers are equally high in the Global South, then addressing food waste becomes
even more imperative given the concerns over an impending freshwater crisis. n78
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
73
Finally, explicitly
connecting food waste to the achievement of the "right to food" may trigger the obligations of states
both individually and as members of intergovernmental organizations to transfer technology and provide financing .
While some organizations such as the International Fund for Agriculture and Development may already be pursuing efforts to reduce food waste in
the programs that they oversee, there is no obligation for them to act. Linking food waste to the "right to food" makes it explicit to the
states individually and as members of international organizations that there is an affirmative obligation on the part of
each organization to cooperatively assist states in their efforts to achieve the "right to food ." The Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights has indicated that international organizations "have a strong and continuous responsibility to take whatever measures they
can to assist governments to act in ways which are compatible with their human rights obligations and to seek to devise policies and programmes
which promote respect for those rights." n79 In the case of food waste, this applies not just to food-specific organizations such as the Food and
Agriculture Organization or the World Food Programme, but also to financing organizations such as the regional development banks and trade
organizations such as the World Trade Organization. Each international institution should consider how a "right to food" that
includes elimination of systemic food waste can be effectively implemented using the functions and powers of the
international institution. As will be explored in Part III below, the most immediate need for states in the Global South is small-scale financing
for small-scale harvest, storage, and processing technologies.
REDUCED FOOD WASTAGE CRITICAL TO FOOD SECURITY
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 499
Reducing food waste is not a panacea for achieving food security but it is a critical first step to re-establishing a baseline from
which rational food production decisions can be made about where and how to invest in additional food production .
Law plays a number of key roles in achieving a new sustainable development goal based on waste at the international,
regional, and national level. Assuming that a state has some (albeit not much) financial capabilities, the most important interventions to be
taken are those at the national level.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
74
Cutting Food Waste Key to Ensuring Right to Food
CUTTING FOOD WASTE KEY STEP IN ESTABLISHING RIGHT TO FOOD
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 480
As Pope Francis insists, we have globally become inured to various food waste practices across the community of nations that leave
individuals and families hungry. Yet food waste is not simply a topic of moral concern, it is also, as this essay will argue, a
topic of serious legal magnitude. Food waste has been historically the largest overlooked component of achieving the
internationally recognized "right to food." Creating a zero food waste sustainable development goal to measure progress
towards achieving global food security is an appropriate and progressive step to achieving the "right to food ."
The problem of food loss and waste ("food waste") n6 is not simply an affliction of the wealthy nations. Even those countries most in need are losing
food at unsustainable rates that are exacerbating existing shortfalls of food supplies. In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is projected that at current
population growth rates and current production rates, the region will only be able to produce twenty-five percent of its
own food. n7 At the same time, recent FAO statistics indicate that due largely to production loss close to 150 kilograms of
food is lost or wasted per year per person in Sub-Sahara Africa and South/Southeast Asia, two of the most vulnerable regions to
food insecurity. n8 United Nations Environment Programme ("UNEP") reports that thirty million tons of fish are annually discarded,
which accounts for about one-quarter of the annual marine landings.
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD IMPOSES OBLIGATION ON GOVERNMENTS TO
REDUCE FOOD WASTE
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 483-4
This lack of systematic attention to reduction of food waste reflects in part a lack of international commitment to
progressively implementing the "right to food" enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the "Declaration of
Human Rights"). Article 25 of the Declaration of Human Rights provides that, "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health
and well-being of himself and of his family, including food ... ." n24 Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights (the "Covenant") provides for State recognition of "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living ... including adequate food ... and to
the continuous improvement of living conditions." n25 States are expected to "take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of
this right" which includes "recognizing ... the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent."
n26 The Covenant provides one narrow reference to reducing food waste. Parties to the Covenant are expected "individually and through international
co-operation" to "improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge ... by
developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources." n27 The
choice of the words "conservation ... of food" suggests an obligation to use existing knowledge to protect existing food
resources from waste so as to ensure "efficient ... utilization of natural resources ." While this language may have been intended to
be narrowly tailored to the food waste that happens as food loss in the fields as part of agricultural systems, it can also be read to apply to a lack of
storage, markets, commodity networks, and small-scale processing industries since the obligation includes "developing or reforming agrarian
systems." A connection between Article 11(2)(a) and the global efforts to reduce food waste has not been explicitly made,
but is essential because it provides a needed legal catalyst for action beyond moral motivations.
General Comment 12, drafted by the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, further refined the legal content of the
"right to food" by indicating that the right included an obligation on the part of the State to respect, protect, and fulfill
access to adequate food. n28 Each of these operative terms was further defined to provide guidance to states about basic content of the
obligation. Regarding the obligation to "fulfill" the "right to food," states are specifically expected to "pro-actively engage
in activities intended to strengthen people's access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood,
including food security." n29 This language when viewed in the context of continuing food losses and food wastage
implies a defined obligation for states to actively protect food sources from wastage to ensure that its populations will
have optimal use of existing food resources.
HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD INCLUDES EFFORTS TO REDUCE FOOD WASTE
Anastasia Tellesetsky, Associate Professor University of Idaho College of Law, 2014, “Waste Not, Want Not The
Right to Food, Food Waste and the Sustainable Development Goals,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,
42 Denv. J. Int’l L & Pol’y 479, p. 484-5
The "right to food" was further refined in the 1996 Rome Declaration at the World Food Summit (the "Rome Declaration") with
commitments by 180 nations to reduce the number of people with inadequate food by 2015 . n30 To implement the Rome
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
75
Declaration, states were expected to nationally "adopt actions ... to enhance food security" as well as to "improve subregional, regional, and international cooperation" in order "to mobilize, and optimize the use of, available resources to
support national efforts ... ." n31
In the "World Food Summit Plan of Action" agreed to by the states to implement the Rome Declaration, there were four significant
references to food waste. In the most important food waste reference in the Plan of Action, states agreed to "formulate and implement
integrated rural development strategies ... that promote rural employment, skill formation, infrastructure, institutions and
services, in support of rural development and household food security ... ." n32 Specifically "governments, in partnership
with all actors of civil society, and with the support of international institutions, will, as appropriate ... reduce postharvest losses and ensure safe storage, food processing and distribution facilities and transportation systems ." n33 In the
second reference, states and civil society groups agreed to "develop and promote improved food processing, preservation and storage technologies to
reduce post-harvest food losses, especially at the local level." n34 In the third reference, states agreed "to pursue ... reduced wastes and losses, taking
fully into account the need to sustain natural resources" n35 without any further explication of how they would achieve this commitment. In the final
reference to waste and loss, states agreed to "combat environmental threats to food security" and specifically to reduce bycatch waste from fishing.
n36
After the World Food Summit, the FAO Committee on World Food Security was assigned the charge of monitoring, evaluating, and consulting on the
implementation of the Plan of Action (the "Action Plan"). n37 The specific commitments under Objective 2.3 and Objective 3.5 of the Action Plan
reflect an explicit understanding by 1996 that more needed to be done at every stage of the food cycle including the final stages where food is wasted
and lost, particularly post-harvest. Yet it was over a decade before countries began to engage in designing community-based infrastructure to address
the ongoing tragic loss of food to spoilage. At the international level, post-1996 until almost 2004, there appeared to be little large-scale systematic
effort on reduction of food waste or losses. In fact, as recently as 2012, FAO indicated in its Action Plan to Improve Agricultural
and Rural Statistics that more attention needs to be given simply to statistically calculating post-harvest losses. n38 In the
Mid-Term Review of the World Food Summit, ten years after the original summit, there was not a single mention of the need to curb food losses or
food wastes. Rather, the lessons learned by states as reflected in the report of the Committee on World Food Security continued to focus on
agricultural growth with the emphasis on enhancing the "performance of the productive sectors." n39 No mention was made of tackling food waste in
spite of the earlier commitments within the Action Plan.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
76
Empower Women Plan
Plan – empower women
Paige Gardner, 2001, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, The Conference on Sustainable
Food Security for All by 2020 Concedes that Goal is Unlikely, p. 86
E. Empowering Women
Women play critical roles in food production in developing countries. In countries where agriculture is necessary not
only for profit, but also for a family's subsistence, women are often responsible for ensuring food security in the
community. In Southeast Asia, for example, women constitute ninety percent of the workforce in the rice fields.
According to Irma Yanny, of the Federation of Indonesian Peasant Union, "if the women's input is ignored, the
consequence will be not enough food to eat." "Women's intimate knowledge of seed preparation and soil management,
plants and pest management, post-harvesting process and storage, animal husbandry as well as food processing and
meal preparation are significant," adds Rengam, executive director of Asia-Pacific division of the Pesticide Action
Network (PAN).
1. Land Rights
One major barrier to food sustainability in many developing countries is the lack of property rights for women. In most
developing countries, women's land rights come from a connection to a husband or male relative. If that connection is
severed, then the woman loses the right to that land. For this reason, women and children suffer the brunt of food
shortages, as women have no land to farm and can no longer provide for themselves or their children.
2. Education
Educating women saves lives. Increased education for women and gains in social status have been cited as significant
factors to decreasing child malnutrition in developing countries. In fact, some scholars assert that "improving women's
education is probably the single most important policy instrument to increase agricultural productivity and reduce
poverty." Educating women on health and nutrition issues would enable them to treat and prevent malnutrition in their
own children.
Gender inequality in agriculture must be addresses to protect food security
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 184-5
Women produce between 60% to 80% of the food in the global South and are responsible for half of the world's food
production, yet their role as food producers and their critical contribution to household food sovereignty receives scant
attention. While women represent 51% of the world's population they own less than 2% of the world's titled land,
largely because they have few legal rights to land. FAO studies show that although women are the foundation of smallscale agriculture, they have more difficulties than men in gaining access to resources such as land, credit, and other
productivity-increasing inputs and services. Women have limited access to resources due to economic, cultural,
traditional, and sociological factors. For example, in many countries women are excluded from land entitlements and
thus are prevented from providing the collateral required by lending institutions. Thus, any attempts to strengthen
global food security must address women's agricultural roles and their access to financial infrastructure, as well as social
obstacles to block access to resources.
Development efforts targeted at women have been shown to reduce poverty more significantly than efforts aimed at
both men and women, which often only positively impact men. "Women, Still the Key to Food and Nutrition Security,"
a 2005 research project conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute, (which is incidentally one of the
CGIAR centers) rearticulated the necessity to address gender and women's issues in the fight against poverty. The
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
77
IFPRI report emphasizes that the importance of women's status relative to men's in their households, communities, and
nations is highly predictive of children's nutrition. The higher the status of women, the better nutritional status they have
themselves and thus the better able they are to provide higher quality care for their children.
The study estimates that equalizing gender status in South Asia could reduce the rate of underweight children under
three by approximately 12%, meaning that 13.4 million fewer children would face malnourishment in this age group
alone. In Burkina Faso, reallocating access to fertilizer and non-household labor for farm plots from men to women
could increase agricultural output by as much as 20%. Women spend more of their income on food for the family than
men. Their money is also more likely to be spent on inputs for furthering household food production.
Educating women is the key to improving food sovereignty across the global South. Women and girls make up two
thirds of the world's illiterates. In Kenya, if all women attended primary school, simulations indicate that crop yields
could increase by 25%. Also, the more educated women are, the fewer children they are likely to have, thus perhaps
easing the demand for food in the future.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which is particularly devastating to women, is also threatening
food sovereignty. High-risk behaviors such as transactional sex, put whole communities at risk from the ravages of the
disease. Solutions such as targeting food aid directly to women and the provisioning of lightweight plows in addition
to education could help address these problems.
Women's roles as farmers are often overlooked when companies create technology that can lead to labor
displacement or increased workload. For example, in Western Java in the 1970s, mechanical hullers replaced traditional
hand-pounding for rice milling. Consequently, each mechanical huller displaced an estimated 3,700 laborers, implying
that 7.7 million part-time workers, mostly women, lost this source of income in 1971 alone.
Ecofeminism can rebuild a democratic food system
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1956
Ecofeminism is the key to rebuilding a democratic food system. In the context of increasing global climate change,
the perspective of groups like La V[#xED]a Campesina offers guidance. Global climate change has the potential to
destroy agricultural production as we know it. To date, human fossil fuel use has raised the global temperature by nearly
one degree Celsius. This means that it is becoming too hot to grow plants. The heat wave that killed tens of thousands in
Europe the summer of 2003 could become normative. Heat waves ravage crops. By 2100, there's a ninety percent
chance in the tropics and subtropics that temperatures during the growing season will be hotter than any date ever
recorded. Once that point is reached, crops cannot fertilize and will not grow These same conditions will make work for
farmworkers unbearable.
These events are now unfolding; evaporation is increasing because warm air holds more water vapor than cold air,
which condenses in the upper atmosphere, and then washes down in violent thunderstorms that wash away topsoil and
leave crops decimated in the fields. This cyclical pattern of evaporation which loosens the soil, atmospheric
concentration of the water from the soil, and then thunderstorms that wash the soil away is repeated. Increasing amounts
of fertile land is washed away.
Seventy percent of the water that the United States uses goes to irrigation and these irrigated fields provide forty
percent of the world's food supply. n194 Many of the world's rivers are fed by glacial melt. As glaciers melt, rivers
begin to dry up. Steven Chu, the U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel prize winning physicist says, "I don't think the
American public has gripped in its gut what could happen... We're looking at a scenario where there's no more
agriculture in California." In 2007, half of Australia's farmland was in drought. Every four days a farmer there
committed suicide.
Australia is not alone in having to grapple with farmer suicides. On September 10, 2003, at the WTO Ministerial
meeting in Cancun, Lee Kyung Hae, a South Korean farmer and peasant organizer, climbed a fence near the barricades
behind which the trade meetings were taking place. He took out a red penknife, shouted "The WTO kills farmers!" and
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
78
stabbed himself in his chest. He was dead soon after. A few days later, thousands of protestors marched in solidarity all
over the world, from Bangladesh, South Africa, and Chile, chanting "Todos somos Lee" ("We are Lee") and "Lee no
murio OMC lo mato" ("Lee didn't die, the WTO killed him").
The general public has yet to connect farmer suicide with economic policy. In 2008, when world food prices
reached their highest peak since the early 1970s, deadly food riots occurred in over thirty countries. These riots were not
the hungry poor storming the streets, but were organized by community groups such as La V[#xED]a Campesina to
protest high food prices in countries that are on the losing end of international trading schemes. The sources of outrage
are the same as the sentiment of those in the Global Justice Movement, an international collection of diverse people
organizing under the slogan "Another World is Possible."Food sovereignty locates itself in the crux of movements
seeking socioeconomic justice.
As the planet warms, agribusiness will offer new technologies that historically have failed. The solutions will not
likely be found in corporate technologies, but in groups such as La V[#xED]a Campesina with its focus on
reinvigorating peasant agriculture that relies on traditional small-scale farming, not heavy inorganic inputs, and
reverence for women's rights.
Organizations such as La V[#xED]a Campesina have demonstrated the timeliness of food sovereignty as the
fulcrum of a global reform movement and alternative framework to the existing regimes that control food production
and distribution. By adopting food sovereignty as a policy goal, such an alternative can be built.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
79
Environmental Protection Plan
Environmental protection critical to food security
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1767
Nonetheless, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic. The AFSI contains encouraging language about biodiversity,
sustainability, and localism. This shows a growing awareness on the part of the G8 that food security is tied to the
ecological dimensions of the planet and not an empty vacuum of agricultural inputs, as had been the language of
development experts for decades. Further, the document represents a real shift from mere food aid to actual agricultural
investment. It demonstrates a growing recognition that the world's hungry are not going anywhere and acknowledges
that actions on the part of the world's richest countries are necessary to address this life and death issue.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
80
A2: Neoliberalism Good Argument
Neoliberalism is reducing food security
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 512-3
Section 1 of this Article discusses the manner in which neoliberal globalism is having an adverse effect on local
environments, indigenous peoples, and their agricultural practices. This regime of neoliberal industrial agriculture is
reducing food security, particularly for the poorest people around the world, and effectively forcing them to turn to
unhealthy food imports. Section 2 addresses my proposals for countering this regime of neoliberal, or industrial,
agriculture. Here, I differentiate among the rights to food, food security, and food sovereignty. Food sovereignty, I note,
is a much broader concept than the right to food or food security and requires local peoples to have control over their
agricultural practices, their local food supply, their natural resources, as well as their culture and identity.
Neoliberalism undermining local agricultural production
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 517
C. Neoliberal Globalization's Impact on Local Agricultural Practices
Unlike local, ethnic agricultural practices, neoliberal globalization is driven by a logic of surplus generation. Neoliberal
globalization seeks to transform local farming methods by incorporating local farmers into the global economy on the
premise that such incorporation would result in increased food security by increasing food yields through the
introduction of more efficient production methods. Transitioning local farmers to modern farming methods and
techniques would require a variety of changes. First, rather than using seeds in storage from prior seasons, local farmers
would acquire inputs, like seeds and fertilizer, from multinational corporations. In effect, local farmers would abandon
organic farming methods in favor of genetically altered seeds and synthetic fertilizers. Second, rather than encouraging
subsistence farming, globalization encourages farmers to become increasingly mechanized to produce for the market.
Because mechanized production requires farmers to make greater investments, farmers would be drawn into banking
networks to procure credit. Third, the shift toward globalization has included initiatives to privatize land holdings away
from communal, kinship, or family-oriented holdings. n28 Fourth, the transformation of agricultural systems around the
world in the twentieth century from local farming communities into global cash-crop producers has changed local social
systems. Male authority and the male role of provider were undermined as women gained increased access to markets.
Wage work liberated young men from the control of their parents, thereby undermining parental authority.
D. Neoliberal Globalism's Impact Worldwide
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor
of International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 517-8
Although the neoliberal justification for integrating local farmers into the global market was increasing food security,
market integration has resulted in decreased food security, decreased biological and food product diversity, increased
poverty, and increased rates of farmer suicide worldwide. Indeed, while quantitative assessments of production yields in
communal, kinship, or family-oriented holdings are lower in market economy terms than in mechanized commercial
farming, communal, kinship, or family-oriented agriculture is often correlated with better outcomes in terms of food
security, conservation of biodiversity, and preservation of families and communities.
Statistical data also demonstrates that the worldwide transition from traditional farming methods to modern farming
methods has resulted in higher suicide rates in farming communities across the globe. The suicide rate for farming
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
81
populations throughout the world is higher than for non-farming populations. In the Midwest, suicide rates among male
farmers are twice that of the general population. In Britain, farmers are taking their own lives at a rate of one per week.
In India, the figures are most shocking. Between 1997 and 2005, one farmer committed suicide in India every 32
minutes.
A combination of factors, including financial stress and poor crop yield, account for the huge increases in farmer
suicides. Local farmers are increasingly being squeezed out of local markets as a result of import surges of cheap food
against which they are unable to compete favorably. These farmers have also faced increased costs of production for
inputs, such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. Farmers are therefore left with limited resources. They are often forced
to credit purchase seeds and other inputs to farm their land. Decreased incomes result in farmers owing more than they
own. Some of the other factors that contribute to farmer suicides include the loss of independence and control due to
disease, weather, and government policy; the sheer sense of loss and hopelessness due to loss of crops, loss of land, loss
of income, loss of community, loss of family farms, and loss of a way of life; geographical remoteness and the potential
for social isolation; untreated mental illness and lack of access to mental health services in rural areas and the stigma
attached to treatment; depression arising from exposure to agricultural chemicals and pesticides may increase the risk
for mood disorders and ultimately raise suicide rates.
In short, the twentieth century dramatically transformed the nature of agricultural production from one largely
based on production for local markets to one in which large agricultural businesses supplied national and international
markets. The challenge and central goal in the twenty-first century is finding a way to ensure that people have food to
eat, a place to live, and a community that serves as an insurance mechanism when harvests are bad, regardless of
whether the people are from the inner cities of developed economies or the rural areas of poor economies. Both old
industrial centers in the United States, such as Detroit, and peasant and commodity producing areas around the world
have experienced economic collapse. Nevertheless, a simplistic analysis based on a binary opposition between local
subsistence farmers engaged in producing and multinational corporations engaged in supplying and retailing would
detract from the central goal of feeding families from inner cities and developing economies.
Increasingly, people rely on national and international markets rather than local markets to supply vital food needs.
In essence, globalized food markets have had a nearly uniform effect; they have increased the smallholder's dependence
on finance capital by encouraging a shift from subsistence agriculture to cash-crop agriculture. This shift from
subsistence-oriented to cash-crop-oriented agriculture has resulted in declining subsistence production and subsistence
security. As a result, urban and even rural families that relied on multiple sources of food, including family farms and
other subsistence producers, are forced to rely heavily on food produced for profit in commercial outlets. Meanwhile,
their incomes decline as a result of the departure or decline of major industrial plants or loss or reduction of subsistence
farming.
Some countries have, as a result, become dependent on imports for food. Dependence on foreign imports subjects
countries to increased uncertainty and renders such countries vulnerable to forces beyond local and national control. The
uncertainty and vulnerability is particularly pronounced in countries lacking the financial ability to afford imports when
import prices rise. For example, in the 1970s the poorest countries experienced rising and unpredictable food import
prices that were exacerbated by declining export receipts, increasing oil prices, and increasing interest rates on foreign
loans. In economies where households spend over 60% of their income on food, these pressures mean that small price
increases reduce the population's food consumption. The reduction in the population's food consumption leads to
malnutrition, hunger, and famine in some cases.
Even countries like South Korea, which can hardly be regarded as poor, demonstrate that local farmers'
vulnerability to adverse trends in the national and global economy increases as they are increasingly integrated into the
cash economy. In the late 1960s, South Korea experienced a golden period for local agriculture. However, in the 1970s,
South Korean grain and livestock farmers were displaced by suppliers from the United States, Australia, and New
Zealand, which were able to supply the goods at much lower costs. Thus, quite interestingly, as South Korea's industrial
exports became more competitive, its "family farm sector" became increasingly unable to compete with foreign
suppliers. n46 To compete with the large corporations importing grain and livestock, South Korean farmers are
increasingly relying on industrially-produced inputs such as fertilizer, agrochemicals, and machinery. The problems
encountered by South Korean farmers were demonstrated in a high profile suicide by a Korean farmer in the World
Trade Organization (WTO) Meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003.
Local and national farmers in the beef industry are also being integrated into the global food trade through the
universalization or internalization of foreign breeding and production methods and the adoption of international
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
82
standards for consumption and trade. For example, since the 1980s, Latin American producers have increasingly
adopted "U.S. feedlot technology [and] European antibiotics," and participated in Japanese markets for boxed beef.
Under the newly-adopted international standards for consumption and trade, Latin American farmers must, among other
things, ensure that cattle herds are free of contagious diseases, minimize the marbling characteristics of the meat
produced from the cattle, and produce standardized cuts of beef.
However, the universalization of European and North American breeding and production methods as well as
international standards has not necessarily rendered cattle production in Latin America dependent upon multinational
corporations. Rather prosperous cattle farmers in places like Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina have, by subscribing to
these methods and standards, essentially integrated themselves into the global cattle trade and homogenized their
production methods and standards to align with Europe and North America. Thus, the integration of global markets has
occurred primarily through the "transnationalization of productive processes" according to international standards. n51
Another factor driving this internationalization was that as U.S. feedlots and order buyers sought to avoid ownership
stakes in developing economies, stock breeding companies began drawing up producer contracts under which feedmills,
feedlots, and slaughterhouses became vertically integrated. Instead, U.S. feedlots and order buyers would provide
"financing, breeding stock, resources for artificial insemination, [and] antibiotics ... all from international companies
specializing in such services."
The internationalization of cattle production in Latin America reduced the land available for traditional crops,
particularly food crops. Local food security there was sacrificed through government programs targeted at producing a
market of "prime international cuts of meat" for rich local consumers and for export to foreign consumers. In short,
government support for export-led growth or the pro-export stance in this example was driven by governments in
countries as diverse as Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico seeking to stimulate exports to earn foreign exchange. This drive
to earn foreign exchange was in large part driven by the desire to meet external debt payment obligations. In the
process, government policies favoring internationalized modes of cattle, poultry, and feed-grain production have
undermined support for traditional backyard and small-scale livestock enterprises and their ability to sell native cuts of
meat. The consequences on households were so bad that data from the 1980s from Mexico and Brazil showed that
"lower income groups enjoyed little or no animal protein," an outcome that came with declines in the real-worker
income and cattle-herd increases. Thus, the increase in the availability of animal protein for the wealthier classes of
consumers was accompanied by a decline for the poorer classes.
In addition to threatening local-food security, traditional agriculture, and traditional artisanal ways of survival, the
internationalization of the Latin American beef industry has threatened the local environment. Cattle ranchers have
appropriated vast amounts of agricultural land, as well as rainforests in southern Mexico and the Brazilian Amazon.
Once the cattle raised in these ranches are exported, particularly to the United States, the hides, horns, and lard are reexported back to Mexico, further harming the local artisanal industry. This is because the Mexican artisanal industry
lacks the resources to effectively compete against the U.S. hide and skin industry. Further, these farming methods have
resulted in far-reaching ecological devastation. For example, livestock production is a primary driver of tropical food
destruction in Latin America. In addition, factory-style animal production is highly correlated to concentrations of
animal waste and extensive antibiotic and pesticide use. Thus, as agriculture moved from food production for human
consumption to "feedgrains for prime cattle, hogs, and poultry," environmental devastation increased while the very
survival of poor rural populations that depend on agriculture was increasingly threatened. In the process, food crops
such as beans and rice have been neglected as commodities in huge demand for export and urban markets such as beef
and poultry, and crops such as soybeans, vegetables, and fruits have received more support and attention.
The increased concentration in food production within multinational corporations has resulted in "unprecedented
imbalances, high speculation in currency exchange, and rapid inflation at a time when sluggish economic activity
depletes the basis for future growth." Nothing better illustrates this problem than the recent financial crisis when the
global economy bottomed out in 2008 and food prices skyrocketed. Food prices have remained at the highest levels on
record following the global economic crisis of 2008 and have already resulted in a series of food riots and protests in a
variety of countries around the world.
In some countries, efforts to combat high prices of food through price controls have been rejected. For example,
when the Kenyan Parliament passed a Price Control (Essential Goods) Bill in mid-2010, it was overwhelmingly
criticized by free market economists, including the World Bank's Country Director in Kenya. These economists argued
that governmental intervention in the market place would distort prices and that the role of the government should be to
provide an enabling environment for business by letting the forces of supply and demand make price decisions without
government interference. Such arguments neglected the main reason the Kenyan government enacted the Bill - to make
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
83
food prices affordable for poor and vulnerable Kenyans. Instead, the opposition to the Bill adopted the classic neoliberal
view that Africans respond to economic incentives like everyone else and that price controls would impede market
determined prices.
The Kenyan President's decision to reject the Price Control (Essential Goods) Bill indicates a broader problem.
High food prices are not only the result of external or international distortions in global agricultural trade. In September
2011, the Kenyan President signed an extremely watered-down version of the Price Control Act into law. n70 For
decades, many developing countries have favored industrial growth by taxing farmers. Locally-produced-farm produce,
such as milk and vegetables, that are often in high demand in urban areas are sold at below-market prices. Selfinterested government officials in developing countries thought it wise to pursue such policies to ensure that urban
populations did not vote them out of office. Thus, rural populations producing food for urban populations were
underpaid; consequently, engaging in agriculture became less beneficial for them.
India is another example of a country trying to deal with increased food prices. The Indian legislature is currently
considering a food-security bill that would subsidize grains for the poor in India. The Congress (I) Party, the ruling
party in India, has taken this one step further by introducing a bill aiming to curb food waste at lavish Indian parties.
According to one Minister, up to 15% of all food grains and vegetables in India are wasted through extravagant
celebrations such as weddings and other festivities. By limiting the waste, this bill seeks to channel food saved for
distribution under the food-security bill. However, opposing parties are less optimistic about the bills, asserting that the
wealthy would continue to throw grand receptions and that restricting food consumption at festivities would only lead to
increased corruption. This skepticism is warranted.
In addition to addressing the immediate problem of food price hikes and shortages at the national and local levels, it
is important to address some of the global problems that contribute to and exacerbate this problem. Structural
adjustment programs implemented by developing countries in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as global-tradeliberalization commitments assumed under the umbrella of the WTO, resulted in low applied agricultural tariffs. As a
result, those economies became vulnerable to surges in agricultural imports from both developed states and middleincome countries. Imports from countries that heavily subsidize their farmers compounded the problem of import
surges. These import surges pose dire risks to rural livelihoods and employment in the importing states. The following
table documents the extent of the problem, showing how steep increases in imports have resulted in a decline in
production by local smallholders.
Statistical data collected from fifty-six developing countries between 2004 and 2007 confirms that food-import surges
are very common. For instance, food-import surges account for 23% of total agricultural imports for Least Developed
Countries (LDCs). For Small and Vulnerable Economies (SVEs), this figure is at 21% of their agricultural trade; it
accounts for 15% of agricultural trade in other developing countries.
Capitalist agriculture has increased hunger and poverty
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1589
While global food prices were at an all time high, agribusiness was experiencing booming profits. In the last quarter
of 2007, as the food crisis was just beginning, Archer Daniels Midland realized an earnings increase of 42%, Monsanto
of 45%, and Cargill of 86%. Cargill's subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, saw a profit increase of 1,200%.
As capitalist agriculture has grown, hunger and poverty have increased. There is a tendency to see hunger
connected to agricultural output and population. This is only a small part of the truth. In fact, according to the FAO,
there actually was enough food to feed everyone on the planet in 2008 due to the record grain harvests of 2007; the
amount of food produced was 150% of current demand. Over the course of the last twenty years, the rate of population
growth has dropped to 1.14% a year, yet food production has increased by over two percent per year. Demand is not
exceeding supply; people are simply too poor to afford enough food.
While rapid population growth can create a larger demand than supply, this version of events misses the bigger
picture. It is the concentration of power and profits in the global North that has left the global South hungry. Fifty years
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
84
ago the global South had an agricultural trade surplus of $ 1 billion; today it has a deficit of $ 11 billion. This imbalance
of power between agribusiness and the growing numbers of hungry has led to the world food crisis.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
85
A2: Government Food Programs Fail
Government food programs can be effective
Lauren Birchfield and Jessica Corsi, 2010, Human Rights Brief, Spring, The Right to Life Is the Right
to Food: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India &
Othershttp://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol17/iss3/3/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 16-17
Concrete examples of the PUCL case's marked, positive impact on the lives of India's poorest citizens abound. In
perhaps an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court forced the government of India to increase its budget and
spend millions of dollars on programs related to ensuring adequate food and nutrition. According to one of the
principal lawyers on the case, "No court in the world would force its government to increase its budget," and yet this is
exactly what has happened in India. For example, the October 7, 2004 interim order increased ICDS funding, which
controls the allocations of food for children ages zero to six at feeding centers throughout India, from one to two rupees
per child. The November 28, 2001 interim order commanded state governments and union territories "to implement the
Mid-Day Meal Scheme by providing every child in every Government and Government assisted Primary Schools with a
prepared mid-day meal with a minimum content of 300 calories and 8-12 grams of protein each day of school for a
minimum of 200 days" and mandated that "those Governments providing dry rations instead of cooked meals must
within three months start providing cooked meals in all Government and Government aided Primary Schools." A
subsequent interim order, handed down on April 20, 2004, required that the Indian government allocate funds to cover
the conversion cost for food-grains into cooked meals and absolutely prohibited the recovery of any portion of these
costs from children or their parents. The success of India's Mid-Day Meal Scheme is an excellent example of the power
and utility of the PUCL case. The Supreme Court's 2001 interim orders galvanized the mandatory provision of cooked
lunches at government-run schools throughout the country. While the MDMS was officially launched in 1995, prior to
PUCL, it was poorly implemented, reaching only a handful of states throughout the country. Additionally, the original
program only provided for uncooked grains as opposed to a nutritionally balanced cooked meal, which allowed for
more "leakages" of food grains (i.e., the siphoning off of grains for personal use or sale on the black market). The
activists drafting the original pleas asked the Supreme Court to mandate proper implementation of the MDMS. Rightto-food advocates knew that the states of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat were implementing the MDMS extremely
well, and thus provided a successful model for how combining central-government and state-level resources
could result in significant and measurable improvements in student enrollment and nutritional intake. n22 The
Supreme Court's interim orders, issued in response to this petition, set off a spark that completely reversed the nonimplementation of the MDMS in other states.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
86
A2: Food Sovereignty
Food security protects food sovereignty
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 534-5
Although food sovereignty has not attained the status that the right to food has in human-rights jurisprudence, it is
clear that food sovereignty overlaps in significant ways with the right to food. For instance, Article 11 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights obliges states to ensure the improvement of methods of
production, conservation, and distribution of food by developing or reforming agrarian systems. Further, states are
obliged to ensure an adequate distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.
The concerns of food sovereignty are also reflected in traditional international legal principles, including permanent
sovereignty over natural resources and the right of self-determination. The Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty Over
Natural Resources in Article 1(2)(a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights expresses
the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources by providing that "in no case may a people be deprived of
their own means of subsistence." Article 1.1 of the Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources
declares that the "right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be
exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned."
Further, both the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights affirm the rights of all peoples to determine their own destinies - including what they grow
and how they do so, elements that come under the umbrella of food sovereignty.
Thus while the right to food and the concept of food security overlap with food sovereignty, food sovereignty
encompasses elements not contained in the right to food and the concept of food security. The right to food is primarily
directed at states; however, food sovereignty is directed at a much broader audience. In addition to states, private actors
such as national and multinational corporations and international organizations may be open to scrutiny when their
conduct is inconsistent with the tenets of food sovereignty.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
Global Food System Bad
87
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
88
Local Food Practice Should Be Prioritized
Local practices breakdown the exchange logic of global food capitalism by reconnecting
time and space to production and consumption, producing food cizizenship that creates
space for new alternatives
Hendrickson & Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University Missouri-Columbia, 2002
[Mary K. & William D. , “Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential
Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System,” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4,
October, Blackwell, p. 363-364]
Time and space dimensions of these new relationships The Food Circle
alternative to Harvey’s (1990) bleakness in that its proposed
presents a unique
alternative has the
potential to reorder time and space and thus to reconnect food and people
spatially and temporally. First, the Food Circle educates about the seasonality
of foods; in other words time is embodied in the natural cycle of a local food
system. This local food system depends on eaters reconnecting time (as season)
with place. It would be a mistake, however, to view seasonality as a constraint on developing
a local food system. The point is that food production must link space (place)
through time. Second, there is personal or social time that is represented
within a local food system in addition to the natural time that is embodied
in food. In the Food Circle alternative, eaters know the people who are producing
their food, thus there is social time triggered by eating that particular
food product. This social time is the time it takes to build a new
relationship between the farmer and the eater, a relationship that is
predicated on societal values like trust and commitment, not on exchange
values. Third, there is a differing conception of space in the proposed
alternative of local versus the dominant global food and agriculture system.
Food consumed in the U.S. travels an average of 1300 miles from field to
plate that means there is no connection of people to place through food. Food
in a local system is rooted in a space that enables and constrains production
and consumption through its own unique characteristics. The local proposed by the
Food Circle is embedded in a particular locale, in a particular set of cultural, economic,
political and social relationships. The opposite of this embeddness is “the ‘lifting
out’ of social relations from local contexts of interaction and their
restructuring across indefinite spans of time-space” (Giddens 1990, p. 21), a point
that is also explored by Hinrichs (2000) in an examination of different types of direct
marketing. In the Food Circle’s proposed alternative, food production is an inherent
part of a socially meaningful process, the building of community. In essence,
when Food Circle members talk about decentralization and taking back control of
the food system, they are referring to the building of local social bonds and
the necessity for reconnecting the people who inhabit a particular space.
Embedding food production and consumption in a community means that eaters
respect that process as much as they desire the food that they eat. In other
words, the ‘citizens’ that DeLind (1993) refers to recognize the social implications
of their consumption choices. The Food Circle’s alternative relies on the recognition on
the part of consumers that building community is important and can be partly achieved by changing
their lifestyle in terms of food consumption. In this alternative, food is again produced and
consumed within a community that has its own normative standards of food production and
consumption. Thus, food becomes the expression of relationships that are much
more than exchange relationships. Space is important in other ways. The influence of
consumption over production has always affected the way that rural space is
constructed and used (Marsden 1996). For the last 100 years, the Midwestern United States
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
89
has been integrated into global food regimes on the basis of its grain and livestock production
with little room for the other components of healthy diets (Freidmann and McMichael 1989). Thus,
the Food Circle challenges a long-established trend in agriculture in the Kansas City area, a
place with little memory of a self-reliant food and agriculture system. Finally, it is important
to note that the Food Circle seeks to create and provide physical and mental
space for alternative expressions of knowledge and action which indeed opens
locales for challenge and resistance.
The globalization of food politics masks its own abstraction—local resistance produces
change, because it is only by collapsing the space and time of politics into global action
that food agency is destroyed
Hendrickson & Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University Missouri-Columbia, 2002
[Mary K. & William D. , “Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential
Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System,” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4,
October, Blackwell, p. 347-350]
In general, we are interested in what Giddens (1990) calls the societal consequences of modernity, but particularly in the food
and agriculture arena. The concept of reflexive modernization, the idea that the consequences of our knowledge have outstripped
our ability to deal with them, is an intriguing frame for examining the present food and agriculture system. We are interested in
understanding how power is negotiated in the food and agriculture arena, and the consequences of it, but we are equally
In what spaces is resistance
located? What kinds of alternatives are possible in a food and agriculture
system dominated by global corporations, where time and space are
disconnected? There are many contributions in this Journal regarding the struggle to incorporate production and
interested in exploring how this dominant global system is resisted.
consumption into our theoretical understandings in agro/ food studies (in particular Goodman and DuPuis 2002). Moreover, several
papers critically examine emerging alternatives (Lockie 2002; Raynolds 2002; Miele and Murdoch 2002), while Gouveia and Juska
(2002) remind us of the entrenched power in the production side of the food system. Our contribution to this debate is to provide
a snapshot of the structure of the global food system through the rise of food chain clusters and their extension into food
retailing (Heffernan et al. 1999; Hendrickson et al. 2001). Our method of tracing global agro-food restructuring through the
structure and strategies of dominant firms arises from earlier methodological inquiries about commodity systems analysis and
food
chain clusters are networks of relationships where relatively few decisionmakers control vast amounts of resources. From our discussion of these clusters, one may be tempted
theories of the firm (Heffernan and Constance 1994; Bonanno and Constance 2001; Friedland 2001). In our analysis,
to
assume we have a bleak view of the future for farmers, workers and consumers if the trends we document continue in the agro/food
an analysis of global
food chain clusters to point out the possibilities, or spaces, for resistance and
the development of new alternatives. We end on a relatively hopeful note
about the potential for local food system initiatives by examining the Kansas City Food
system. However, a contrary view is apparent in the second section of this paper where we use
Circle. Social theorists like Habermas and Harvey can help frame the understanding of the connection between structures,
Habermas (1987) deplored the colonization of our systems world
by the imperatives of instrumental logic and its encroachment on the life
world. This gradual transformation, or colonization, of the lifeworld by the same systems logic that governs economic and
political transactions is the significant transformation of Western society in the late 20th century. Therefore, the
critical issue we in Western society are facing is resisting the
commodification of our personal, private relationships by the same logic that
rules our political and economic lives – and perhaps nowhere is this more
evident than in the social movements surrounding food. The usefulness of Habermas’ argument
space/time and resistance.
is in the dissection of the logic of instrumental rationality and its loci of domination in our society. This heuristic
alternatives in food and agriculture, particularly in their
attempts to relocate both the production and consumption of food firmly
within the lifeworld, the sphere of personal relationships, and away from the
media of power and money that dominate in the industrialized agriculture and
food system. However, those involved in resistance must understand the structure of the systems world, which is where we
conception is useful for looking at
make our contribution with describing emerging food chain clusters. Harvey’s (1990, p. 293) main contribution is his analysis of
global capitalism as the result of the search for financial solutions to the latest crisis of capitalism, resulting in highly
flexible forms of production, labor markets and consumption. In essence, society has undergone a new time-space compression where
“the horizons of both private and public decision-making have shrunk... [making] it increasingly possible to spread ... decisions
his regime of
capitalism rests on a speed-up in production and turnover time, so
consumption necessarily reflects the same volatility. Food production and
immediately over an ever wider and variegated space” but with fewer and fewer involved in those decisions. T
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
90
consumption also hinges on the compression of space. This latest round of
“annihilation of space through time” is the dynamic of capitalism (Harvey 1990, p.
293). However, while space has indeed become compressed through time, the
distance (or barriers) of space are becoming even more pronounced and can be
solved only through restructuring. In our view, spatial decentralization can actually mask the tendencies
to centralization of control that we are seeing in the agro-food system. McMichael (2000) situates the centralization of control
that we describe in our food chain clusters in the global corporate regime that emerged from the development project. Our case
an alternative food movement fits his description of the spaces that open for
food movements around the world (food security, sustainable agriculture, fair
trade, local food systems) from the breakdown of the consensus regarding the development project in food and
agriculture. For Giddens (1984, p. 35), “the fundamental question of social theory... is to explicate how the
limitations of individual ‘presence’ are transcended by the ‘stretching’ of
social relations across time and space.” The control over space in the food
system means that we are able to eat fresh fruits and vegetables year round
in the North because of the incorporation of new space into ever-lengthening production networks described in our food
study of
chain clusters. While governments, global food corporations, consumers and producers created the new networks apparent in the
food system through material investment, new systems of knowledge, different rules of governance and the construction of tastes;
they have become something that is beyond us, more than us. At the same time, we continue to participate in these relationships,
More importantly perhaps, is that space has been
disconnected from place in the dominant food system (Kloppenburg et al. 1996). As people
foster relationships with those who are no longer in their locale, distant
others can structure the shape and use of the locale, a problem that is being
explicitly rejected by those involved in local food system movements across
the globe. This compression of space and the speed-up of time are key
components of accumulation in the modern era. In the global food system,
power rests with those who can structure this system by spanning distance and
decreasing time between production and consumption. This reorganization of
time and space indicates a great deal of power on the part of just a few
actors that are able to benefit from the restructuring of the food system. Most
sometimes from choice but often from necessity.
of our previous research has been identified closely with the political economy of agriculture (Friedman 1995; McMichael 1995;
we cannot let this focus on the ‘material’
subsume the ‘ideal’ – the cultural elements of food production and
consumption, as Miele and Murdoch (2002) articulate with their analysis of the Slow Food movement. Food is a
difficult issue precisely because it is at the center of the lifeworld, but
is produced and distributed, and consumed mostly, in the economic and
political spheres, the systems world where systems logic dominates. Thus, food
bridges our lifeworld and systems world in significant ways. Bearing this out, Kloppenburg
Bonanno and Constance 2001; Friedland 2001). However,
et al. (2000) found that food activists in Wisconsin wanted food systems that were community-centered, relational, place-based,
seasonal, participatory, and supportive of the local economy. Clearly, these activists are negotiating the ideal and the
material, the bridge from the systems world to the lifeworld. In summary, contemporary social theory and recent work in the
transnationalization
agriculture sector, a process that reflects broader societal
This broader transformation is premised on the reordering of
which represents a basic restructuring of the very structures
society. We are particularly concerned with how this time/space compression has impacted social
sociology of agriculture and food, as detailed above, shows the process and consequences of
in the food and
transformation.
time and space,
that govern our
relationships in the food and agriculture system. The second major thrust of the literature reviewed above is what represents,
and how to examine, challenges to changes in time and space and the power that resides in particular temporal and spatial nodes.
human agency is a powerful and dynamic force
in strengthening, enlarging and creating spaces for what we call
personalized, sustainable food systems. However, examining power and where it is situated in the food
Throughout our analysis, we are firm in the belief that
system is as important for thinking and acting strategically in trying to bring about food systems that actually enhance the life
Understanding the twined forces of agency and structure
along the entire continuum of production/consumption is critically important.
chances of more and more people.
We will leave the particulars of the ongoing agrofood discussions of networks and structures, production and consumption to
others in this volume. Instead we present our schematic of the global food system from seed to shelf, and examine one strategic,
political response to the dominant system that emerged from the struggles of consumers in the Midwestern United States.
Relocalisation of food mobilises knowledge networks to produce social change
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
91
Fonte & Cinzia, Department of Econ., Univ. of Naples Federico II & Monte Sant'Angelo,
2008 [Maria & Viale, “Knowledge, Food and Place. A Way of Producing, a Way of Knowing,”
Sociologia Ruralis 48.3, 200-222]
Intuitively, 'relocalisation of food' implies a mobilisation of knowledge.
At
first glance this mobilisation may be considered a move back from scientific towards local forms of knowledge, a radical
inversion of the historical trend that has brought the agro-industrial food system to dominate Europe (Marsden 2003). The dynamic
between scientific and local knowledge is enlightened today by the diffusion of biotechnology applied to agriculture.
Biotechnology, a science-based technology, brings agriculture to the forefront of the knowledge society, while opposition to its
diffusion in defence of typical food and biodiversity is often considered obscurantism and an opposition to the progress of
science. However, the substitution of the biological knowledge base for the chemical one that previously prevailed in the agroindustrial model of agriculture (Byé and Fonte 1993), calls attention back to traditional knowledge, especially in developing
countries where knowledge of biodiversity is rich and diversified. The pharmaceutical industry and public research centres
organise numerous bio-prospecting missions to collect and appropriate local biodiversity and traditional knowledge, while several
cases of bio-piracy (Shiva 1999) show how social and institutional arrangements, including intellectual property rights,
determine the asymmetry of power among different forms of knowledge. A wide debate has developed in international fora (the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], the World Intellectual Property Organisation [WIPO], the World Trade
Organisation [WTO] and numerous non-governmental organisations like the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration
(ETC) Group or GRAIN on the value of traditional knowledge and the necessity to protect it. In these contexts traditional (lay)
knowledge is characterised as knowledge that generally, it 'is not produced systematically, but in accordance with the individual
or collective creators' responses to and interaction with their cultural environment' (WIPO 2002, p. 1). It does not perform a
specialised function in society, but instead represents cultural values as an element that is integrated in a vast and mostly
coherent complex of beliefs and knowledge, generally collectively held and transmitted orally and by common practices from
generation to generation. In this account, the term 'traditional' qualifies a form of knowledge
only to the extent that its
creation and use are part of the cultural traditions of communities. 'Traditional', therefore, does not necessarily mean that the
knowledge is ancient. 'Traditional' knowledge is being created every day, it is evolving as a response of individuals and
communities to the challenges posed by their social environment. In its use, traditional knowledge is also contemporary
knowledge. (WIPO 2002, p. 1) The CORASON research sought to discover in what forms local knowledge persists in European rural
areas, if and when it persists and whether it is characterised as outdated and useless, or whether it is still in use. It also
investigated whose knowledge is at play in rural development and what relationships determine the interplay of local with
In the perspective of knowledge
dynamics, local food networks may not only represent a resistance to the
global, placeless reorganisation of food chains, but may also challenge a
continuous trend towards the simplification and homogenisation of
agricultural techniques and agri-ecosystems and lead to re-evaluating
traditional/local forms of knowledge and techniques as a specific and
important resource in the management of agricultural and natural ecosystems.
scientific knowledge in different patterns of food relocalisation.
The relocalisation of food knowledge solves
Fonte & Cinzia, Department of Econ., Univ. of Naples Federico II & Monte Sant'Angelo,
2008 [Maria & Viale, “Knowledge, Food and Place. A Way of Producing, a Way of Knowing,”
Sociologia Ruralis 48.3, 200-222]
different strategies of food
relocalisation stem from different contexts and are generated and appropriated by different social
networks. The diversity of strategies may express the capacity of rural areas
to generate different solutions to different problems, each with their own strengths and
Conclusions A relational approach to local food may help us to understand how
weaknesses in respect to sustainable rural development and consequently each needing to be monitored for its social,
environmental or economic effects. The perspective on local food here adopted derives from analysing the knowledge dynamic
between the informal, variable, place-dependent systems of lay knowledge and the more mobile, codified system of scientific
knowledge. A rich stock of lay knowledge is a patrimony of European rural areas, but its evolution has been stopped by the
process of restricting knowledge to the 'scientific' that has been brought about by the industrialisation of agriculture.
Initiatives to relocalise food mobilise again local forms of knowledge and
may contribute to enhancing, valorising and recreating that patrimony. That
trend is reinforced by a redefinition of the social functions of agriculture
and food and by new pressing objectives of environmental sustainability and
ecosystem management. Knowledge dynamics are very different in the two patterns of food relocalisation analysed in
the article. In the reconnection type, local lay knowledge of how to grow food in the local agri-ecosystem and local food culture
have been largely lost. An effort is in place to rebuild it, through the experience of the producers, their practical hands-on
expertise and adapting expert knowledge to local conditions. In the initiatives aiming to valorise the origin of food, farmers
are still using agricultural practices based on traditional lay knowledge. But this usually remains locked in pre-industrial
times while the technocratic structure has endorsed a standardised 'scientific' approach to knowledge. The challenge of these
initiatives is to mobilise traditional lay knowledge, maintaining a primary role for local farmers and actors in the process of
local food valorisation. Relations of power in the knowledge networks shape the way in which different types of knowledge
interact and whether the interaction will lead to a new synthesis among different forms of knowledge or to appropriation and new
Local control of knowledge dynamics is favoured by one factor over all: a
peer relation of learning among actors. This seems quite straightforward in the producerconsumer reconnection strategy: local actors are trying to rebuild local
hierarchies of power.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
92
knowledge through networking as equals, shared experiences, discussions and
observation. Scientific knowledge may be a starting point but it needs to be
evaluated, adapted and integrated, according to local circumstances. A reflexive
attitude towards 'scientific' knowledge leads local farmers to 'resist'
codification and certification (especially the Irish post-organic farmers) or
to decodify the expert advice handed out to them (the Scottish and the Norway
initiative to valorise the origin of food).
Local food challenges power relations, creating alternate power relations that promote
alternatives that are only possible outside global visions of control
Hendrickson & Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University Missouri-Columbia, 2002
[Mary K. & William D. , “Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential
Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System,” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4,
October, Blackwell, p. 364-365]
Negotiated power? One of the issues not addressed in this relatively positive assessment of the
alternative proposed by the Food Circle is power, the focus of our earlier description of
emerging food chain clusters. In the Food Circle, power is conceived as more nuanced, although
both we and Food Circle members remain respectful of the economic and political power that can be
demonstrated by the dominant firms in the food chain clusters we outlined earlier. As Foucault
(1973) has shown, power can be accumulated in particular nodes. The kind of power
that resides with actors in the Food Circle is situated in a different node
than that of global corporations, because the Food Circle uses resources in
the cultural sphere to challenge the power of material resources in the
economic and political spheres. Despite this understanding of the power
differential on the part of global actors, the Food Circle still believes in
its own agency at the local level. Members of the Food Circle believe they
can challenge the structures that guide accumulation on the global level, but
not through state control or the development of large-scale movement
organizations. In their politics, since power is not viewed as absolute, they
believe in their own ability to participate in a democratic society – by
shaping a more democratic food system. It is this belief in their own power,
as well as their understanding of where the larger system might be
vulnerable, that allows them to challenge it.
Global conceptions of food politics universalize unique modes of consumption and
production—this allows cooption by global capital
Hendrickson & Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University Missouri-Columbia, 2002
[Mary K. & William D. , “Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential
Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System,” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4,
October, Blackwell, p. 362-363]
Relationships – the heart of a Food Circle
The Food Circle group encourages eaters to know who has raised their
food so that they can trust that it is good for them and good for the environment. The relationships that the Food Circle is
trust that is negotiated
by proximity and interaction, instead of the faith in abstract principles
that is prevalent in the globalized food system (Giddens 1990). Trust in this
alternative is a subjective relationship negotiated between people, and can
broken into the concepts of responsibility and community. Producers feel a responsibility to
attempting to nurture between farmers and consumers in Kansas City incorporate the idea of
produce healthy, wholesome food that will be eaten by people whom they know. Eaters feel a responsibility toward producers who
are members of their community. Trust in either sense does not refer to the food product itself, but the notion that one can
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
93
because the consumer knows the farmer and holds
they begin to talk about trust that
is developed in the context of a social relationship. Producing food this way
brings the process back to the heart of an authentic personal relationship and re-embeds food production
within a community. As DeLind (1993, pp. 7-12) notes, “[g]reater social and interpersonal
‘connectedness’ has the capacity to turn people into citizens.” Of course, these
systems of trust take more time to develop and maintain for the individual actor than do abstract, expert systems. The
advantage, however, is that they are not based on universalizing tendencies and
are time intensive which means that global entities are perhaps less capable and
less interested in penetrating them. Thus, capital in a personalized food system
is much less important than in the global food system.
trust this farmer to produce this food in a ‘safe’ way
him or her responsible. As Food Circle members negotiate with farmers,
The strength of the global food system is a trick of perspective—local action not only
provides alternatives that contest the ideological abstraction of global problems, but
open up the social and critical space to inspire social change and creates expanding
nodes of sustainability
Hendrickson & Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University Missouri-Columbia, 2002
[Mary K. & William D. , “Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential
Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System,” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4,
October, Blackwell, p. 365-366]
Conclusions
The structure of the global food system that we have described in this paper can certainly
seem inevitable, and almost impossible to challenge or resist in any explicit ways. On
the other hand, we have clearly indicated that the structure of relationships among firms and
clusters remains a dynamic system that is constantly evolving and where power is being
negotiated in many nodes. Possibly the greatest certainty is the uncertainty
that even the dominant firms we have described face in light of our rapidly evolving system, even
if the global corporate regime (McMichael 2000) tends to favor their interests over those of other actors.
Understanding the structure of the global food system and its strengths and potential weaknesses may help
position alternatives in the food system. Those involved with alternative agrifood initiatives can use the
powerful analytic tools of sociology, geography and political economy to help guard against
the swallowing of their alternatives by the dominant system. These same tools
can help citizens understand the political manifestations of economic power
in the realm of free trade and state policy. However, the most important aspect
to emerging alternatives remains the connections being forged between
farmers, eaters and all the actors between. Are these emerging connections capable of
transforming the structure of the food and agriculture system, given their current conditions? Do such projects
and initiatives constitute significant challenges to the global food system that can be loosely classified in a
movement? In this volume, Gouveia and Juska question the value of consumption oriented alternatives to impact
the way the vast majority of food is produced and consumed in the world – and by extension the working
conditions for millions, if not billions of people. Raynolds also raises the question of just who benefits from
the consumption oriented movements of the North. Hinrichs (2002) and Allen (2000) have been consistent critics
of the exclusionary tendencies of alternative food and agriculture projects. These are particularly important
and valid critiques for those of us working in the political economy of food and agriculture. We have not
argued that the Food Circle alternative, or other local food initiatives, constitute a large-scale,
transformative revolution. Our point is that the global food system is a very dynamic system and we do not know
how it will evolve. Thus, we believe that alternative movements should not be overlooked
for their real work of protecting existing spaces of action or for creating
or enlarging those spaces. The true measure of these alternatives might be
the inspiration they give to others to envision an alternate way of being in
the food system. Moreover, these alternative projects may turn out to be
effective models to be used if the current global system ultimately proves
unsustainable. The most important aspect of these movements might well be
their ability to protect the lifeworld from encroachment by the dominant
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
logic of the systems world, or to reorder time and space. Without the spaces
for the creation and implementation of these alternative visions, we condemn
those farmers, workers and consumers who are actually striving to make their
way in the food system to the despair of no hope.
94
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
95
Negative
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
96
Green Revolution Answers
INCREASED SUPPLY STRATEGIES -- GREEN REVOLUTION – FAILS TO REDUCE FOOD
INSECURITY
Carmen G. Gonzalez, Professor-Seattle University School of Law, 2004, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and
the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development,” Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, Fall, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 419, p. 441-3
From a technological perspective, the Green Revolution was immensely successful. Total food production in developing
countries more than doubled between 1960 and 1985, and food production more than kept pace with burgeoning population growth. n109
However, the Green Revolution was less successful from a social and economic perspective because it was a supply-side
technocratic solution to a distributional problem grounded in political and economic inequality. n110 Indeed, as detailed
below, the Green Revolution exacerbated food insecurity by disproportionately benefiting large farmers without countervailing social and economic
reforms to improve the status of the rural poor. n111
The Green Revolution failed to solve the problem of world hunger because it focused on improving the supply of food
without addressing the issue of inequitable distribution of food and food-producing resources. n112 Despite the [*442]
improvement in global food production, food insecurity persisted. n113 As the World Bank acknowledged in an influential 1986 report on world
hunger:
The growth of global food production has been faster than the unprecedented population growth of the past forty years ... . Enough food is available so
that countries that do not produce all the food they want can import it if they can afford to. Yet many poor countries and hundreds of millions of poor
people do not share in this abundance. They suffer from a lack of food security, caused mainly by a lack of purchasing power. n114
The Green Revolution promoted food insecurity by favoring wealthy farmers at the expense of poor farmers and
landless laborers. n115 The Green Revolution was inherently biased in favor of wealthy farmers because it required
significant capital investment. n116 The new seed varieties only produced high yields in response to the application of key inputs, such as
fertilizers and irrigation. n117 These inputs tended to promote weed growth as well as crop growth, thus necessitating the application of chemical
herbicides. n118 Furthermore, since the genetic uniformity of the new varieties rendered them vulnerable to insects and disease, it was also necessary
to apply insecticides and fungicides. n119 Poor farmers generally lacked the capital to invest in the requisite irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides to
[*443] successfully cultivate the new seed varieties. n120 Moreover, the government institutions responsible for providing agricultural credit,
technical assistance, and marketing support were often biased against the poor. n121 Consequently, the Green Revolution disproportionately benefited
wealthy farmers. n122
GREEN REVOLUTION INCREASED FOOD INSECURITY
Carmen G. Gonzalez, Professor-Seattle University School of Law, 2004, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and
the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development,” Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, Fall, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 419, p. 445-8
From an environmental and food security perspective, the most significant impact of the Green Revolution was the loss
of crop genetic diversity. n135 As a consequence of the Green Revolution, indigenous wheat varieties had virtually disappeared by the 1970s in
North Africa, the Himalayas, Turkey, Spain, and Pakistan. n136 Staples such as "barley, rice, millet, sorghum, [and] potatoes" also sustained erosion
of genetic diversity. n137 [*446] Genetic erosion occurred even in export crops, such as coffee, bananas, cacao, and cotton, as uniform varieties
replaced traditional, diverse varieties. n138
The loss of crop genetic diversity resulted in outbreaks of pests and disease causing severe damage to food crops . n139
The application of pesticides often exacerbated the problem by destroying the pests' natural enemies and by enabling
pests and pathogens to develop pesticide resistance. n140 Finally, genetic erosion resulted in the loss of the very genetic
material that might confer resistance in the event of catastrophic pest and disease infestations, thus increasing the
vulnerability of the world's food supply. n141
The Green Revolution contributed to micronutrient malnutrition in the developing world by reducing the absorption of vital minerals into fruit,
vegetables, and grains. n142 The intensive monocropping of Green Revolution varieties depleted the soil of important minerals such as "zinc, iron,
copper, manganese, magnesium, molybdenum, [and] boron," n143 and the application of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers (along with soil
compaction) destroyed the microorganisms needed to make these minerals available to food crops. n144 While organic fertilizers counteract this
problem because the organic matter contains and replenishes these micronutrients, synthetic fertilizers generally contain few or none of these
minerals. n145 A result of the Green Revolution is that billions of people consume diets deficient in essential micronutrients. n146 [*447]
Micronutrient malnutrition can produce serious impacts on human health, learning ability, and productivity. n147
The Green Revolution also displaced traditional food crops in the developing world, thereby impoverishing the diets of
many individuals and communities. n148 As a result of the Green Revolution, monocultures of wheat and corn replaced thousands of
nutritious and robust traditional food crops, such as the Senegalese cereal known as fonio and the Indian ragi and jowar grains. n149 The immediate
impact of this conversion from polycultural to monocultural production was a decline in the variety of foods consumed, increased reliance on
frequently unaffordable and less nutritious purchased foods, and the loss of foods essential to a balanced diet. n150
The adoption of new seed varieties, and the irrigation systems, pesticides, and fertilizers needed for their cultivation,
displaced ecologically sustainable farming practices (such as intercropping, crop rotation, and agroforestry). n151 [*448]
Moreover, it often resulted in the loss of local knowledge about traditional agroecological practices . n152 Pesticide use
displaced traditional pest control techniques (such as crop rotation and fallowing) that also contributed to soil fertility. n153 Chemical fertilizers
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
97
replaced the use of animal manure and crop residues. n154 The continuous planting of uniform crops in a given area replaced crop rotation and
intercropping. n155 Green Revolution varieties displaced indigenous and traditional crops that required far less irrigation. n156 The ecological
consequences were often severe. The heavy use of agrochemicals destroyed beneficial soil organisms and degraded soil quality. n157 The Green
Revolution monocultures removed vital micro-nutrients from the soil, resulting in the long-term decline in agricultural
yields. n158 Intensive irrigation resulted in water-logging and salinization of soils. n159 In sum, soil quality deteriorated,
leading to a loss of agricultural productivity. n160
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
98
SSM Answers
Some developing countries fear SSM will be used to dominate them
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 182
The conflict over the SSM created a standoff among a group of seven nations attempting to reach an initial settlement
before taking a draft to the larger group of negotiators. The group of seven included the United States, India, China, the
European Union, Brazil, Australia, and Japan, but negotiations on the SSM among this group broke down in July 2008.
In the larger group of negotiators, a conflict also arose among the G-33 group of developing countries, the main
sponsors of the draft SSM in the negotiations, and other developing nations outside of the G-33 who argued that
agricultural trade is not only a "north-south" trading issue, but also a "south-south trading issue," and therefore the SSM
should be time-bound to prevent abuse among developing countries to create a special class of states that can dominate
the other developing nations in the long term.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
99
GMOs Answers
GMOs WON’T INCREASE FOOD SECURITY
Carmen G. Gonzalez, Professor-Seattle University School of Law, 2004, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and
the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development,” Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, Fall, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 419, p. 451-3
From the standpoint of food security, the benefits of biotechnology are highly uncertain. First, there is widespread
consensus that genetically modified crops, unlike their Green Revolution counterparts, have not increased yields. n176 Second,
biotechnology threatens to exacerbate food insecurity by increasing rural inequality. n177 Biotechnology is being promoted
[*452] by the same transnational corporations that engaged in the massive export of pesticides to developing countries. n178 These enterprises seek
to maximize profits by marketing their products to large-scale, commercial farmers in affluent countries while neglecting the needs of small, resourcepoor farmers in the developing world. n179 By focusing on lucrative export crops and favoring affluent farmers, biotechnology
may force small-scale producers out of the market, thus depriving them of production-based entitlements. n180
Furthermore, genetically modified crops may reduce the need for manual labor (for example, weeding and pesticide application), thus eroding the
labor-based entitlements of poor rural dwellers. n181 Third, the patenting of genetically modified seeds by transnational
corporations headquartered in the industrialized world threatens to reinforce the economic dominance of developed
countries and to undermine the traditional agricultural practices of farmers, such as saving, breeding, and sharing seeds .
n182 Instead of saving seeds from one season to the next and continually selecting and breeding seeds in response to changing growing conditions,
farmers who purchase genetically modified seeds must purchase new seeds every season. n183 Thus, transnational corporations may increasingly
affect which crop varieties will be planted, and farmers may lose access to locally adapted seed varieties. n184 [*453] Furthermore, as farmers
become increasingly reliant on external inputs (seeds and agrochemicals), they will be highly vulnerable to catastrophic supply disruptions or
crippling debt in the event of input price increases or of declining prices for their output. n185 Finally, biotechnology may undermine the
livelihoods of developing country farmers by producing transgenic substitutes for developing country exports, such as
palm oil, coconut oil, and cocoa. n186
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
100
The strength of the global food system is a trick of perspective—local action not only provides alternatives that
contest the ideological abstraction of global problems, but open up the social and critical space to inspire social
change and creates expanding nodes of sustainability
Hendrickson & Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University Missouri-Columbia, 2002
[Mary K. & William D. , “Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential
Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System,” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4,
October, Blackwell, p. 365-366]
Conclusions
The structure of the global food system that we have described in this paper can certainly
seem inevitable, and almost impossible to challenge or resist in any explicit ways. On
the other hand, we have clearly indicated that the structure of relationships among firms and
clusters remains a dynamic system that is constantly evolving and where power is being
negotiated in many nodes. Possibly the greatest certainty is the uncertainty
that even the dominant firms we have described face in light of our rapidly evolving system, even
if the global corporate regime (McMichael 2000) tends to favor their interests over those of other actors.
Understanding the structure of the global food system and its strengths and potential weaknesses may help
position alternatives in the food system. Those involved with alternative agrifood initiatives can use the
powerful analytic tools of sociology, geography and political economy to help guard against
the swallowing of their alternatives by the dominant system. These same tools
can help citizens understand the political manifestations of economic power
in the realm of free trade and state policy. However, the most important aspect
to emerging alternatives remains the connections being forged between
farmers, eaters and all the actors between. Are these emerging connections capable of
transforming the structure of the food and agriculture system, given their current conditions? Do such projects
and initiatives constitute significant challenges to the global food system that can be loosely classified in a
movement? In this volume, Gouveia and Juska question the value of consumption oriented alternatives to impact
the way the vast majority of food is produced and consumed in the world – and by extension the working
conditions for millions, if not billions of people. Raynolds also raises the question of just who benefits from
the consumption oriented movements of the North. Hinrichs (2002) and Allen (2000) have been consistent critics
of the exclusionary tendencies of alternative food and agriculture projects. These are particularly important
and valid critiques for those of us working in the political economy of food and agriculture. We have not
argued that the Food Circle alternative, or other local food initiatives, constitute a large-scale,
transformative revolution. Our point is that the global food system is a very dynamic system and we do not know
how it will evolve. Thus, we believe that alternative movements should not be overlooked
for their real work of protecting existing spaces of action or for creating
or enlarging those spaces. The true measure of these alternatives might be
the inspiration they give to others to envision an alternate way of being in
the food system. Moreover, these alternative projects may turn out to be
effective models to be used if the current global system ultimately proves
unsustainable. The most important aspect of these movements might well be
their ability to protect the lifeworld from encroachment by the dominant
logic of the systems world, or to reorder time and space. Without the spaces
for the creation and implementation of these alternative visions, we condemn
those farmers, workers and consumers who are actually striving to make their
way in the food system to the despair of no hope.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
101
Green Payments Will Not Solve Corporate Control of Agriculture
Green Payments Fail
Feng, 2007, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Department of Economics,
Iowa State [Hongli, “Green payments and dual policy goals,” Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 54.3 Science Direct]
1. Introduction Green payments are payments a government provides to farms for voluntarily maintaining or adopting conservation
practices that enhance the environment. As shown by the debate over the 2002 farm bill, originally referred to as the
Conservation Security Act in the US Senate, green payments have moved to the center stageof agri-environmental policies. There
are two basic reasons for this interest. First, green payments provide a foundation for farm support by society at large. If
agriculture is to continue to receive the billions of dollars it has been receiving in recent years, many analysts believe more
substantial justification will be needed. Conservation programs like green payments have become more attractive because of the
continued increase in public demand for a better environment [3] and [9]. Second, green payments can treat agri-environmental
problems that have not been adequately addressed. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)
provide conservation services by taking land out of production. Cost-share programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, pay farms for conservation on land in production. However, when the
cost share is less than 100%, farms have no incentive to participate unless the targeted practices also provide private benefits.
Green payments, such as the Conservation Security Program (CSP) initiated in the 2002 farm bill, cover comprehensive practices
and are also more generous, and thus are better positioned to meet conservation needs. In this paper, we examine the optimal
design of green payment programs taking into account some realistic characteristics of the policy environment. First, we
the policymaker in general does not know an individual farm's
conservation efficiency. For example, how the adoption of conservation tillage
affects a farm's profit depends on many factors, such as the natural resource
endowments of the farm, weather conditions, the farmer's years of experience, and the equipment the
farm already has. It is unlikely that the policymaker will have information on all
these specifics of a farm. Even when a farm's conservation efficiency is
known, it cannot always be used as a basis for payments. For example, the 2002 farm bill
recognize that
stipulates: “If the Secretary determines that the environmental values of two or more applications for cost-share payments or
incentive payments are comparable, the Secretary shall not assign a higher priority to the application only because it would
present the least cost to the program established under the program” [18]. With asymmetry information on conservation efficiency,
standard adverse
selection model for green payments can be described as follows. The
policymaker (the principal), given available funds, intends to obtain the
maximal conservation services from farms (the agents). While the policymaker knows the
a mechanism design framework can be used to analyze green payment contracts (e.g., [22],[23]). A
proportion of farms with high conservation efficiency, he/she does not know each individual farm's conservation efficiency type.
In such models, it is well known that, to induce truthful revelation as implied by the revelation principle, a “bribe” has to be
paid to the high efficiency type that is equal to the amount it would obtain by pretending to be the other type.1 An optimal
policy has to take into account the informational cost associated with each additional unit of conservation by the low efficiency
In a standard adverse selection model, the policymaker's objective is to
maximize conservation services. We extend the standard model to allow for the
dual goals of income support and conservation. We also allow for
heterogeneities in farm size, i.e., there are both small family farms and big farms within each conservation
type.
type. Thus, each farm is characterized by two dimensions of attributes: farm size and conservation efficiency. However, payments
may not be explicitly based on either of the attributes, due to informational or political constraints. Our analysis demonstrates
the implications of green payments that attempt to use “one stone to kill two birds.” In particular, we show the impacts of the
income support objective and the compromises that have to be made in an optimal policy. When green payments can be designed
separately for big and small farms, we demonstrate that the income support goal will increase the net payments for all small
farms and the income of those with higher conservation efficiency will be increased more. Some previous studies suggested that it
might not be feasible to explicitly target small (or high production cost) farms for income transfer due to public relations or
strong lobbying from large (low production cost) farms (e.g., [5], [7], [13] and [14]). Here, we examine green payments when farm
if big farms have higher conservation efficiency, our
results indicate that it is optimal for the policymaker to pay big farms
whatever net payments that are paid to small farms. For a given budget, this
means lower income support for small farms or less conservation relative to
the case without informational or political constraints. In the case of the
CSP, almost every farm is entitled to payments according to the 2002 farm
bill. However, there is not enough funding for everybody. As a result, the
program has only been implemented in a small number of watersheds in the
country. In addition to net payments, the income support goal of green payments will also affect the optimal conservation.
size is not contractible. In this case,
This is because the “bribe” in the standard adverse selection model is no longer just a cost. If it goes to small farms, it can
act as income support which is now valued by the policymaker. Our analysis shows that this will reduce the distortion in
conservation that would have occurred in a standard adverse selection model. In this sense, green payments are more likely to
achieve both goals if small farms have higher conservation efficiency than big farms. That is, if small farms are the ones who
will be paid the bribe. On the other hand,
if big farms are more conservation efficient, then
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
102
they will get not only the “bribe” but also the income support intended for
small farms. Moreover, the “bribe” they obtain will not have any welfare improving effects on the optimal conservation
services. 2. Model setup Farms are characterized by two variables: farm size φ and conservation efficiency θ. For simplicity, we
assume that φ and θ have two levels: φset membership, variantΦ≡{b,s} and θset membership, variantΘ≡{h,l}, where b(s) represents
big (small) and h(l) represents high(low).2 We denote the joint and marginal distributions of φ and θ as Pφθ, Pφ, and Pθ,
respectively. The two variables may be correlated. For example, positive correlation may occur if big farms are able to adopt
conservation practices more efficiently because they have more efficientmanagement . Negative correlation may occur if small
farms can provide conservation services at a relatively low cost because their land is environmentally sensitive. Farmers can
provide conservation services, denoted as E, by adopting conservation practices such as leaving more residue in the field and
reducing the use of nitrogen. We normalize E to zero in the absence of any external incentives. To provide a positive level of E,
a farm incurs costs which include profit loss or expenditures related to adopting conservation practices. Denote the cost
functionof providing E as C(E;φ,θ) with3
(1) View the MathML source that is, θ=h
is assumed to be associated with lower total and marginal costs than θ=l. We make the standard assumption that C(·) is convex in
E. The policymaker intends to make payments to farms as incentives for conservation and as a way of supporting farm income. We
refer to such payments as green payments, denoted as G(φ,θ). Let W(T(φ,θ)) represent the potential benefits the policymaker
derives from a policy that yields net income T(φ,θ)=G(φ,θ)-C(E;φ,θ). The function W is assumed to be increasing and concave with
W′(·)greater-or-equal, slanted0, W″(·)less-than-or-equals, slant0. The benefit the policymaker derives from income support is
represented as View the MathML source where View the MathML source, if φ=s and View the MathML source if φ=b. That is, the
policymaker only derives benefits from supporting small farms’ income, and as their income increases the marginal benefit from
supporting them decreases. The social benefit of conservation is denoted as V(E), which is assumed to be increasing and concave.
Funds for green payments are usually financed with some sort of distortionary tax whose unit deadweight loss we denote as λ>0.4
To make the problem interesting, we assume that W′(0)>λ, i.e., the marginal benefit from increasing small farms’ initial income
by a small amount is greater than the cost of transferring funds. [continued…] 6. Conclusions Green payments have been considered
as a potential substitute for traditional farm income support in addition to providing conservation services. One critical
question surrounding green payments is whether they will be effective in achieving both goals. If they are not effective, then
alternatives may have to be considered such as “greening” the current income support program by making conservation a condition
for transfer payments [10] R. Claassen, R.M. Morehart, Greening income support and supporting green, ERS/USDA, Economic Brief No.
1, March 2006.[10]. When there were no informational and political constraints, that is, when the policymaker knew farms’
conservation efficiency and farm size could be used as an explicit criterion for payments, we show that green payment contracts
could be used to achieve both goals efficiently. In this case, the decisions on optimal conservation and income support are
However, like
many current agri-environmental programs, green payment policies will likely
be implemented under informational or political constraints. Under such
circumstances, compromises may have to be made. If large farms are more
conservation efficient then our results suggest that the two goals compete in
the sense that large farms will obtain net payments which generate no income
support benefits. On the other hand, if small farms have higher conservation efficiency, the two policy goals work in
tandem since the possible gainsof these farms from their informational advantage will also act as income support for them. This
effect will partly correct the distortions in their conservation levels due
to information asymmetry.Of course, not all small (or big) farms have the same
conservation efficiency which implies that different small farms may receive
different levelsof income support. If the income support for some small farms
is very low, then green payments may be deemed ineffective as an income
support tool. Thus, it is important to understand which typesof farms have
lower costs for different activities when judging the efficacy of green
payment mechanisms. While we have assumed the policymaker knows the benefits associated with the various levels of
essentially separate—green payments are just used as a conveyorof what is effectively a lump sum transfer.
conservation effort, in practice measurement of the impacts from environmental change can be difficult and expensive. However,
reasonable estimates can be made by using sophisticated biophysical models or simple biophysical relationships. Theenvironmental
benefit index used in the CRP is an example of how environmental performance can be estimated based on simple procedures and a
variety of factors including soil and land characteristics, weather conditions, geographical location, and the land use history
of a field. Different practices may pose different degrees of challenge for verification and monitoring. For example, while it is
easy to verify the use of conservation tillage, it is almost impossible to monitor fertilizer use on a field. The burden of
verification can be shifted to farms. In the implementation of CSP, which pays farms for maintaining conservation practices on
working land, farms are explicitly asked record related questions [20]. If they have written documents as a proof that they have
adopted certain practices, then it is more likely that they will be eligible to participate in the program.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
103
Biofuels Good Link
The quest for food security undermines biofuels, lessening economic growth
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 183-4
Another issue of international trade affecting food security deals with environmental concerns. Currently, because
food is produced not just for human nourishment but also as a power source, the demand for biofuels is "causing
an abrupt increase in demand for agricultural commodities traditionally used for food and feed," which is
pushing crop prices up. In addition, crops that can be turned into biofuels compete for a finite supply of arable
farmland on which a country would normally grow its own food, creating a competition between food security and
economic growth. The crops in demand are staple crops, because the main crops for biofuel production, maize (corn),
cassava, sorghum, sugarcane, soy, and palm oil, are also at the top of the list of crops that contribute to the caloric
consumption of food-insecure peoples, compromising "30% of mean caloric consumption by people living in chronic
hunger." In Tanzania, a country with a high rate of malnutrition, over one-third of caloric intake comes from maize,
leaving it vulnerable to food security issues due to increasing maize prices. As Tanzania's poorest spend 80% of their
budget on food, those at risk for food insecurity lack the adaptability in their budgets to absorb a large increase in maize
prices. Therefore, large corn-producing countries such as the United States can have a massive effect on the food
insecure in relation to corn production for biofuels. This would increase price volatility and could create further hunger
in poorer countries, but can also affect the response to hunger by countries that donate to humanitarian food programs.
"Food aid shipments from the United States are inversely correlated with commodity prices," because high cereal prices
that create need for poor consumers that cannot adapt to price increases reduce the volume of food shipments.
The problem is magnified when countries with food security issues switch production of crops from a food-purpose to a
fuel-purpose, which is an increasing problem in energy hungry countries such as China. As discussed before, China has
taken great strides in solving its food insecurity problem while dealing with the problem of the world's largest
population and limited arable land. However, China is also the "most rapidly growing consumer of transportation fuels
in the world market," and has a growing faction within the government calling for massive targets for biofuel
production to meet its energy needs. This has already created a conflict between food needs and fuel needs, leading the
Chinese Government to implement policies to prevent land traditionally used for staple crop food production to be
converted to biofuel production. Yet it is unclear how long these policies can be kept in place while under significant
pressure from the pro-biofuel factions. One answer is the use of marginal land, as opposed to prime farmland, to grow
crops for biofuels, but China is also looking outside its borders by investing in biofuel production in LDCs such as Laos
and Cambodia to meet its needs, a move that could have wide-ranging effects on the rural poor in those countries.
Additionally, these countries with a developing biofuels sector use tax breaks and subsidies to promote growing that
sector of the economy, creating a new level of subsidies that factor into trade negotiations and food security. Adding
additional factors into the negotiations such as these makes breaking the stalemate even harder, and could lead to
China's forcing LDCs to make concessions beneficial to China's investment in their countries rather than what is best for
the LDCs.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
104
Right to Food Answers
“RIGHT TO FOOD” HAS FAILED TO INCREASE FOOD SECURITY AND CONSEQUENT POLITICAL
STABILITY
Peter Halewood, Law Professor-Albany Law School, 2011, “LatCrit South-North Exchange: The Global Politics of
Food: Sustainability and Subordination: Trade Liberalization and Obstacles to Foood Security: Toward a Sustainable
Food Sovereignty,” The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, Fall, 43 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 115, p.
115
Rising global food prices during 2010 and 2011 are thought to be partly responsible for the recent political uprisings and
regime changes in the Middle East. n1 The 2008 global spikes in food prices and the consequent food riots around the
world lent additional urgency to analysis of underlying structural problems in the global system of producing, trading,
and delivering food. n2 Global food insecurity (hunger) is likely to increase again if population increase, climate change,
biofuel production, agricultural commodity trading, n3 and global trade imbalances persist or expand . Unfortunately, the
internationally recognized human right to food has been to date relatively ineffective in stemming the tide of food
insecurity in the Global South. n4 This essay identifies and analyzes some of the major dynamics in trade law as they relate to food insecurity
and argues that, while it does not replace the right to food, the concept of food sovereignty advances discussion of these issues both as domestic and
international legal matters and, just as importantly, as a vehicle for building political coalition both domestically and transnationally. Food sovereignty
can rally opposition and resistance to global capital's hegemonic construction of equality, markets, and food itself.
Their call for human rights and their universalization continues five centuries of
colonialism, replacing the zeal of the missionary with a secular salvation. We must
engage in a politics of resistance which locates ethical respect in a particular context, or
break the bonds of community.
Esteva & Prakash, Mexican Activist & Associate Prof., Education, Penn State, 1998
[Gustavo and Madhu Suri, Grassroots Postmodernism: Remaking the Soil of Culture, p.
114-115]
The birth of universal human rights is inextricably bound up with the global
manufacture of the independent western nation-state. Following five centuries
of colonialism, the post-World War II universalization of this western
institution continues to deal severe blows to all other political
organizations; most particularly the commons cared for or "administered"
through village self-governance. The evils and injustices of traditional
village governance, masterfully documented by Achebe (1961, 1969) and others, are
minuscule in scale or severity when compared with those of national
governments; or of their contemporary descendants: the trans-border corporate
superstructures constituting the "Global Project," being legitimized by its
gospel of human rights. For villages or cities across the globe, the moral
currency of universalizable human rights is being newly minted, promising
even to contain the immoralities of state governments (national or local) as
well as international development agencies.' This moral currency, conceived
and created for abstract "citizens," follows Hobbes in containing their
meanness, brutality, greed and envy; while enjoining duties, obligations and
responsibilities towards fellow-citizens and flags. It replaces the
traditional communal morality of peoples not reduced to modern
individualism,' either old or new (Dewey, 1962). Functioning like the British
pound, the American dollar and other "hard" currencies, this equally "hard"
moral coinage of human rights enjoys the same international status of
preeminence as do the other coins of the economically "developed." Both
monetary and moral currencies of the "developed" destroy and devalue the
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
105
"soft" currencies of communities and peoples considered not only economically
but also morally "underdeveloped." Following the colonial path of Christian
missionaries (who saved primitive souls from pagan gods), their descendants,
the delegates of human rights agencies, offer secular salvation: the moral or
economic development of underdeveloped cultures. "One man one vote"-style democracy
with parliaments or senates, a national economy that manufactures classrooms, courts, patients'
wards, sewerage, telephones, jobs and flush toilets, are only some among the liberty and welfare
rights promised by independent modern states. This style of "national independence" is
incompatible with cultural autonomy. It is "similar to what the Canadians and
the South Africans have"; it is nothing more than "English rule without the
Englishman ... ; the tiger's nature, without the tiger" (Gandhi, 1946, p. 21).3
Reliance on Outsiders' morality to claim liberation from them (the colonizing
imperialists) demonstrates the political genius of "freedom fighters" like
Gandhi. While drawing upon the colonizers' morality to demand political independence or
national sovereignity from their (mis)government, Gandhi celebrates and affirms with
the Insiders (his people) their own culture and customs: Hind Swaraj or Indian
Home Rule; going beyond the western morality of the modern nation-state.
Extolled only with Insiders are the virtues of Hind Swaraj and dharma: the dharma of
voluntary simplicity, humility, non-violence, courage and justice; of "bread labor," defining and
distinguishing the best of their own particular variety of "soil (agri)culture"; of
indigenous village autonomy and self-governance. Their Insiders' morality is
worlds apart from the Outsiders', inextricably shaped by ideals of economic
growth or "progress." This Insider/Outsider dichotomy, the moral differentiation
between Hind Swaraj and "national independence," is lost upon "the intimate enemy":
modern citizens, individual selves who "belong" to abstract political
structures. Cut off from their indigenous roots, their soil cultures,
citizens of newly independent states are "educated" to desire and function
with the Outsiders' moral currency: human rights guaranteed by national and
international agencies. The loss entailed in the moral breakdown of the Insider/Outsider
dichotomy is mourned only by those still able to remember and re-member; to regenerate
communitarian traditions, being attacked world-wide by the modern state; to resist the morality
of abstract rights, taking over all communal matters, including sex and marriage. These are
depersonalized for the abstract arena of state, national and international courts; even as the
language of morality, spoken only with Insiders, is taken over by the Outsiders' language of
morality. The result is tragic: breaking bonds of neighborhood and village, of
affection and friendship defined by customs, community and commons.4
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
106
Free Trade Good Link
LDC food protectionism at high levels will wreck the Doha round
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 189-90
Additionally, the G-33 group of developing countries need to recognize that allowing tariffs to go above the pre-Doha
bound rates is against the basic idea of the WTO to reduce trade barriers and could lead to the worst-case scenario: a
total breakdown of the Doha Round. The failure of the Uruguay Round to meet the needs of the LDCs was based
on the reluctance of developing countries to "tariffy," as maintaining ceiling bindings to keep 100% tariffs on a
range of products provided more of the protectionism they felt they needed for their domestic agricultural sector.
As most developing countries did not take advantage of the SSG, access to an SSM on any product they
designate, "tariffied" or not, gives them a mechanism that they can use and can protect local production from
volume surges or a price fall. However, developing countries still must be pragmatic and accept that the high
tariff rates they are demanding are an unacceptable remedy in the eyes of developing nations, and should focus
their efforts on other areas, including the elimination of the SSG as part of any agreement on the Doha Round.
To maintain the SSG would be to reduce the effectiveness of any SSM put into place to help developing countries, and
should be eliminated to prevent developed countries from affecting food prices through protectionist measures with a
virtually automatic trigger that requires no test for injury or negotiation for compensation.
Collapse of the Doha round turns the Aff – it would threaten the developing world
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 190-1
Both sides of this issue must compromise to avoid a bigger problem: the complete failure of the Doha Round. An allmember negotiating round is likely to never happen again, leading to smaller rounds and regional negotiations where
the developing world actually loses its bargaining power. If the round were to fail, that would be the death of the
concept of poverty and hunger reduction through trade liberalization and would encourage economically powerful
nations such as China and the U.S. to continue their current self-centered negotiating stance, leaving the developing
world behind.
Collapse of the Doha round strengthens the position of China, turning the case
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations, p. 192-3
Most importantly, whatever the WTO members do, they need to do it now. Doha is most likely the last large global
negotiating round. Some discussions have taken place since the breakdown of talks in July 2008, with discussions on
"issues such as price and volume cross-check, seasonality, price-based SSM, flexibilities for Small, Vulnerable
Economies, and pro-rating" as well as initial technical exchanges on "seasonality, price and volume cross-check, and [a]
price-based SSM." There has also been discussion of the compromise necessary for a "fit for purpose" mechanism to get
past the stalemate, but to date, no breakthrough at the WTO-global level has been reached. Some argue that regional
free trade agreements would be better for developing countries because they would be a more reasonable option with
the capacity for trade that these countries currently have, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. But regional agreements take
international pressure off countries like China to alter their approach to food security and trade issues, empowering
China to continue the expansion of its agricultural sector outside its borders for the purpose of maintaining domestic
Chinese food security, potentially to the detriment of the food security of the people in the countries it invests in. The
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
107
failure of the round would not just be a waste of an opportunity to effect change, but would seriously inhibit the
realization of the MDGs, specifically Goal 1, in both the short and long terms.
Trade enables steps to reduce food insecurity
Banjamin Bay, 2011, J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Fall, The
World Trade Organization and the Millennium Development Goals: The Role of Multilateral Trade Negotiations in
Achieving Food Security for the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations,
For at least three reasons, reducing trade barriers between African nations could help with problems of food
insecurity while also expanding markets for smallholders. First, as noted in Reaching for the Poor, reducing
trade barriers would allow those farmers better able to grow needed crops to 'respond to structural deficits in
neighboring countries.' Next, in some countries, areas with good agricultural potential are closer to markets in
neighboring countries than to large domestic markets, thus making trade across borders a better option (if tariff
rates were lower). Finally, if one country experiences a drought or other crisis that limits food supplies, lower
tariff barriers would allow producers in other countries to more easily meet the affected country's food needs.
Tension between free trade and food security
Christine Kaufmann and Simone Heri, 2007, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, October,
Liberalizing Trade in Agriculture and Food Security--Mission Impossible?, Christine Kaufman is
Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute of International and Comparative Constitutional Law at
the University of Zurich. Simone Heri is a Research Fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence
in Research, NCCR Trade Regulation http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/08/liberalizing-trade-inagriculture-and-food-security-mission-impossible/ DOA: 2-8-15, p. 1040
I. Introduction
Developments in food aid, the production of genetically modified foods and seeds, the use of foodstuffs to produce
biofuels, and awareness of the cultural significance of certain foodstuffs are just a few of the elements that have led to
heated discussions about the relationship between international trade and the right to food - especially food security.
Taking into account the multifaceted nature of the above-mentioned elements, this Article attempts to shed light on the
legal relationship between trade and food security, that is, between international trade law and the human right to food
security.
The preamble of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) does not envision trade as an
end in itself. Instead, it foresees that trade "should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living." This
objective, in language and in spirit, is close to the "adequate standard of living" envisaged in Article 11(1) of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In fact, both the codification of human
rights and what later became the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have their common starting point in
the Atlantic Charter, which contained a vision of a post-war world order resting on the four pillars of trade, finance,
peace, and human rights. Despite this commonality between ICESCR and the GATT, the liberalization of trade in
agriculture and the right to food have nevertheless developed in very different ways.
Conflicts and tensions may arise at the implementation level. This is reflected in the widespread concern that the
openness of agricultural trade may jeopardize food security in developing countries, for example by flooding local
markets with imported products or even with goods provided under the guised heading of food aid. n4 The concern is
that exposure to international markets may increase the instability of food supplies and prices, disrupt markets, and
undermine incentives for local production. n5 Yet from an economic point of view, empirical evidence on an aggregate
country level "does not point to a negative relationship between agricultural trade and food security; on the contrary, a
higher degree of openness to trade is associated with lower levels of undernourishment."
The preceding statement is flawed in several respects. First, while this observation may hold true in general, it is
also true "that some households lose in the process of trade liberalization," even in the long run. Trade reform could also
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
108
exacerbate poverty and therefore reduce food security temporarily. Second, the concept of food security includes more
than the alleviation of malnourishment; it refers to other factors such as culture or the survival of subsistence farmers.
Regardless of the complementarity of goals between liberalization of trade in agriculture and the right to food security
at the abstract level, tensions may arise: even if there are overall gains at the national level, the impact on individuals
can be negative. The liberalization of trade in agriculture is conceptually concerned with aggregate improvements in
global welfare; the human right to food, on the other hand, grants a minimum standard to the individual that must not be
violated, even at the price of an aggregate rise in the standard of living.
To lay the groundwork for a discussion of both regimes (trade liberalization on the one hand, and the human right
to food on the other), this Article will start with a brief discussion of the legal architecture for world trade in agriculture.
Next, it will analyze the normative content of the right to food and the corresponding state obligations. A discussion of
potential avenues for reconciling the legal frameworks of trade in agriculture and the right to food will follow. Finally,
the Article will explore current issues and critically review some of the proposals put forward during the Doha Round
that intend to shape agricultural trade in a way that would be more supportive of the right to food.
Trade liberalization critical to reduce hunger
Paige Gardner, 2001, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy, The Conference on Sustainable
Food Security for All by 2020 Concedes that Goal is Unlikely, p. 85-6
D. Trade Policies
Liberalizing agricultural trade policies would result in an economic boost globally, with the most significant effects in
developing countries. Loosening the trade barriers and removing agricultural tax subsidies that protect domestic
agriculture would cause moderate price increases worldwide. As a result of losing the benefits of subsidies, farmers
would be forced to raise prices. However, while prices would increase, producers and consumers would benefit from the
tax savings caused by removing the domestic subsidies that were previously funded by domestic taxes. Removing the
subsidy may cause the greatest effect in sub-Saharan Africa, where estimated benefits to producers and consumers, as
well as the savings from removals of tax subsidies, would result in a savings of $ 4.4 billion. This economic boost
would allow developing countries to invest in the agricultural research, tools, and technology they so desperately need
to feed their citizens.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
109
US Approaches Bad
American approaches to food security ignore culturally appropriate foods
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 409
The previous section highlighted the attempts of outsiders to refashion food systems towards meeting the needs of nonTohono O'odham. This section will highlight the agency of the Tohono O'odham, who along with scientists, are not
only highlighting the importance of traditional foods in terms of health and cultural continuity, but also working to
make these foods more available. For local communities and indigenous peoples such as the Tohono O'odham, the
American approach to food security is woefully inadequate to address the cultural appropriateness of foods and
diseases of affluence which plague community members. Tohono O'odham Community Action (TOCA) has
brought attention to the need to revise the concept of food security to more effectively consider the unique
challenges that the Tohono O'odham face. This section will discuss the importance of traditional foods for
contemporary Tohono O'odham, the community food security concept, and the application of the community
food security concept to the Tohono O'odham food system, or what this author refers to as "traditional food
security."
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
110
Neoliberalism Bad Link
Food is not just an object that is bought and sold on the market, but an entire network of
social relations—their neoliberal economic perspective privileges elite profit over the
systemic destruction of millions of livelihoods
Rosset, researcher at the Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano, 2006
[Peter, Food Is Different, p. 8-11]
Consider a refrigerated tomato, grown on a large mechanized plantation on land that
once belonged to now-displaced peasant or indigenous farmers, picked while
green and gassed to ripen, packed in plastic and Styrofoam, shipped from the Southern
hemisphere because it's winter in the North, spending more money on fuel than the tomato itself
is worth. Is this tomato the same as an in-season, vine-ripened, heirloom
variety tomato grown by a local family farmer? When we buy the former tomato in a
supermarket, we support transnational corporations that make fertilizer, pesticides, hybrid or
genetically modified seeds, tractors, mechanical harvesters, irrigation equipment and spray rigs,
and others that run international shipping, and still others that own port and distribution
networks, supermarket chains and advertising companies. Is buying this imported tomato in the
supermarket the same as buying a tomato in a farmers' market, whether we are American or European
or Japanese and buy from a local farm family, or Mexican, South Korean or Nigerian, and buy from
a local peasant family, who produce the tomato with less or no chemicals and machines? Does our
act of purchasing have the same impact on the world at large? On farm families? On the
environment? Now say we are a consumer in Mexico, and we eat tortillas made from
maize three times a day. We could eat a tortilla made from maize grown by a peasant or
indigenous family, enabling them to stay in the countryside with the income from selling maize.
Maize of a flavorful and nutritious local variety, grown on their ancestral
land, using millennia-old farming techniques that rely on little or no
pesticides, and that conserve trees and a mosaic of cultivated and forested
land in the local landscape. Or we could eat a tortilla made from cheap maize imported
from the US, of a genetically engineered variety usually sold for animal feed rather than human
consumption – maize for which an American farm family was paid so little that, despite eroding
and exhausting their land with desperate overproduction to make ends meet, cutting down all trees
and generating a new dust bowl, they are one bad harvest or price swing away from losing the
farm. . . . Food is different. It is not just any merchandise or commodity. Food
means farming, and farming means rural livelihoods, traditions and cultures,
and it means preserving, or destroying, rural landscapes. Farming means rural
society, agrarian histories; in many cases, rural areas are the repositories
of the cultural legacies of nations and peoples. Food can give us pleasure,
it can taste good or bad, it can be good for us or it can be bad for us. But if
food is different, should it treated as any other merchandise in our global economy, traded at
will across international borders, shipped around the world by boat, train, truck or plane,
managed by faceless corporations that buy it as if it were all homogeneous and all the same?
These are corporations who pit farmers against farmers in a terrible
competition where the `winners' are those who sell for less (perhaps because they
get a subsidy payment to compensate them, or perhaps not), and who in selling for less
destroy the local environment, give us an unhealthy product, and pave the way
for their own bankruptcy and exit from agriculture, eventually swelling the ranks of
the urban un- or under-employed. But who are given no chance to exit from that competition with
their dignity, and livelihoods, intact. When farmers grow food for their own people,
when they produce for local and national markets, they have a chance to
escape that downward spiral. But when the staple foods that people eat are
imported, and when local farmers must try to compete with cheap exports in
the global economy, there is no chance. What we are really talking about is
development: rural development, local economic development, regional development, and national
economic development. One path contributes to broad-based and inclusive local
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
111
economic development, in which farmers earn money which they in turn spend at
the shops of local townsfolk. The other path leads to social and economic
devastation. In opening a country's market to cheap imports, free trade sets a process in
motion. First, a sudden drop in farm prices can drive already poor, indebted farmers off the land
over the short term. Second, a more subtle effect kicks in. As crop prices stay low over the
medium term, profits per unit area — per acre or hectare — stay low as well. That means the
minimum area needed to support a family rises, contributing to abandonment of farm land by
smaller, poorer farmers — land which then winds up in the hands of the larger, better-off
corporate farmers who can compete in a low price environment by virtue of having so many
hectares. They overcome the low-profit-per-hectare trap precisely by owning vast areas which add
up to some profits overall (perhaps supplemented by taxpayer subsidies), even if they represent
very little on a per hectare basis. The end result of both mechanisms is the further
concentration of farm land within in the ever-fewer largest farms, which in
turn has terrible consequences.' In the United States, the question was asked more than
half a century ago: what does the growth of large-scale, industrial agriculture — crops and
livestock for long-distance shipping and export — mean for rural towns and communities? Walter
Goldschmidt's classic 1940s study of California's San Joaquin Valley compared areas dominated by
large corporate farms with those still characterized by smaller, family farms." In farming
communities dominated by large corporate farms, nearby towns died off.
Mechanization meant that fewer local people were employed, and absentee
ownership meant that farm families themselves were no longer to be found. In
these corporate-farm towns, the income earned in agriculture was drained off
into larger cities to support distant enterprises, while in towns surrounded
by family farms the income circulated among local business establishments,
generating jobs and community prosperity. Where family farms predominated, there were
more local businesses, paved streets and sidewalks, more schools, parks, churches, clubs, and
newspapers, better services, higher employment, and more civic participation. Studies conducted
since Goldschmidt's original work confirm that his findings remain true today.' When we turn
to the Third World we find a similar situation. On the one hand there is the
devastation caused by free trade, land concentration and industrial export
agriculture, while on the other we find local benefits derived from a smallfarm, peasant economy. A recent study in Brazil shows how local towns and villages benefit
from the commerce that is generated when estates belonging to absentee landlords are occupied by
landless peasants from the Landless Workers' Movement (MST) and turned into productive family and
cooperative peasant farming enterprises.' In one such municipality, Julho de Castilhos, the
members of the MST settlement, who only possess 0.7 per cent of the land, actually pay 5 per cent
of the taxes, making the settlement into the municipality's second largest rural tax payer." In
fact, studies from around the world show that smaller farms, that produce for local and national
markets, are more productive and efficient, generate more employment, contribute more to social
welfare and economic development, and take better care of the environment than do the larger,
industrialized export estates that take advantage of freer trade to drive smaller farmers off
their land."
That is precisely why the world's family farm, peasant, farm worker and indigenous peoples'
movements, organized in the international alliance called La Via Campesina, are against the
global free trade in food and other agricultural products being negotiated in WTO and other free
trade agreements. That is why they want to get the WTO out of food and
agriculture.'
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
112
The privatization of public resources and the gutting of government support programs turns the state into the
new colonial frontier, where surplus value can be extracted by force just as in colonialism
Klein, former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics, 2007 [Naomi, also
recipient of James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism, The Shock Doctrine: The
Rise of Disaster Capitalism, p. 241-245]
The movement that Milton Friedman launched in the 1950s is best understood as an
attempt by multinational capital to recapture the highly profitable, lawless
frontier that Adam Smith, the intellectual forefather of today's neoliberals, so admired —
but with a twist. Rather than journeying through Smith's "savage and
barbarous nations" where there was no Western law (no longer a practical option),
this movement set out to systematically dismantle existing laws and
regulations to re-create that earlier lawlessness. And where Smith's colonists
earned their record profits by seizing what he described as "waste lands" for
"but a trifle," today's multinationals see government programs, public assets and
everything that is not for sale as terrain to be conquered and seized—the post
office, national parks, schools, social security, disaster relief and
anything else that is publicly administered.91 Under Chicago School economics,
the state acts as the colonial frontier, which corporate conquistadors
pillage with the same ruthless determination and energy as their predecessors
showed when they hauled home the gold and silver of the Andes. Where Smith saw
fertile green fields turned into profitable farmlands on the pampas and the
prairies, Wall Street saw "green field opportunities" in Chile's phone
system, Argentina's airline, Russia's oil fields, Bolivia's water system, the United
States' public airwaves, Poland's factories—all built with public wealth, then
sold for a trifle.92 Then there are the treasures created by enlisting the
state to put a patent and a price tag on life-forms and natural resources
never dreamed of as commodities—seeds, genes, carbon in the earth's
atmosphere. By relentlessly searching for new profit frontiers in the public
domain, Chicago School economists are like the mapmakers of the colonial era,
identifying new waterways through the Amazon, marking off the location of a
hidden cache of gold inside an Inca temple. Corruption has been as much a
fixture on these contemporary frontiers as it was during the colonial gold
rushes. Since the most significant privatization deals are always signed amid
the tumult of an economic or political crisis, clear laws and effective
regulators are never in place—the atmosphere is chaotic, the prices are
flexible and so are the politicians. What we have been living for three
decades is frontier capitalism, with the frontier constantly shifting
location from crisis to crisis, moving on as soon as the law catches up. And
so, far from acting as a cautionary tale, the rise of Russia's billionaire
oligarchs proved precisely how profitable the strip mining of an
industrialized state could be—and Wall Street wanted more. Immediately
following the Soviet collapse, the U.S. Treasury and the IMF became much
tougher in their demands for instant privatizations from other crisis-racked
countries. The most dramatic case to date came in 1994, the year after Yeltsin's coup, when
Mexico's economy suffered a major meltdown known as the Tequila Crisis: the terms of the U.S.
bailout demanded rapid-fire privatizations, and Forbes announced that the
process had minted twenty-three new billionaires. "The lesson here is fairly obvious:
to predict whence the next bursts of billionaires will issue, look for countries where markets
are opening." It also cracked Mexico open to unprecedented foreign ownership: in 1990, only one
of Mexico's banks was foreign owned, but "by 2000 twenty-four out of thirty were in foreign
hands."93 Clearly the only lesson learned from Russia is that the faster and more
lawless the transfer of wealth, the more profitable it will be. One person who
understood that was Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada (Goni), the businessman in whose living room the
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
113
Bolivian shock therapy plan had been drafted in 1985. As president of the country in the midnineties, he sold off Bolivia's national oil company, as well as the national airline, railway,
electricity and phone companies. Unlike what transpired in Russia, where the biggest prizes were
awarded to locals, the winners of Bolivia's fire sale included Enron, Royal Dutch/Shell, Amoco
Corp. and Citicorp—and the sales were direct; there was no need to partner with local firms. The
Wall Street Journal described the Wild West scene in La Paz in 1995: "The
Radisson Plaza Hotel is crammed with executives from major U.S. companies
like AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, MCI Communications Corp., Exxon Corp. and
Salomon Brothers Inc. They have been invited by the Bolivians to rewrite laws
governing the sectors to be privatized and to bid on the companies on the
block"— a tidy arrangement. "The important thing is to make these changes
irreversible and to get them done before the antibodies kick in," said President
Sanchez de Lozada, explaining his shock therapy approach. To make absolutely sure those
"antibodies" didn't kick in, Bolivia's government did something it had done before under similar
circumstances: it imposed yet another prolonged "state of siege" that banned political gatherings
and authorized the arrest of all opponents of the process.' These were also the years of
Argentina's notoriously corrupt privatization circus, hailed as "A Bravo New World"
in an investment report by Goldman Sachs. Carlos Menem, the Peronist president who came to power
promising to be the voice of the working man, was in charge during those years, downsizing and
then selling the oil fields, the phone system, the airline, the trains, the airport, the
highways, the water system, the banks, the Buenos Aires zoo and, eventually, the post office and
the national pension plan. As the country's wealth moved offshore, the lifestyles of Argentina's
politicians grew increasingly lavish. Menem, once known for his leather jackets and working-class
sideburns, began wearing Italian suits and reportedly making trips to the plastic surgeon ("a bee
sting" is how he explained his swollen features). Marfa Julia Alsogaray, Menem's minister in
charge of privatization, posed for the cover of a popular magazine wearing nothing but an
artfully draped fur coat, while Menem began driving a bright red Ferrari Testarossaa "gift" from
a grateful businessman.96 The countries that emulated Russia's privatizations also
experienced milder versions of Yeltsin's coups-in-reverse—governments that
came to power peacefully and, through elections, found themselves resorting
to increasing levels of brutality to hold on to power and defend their
reforms. In Argentina, the rule of unfettered neoliberalism ended on December 19, 2001, when
President Fernando de la Rúa and his finance minister, Domingo Cavallo, tried to impose further
IMF-prescribed austerity measures. The population revolted, and de la Rúa sent in
federal police on orders to disperse the crowds by whatever means were required. De la Rúa
was forced to flee in a helicopter, but not before twenty-one protesters were killed by police
and 1,350 people were injured.97 Goni's last months and days in office were even
bloodier. His privatizations sparked a series of "wars" in Bolivia: first the
water war, against Bechtel's water contract that sent prices soaring 300 percent; then a "tax
war" against an IMF-prescribed plan to make up a budget shortfall by taxing the working poor;
then the "gas wars" against his plans to export gas to the U.S. In the end, Goni was also forced
to flee the presidential palace to live in exile in the U.S., but, as in de la Rúa's case, not
before many lives were lost. After Goni ordered the military to put down street demonstrations,
soldiers killed close to seventy people—many of them bystanders—and injured four hundred others.
As of early 2007, Goni was wanted by Bolivia's Supreme Court on charges relating to the massacre.
The regimes that imposed mass privatization on Argentina and Bolivia were
both held up in Washington as examples of how shock therapy could be imposed
peacefully and democratically, without coups or repression. Although it's
true that they did not begin in a hail of gunfire, it is surely significant
that both ended in one. In much of the Southern Hemisphere, neoliberalism is
frequently spoken of as "the second colonial pillage": in the first pillage,
the riches were seized from the land, and in the second they were stripped
from the state. After every one of these profit frenzies come the promises:
next time, there will be firm laws in place before a country's assets are
sold off, and the entire process will be watched over by eagle-eyed
regulators and investigators with unimpeachable ethics. Next time there will
be "institution building" before privatizations (to use the post-Russia parlance).
But calling for law and order after the profits have all been moved offshore
is really just a way of legalizing the theft ex post facto, much as the
European colonizers locked in their land grabs with treaties. Lawlessness on
the frontier, as Adam Smith understood, is not the problem but the point, as much a
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
114
part of the game as the contrite hand-wringing and the pledges to do better
next time.
Neoliberalism in agriculture leads to extinction
Lee, Korean Advanced Farmers Federation, 2006 [Kyung Hae, “Prologue: Speak the Truth:
Exclude Agriculture from the WTO!” in Peter Rosset, researcher at the Centro de Estudios
para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano, Food Is Different, p. xiii-xiv]
My warning goes out to all citizens that human beings are in an endangered situation. That
uncontrolled multinational corporations and a small number of big WTO members
are leading an undesirable globalization that is inhumane, environmentally
degrading, farmer-killing, and undemocratic. It should be stopped
immediately. Otherwise the false logic of neoliberalism will wipe out the
diversity of global agriculture and be disastrous to all human beings. WTO Kills
Farmers!
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
115
Neoliberalism Good Link
Neoliberal globalization drives food insecurity
David Fazzino, 2004, Farrizino is currently a fourth-year anthropology doctoral student and law student at the
University of Florida; M.S. (1999) in Sustainable Systems with a focus in Agro-ecology and B.S. (1996) in
Environmental Studies and Anthropology, magna cum laude from Slippery Rock University. He has worked with the
United Nations Development Program's Global Program for Food Security and Agriculture and with small-scale food
production in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida and Senegal, The Meaning and Relevance of Food Security in the
Context of Globalization Trends, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, Spring,
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/42842848?sid=21105812964253&uid=70&uid=3739256&uid=4&uid=2129&ui
d=2&uid=3739560, p .438-9
This portion of the paper will explore the linkages between distant decision- making regarding food production and
its impacts on food security. It is my intent that this paper will expose these linkages so that decision-making to
maximize profits becomes ethically visible. The power dimension of food has been discussed extensively throughout
the literature of various disciplines, elements of power in food security that have been addressed include: the historical
effects of the enclosure acts in England; vertical integration and the power of trans-national corporations to control
national and international policy; the lobbying by agribusiness to protect food stamps; US policies and corporate control
have historically undermined the ability of smaller farmers to carve a living out of the rich soil of the Great Plains;
consumer ignorance and constructed knowledge about food origins; international free-trade supports trans-national
corporations and impacts income of US farmers, farm workers and workers; the health effects of the physical and
institutional support of the fast food industry in the US; the use of multiple channels by which agribusiness accesses
Congress; and most directly by Dahlberg who views transformation of modern structures of power as his point of
departure for food systems analysis. This paper will assist in advancing Mintz's project n by sketching three examples
of decision-making at the national and international levels that have relied on the deified neo-liberal paradigm of wealth
maximization through 'comparative advantage' n26 and which have either led to food insecurity or threaten to
undermine food security in the immediate future. First, this paper will examine the effects of the United States' decision
to subsidize its farmers to overproduce grain. Second, this paper will examine the impacts of the introduction of high
yield varieties into the third world in the 'Green' and 'Gene Revolutions'. Third, this paper will examine the effects of the
imposition of western notions of intellectual property rights on farmers in Africa. Through an analysis of these three
issues this paper will demonstrate that the neo-liberal vision of a world of plenty, spearheaded by public-private
partnerships, which promises to make the world safe for global trade and capital investment, is at best, a tangled web of
inconsistencies and at worst a morally indefensible imperialistic approach to creating and maintaining the chronically
food insecure populations throughout the 'Global Souths' through international law mechanisms and development
projects.
TRADE LIBERALIZATION CONFLICTS WITH FOOD SECURITY
Peter Halewood, Law Professor-Albany Law School, 2011, “LatCrit South-North Exchange: The Global Politics of
Food: Sustainability and Subordination: Trade Liberalization and Obstacles to Foood Security: Toward a Sustainable
Food Sovereignty,” The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, Fall, 43 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 115, p.
126-7
Trade liberalization can have detrimental effects on the long term food security of less developed countries . This includes
the environmental damage that may result from a country's attempt to satisfy export demand. Rather than working under environmentally friendly
standards or sustainability models for agriculture, forestry or fish stocks, many countries are forced to grapple with the global demand for these goods
which, despite the environmental damage that attends, outweighs the country's need to provide long term security. Results have been mixed. The
International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna has failed to reverse the depletion of tuna stock in the Atlantic. n72 [*127] Many
fishing countries were reluctant to sign the Convention, fearing a detriment to their current finances. n73 Forest conservation efforts are another area
where policy changes have been slow to take effect. Internationally traded tropical timber was scheduled to come exclusively from sustainable sources
by 2000. n74 That goal, ten years later, has still not been achieved. n75 NAFTA, for example, has been linked to an increase in water
pollution from nitrogen in areas where increased farming has taken place as a result of the Trade Agreemen t. n76 Farm
subsidies reduce the price of nitrogen based fertilizer so much that little effort is made to prevent run-off loss into Gulf waterways. n77
Brazil was subject to a WTO dispute when it attempted to ban imports of retreaded tires from the EU based on concerns about threats to human health
and the environment. Brazil claimed that the tires, when discarded, added to the creation of stagnant pools of water that increased the mosquito
population. n78 The mosquitoes in turn carry malaria and other diseases, presenting a serious health hazard to Brazilians. n79 In addition, Brazil
claimed that the tires lead to toxic leaching into the soil. n80 The European Community initiated a complaint before a WTO panel. The Appellate
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
116
Body eventually agreed with the EC; the body found that Brazil's import ban was a permitted measure under GATT aimed at protecting health but
was nonetheless unjustified discrimination because Brazil allowed the import of retreaded tires from participating MERCOSUR countries. n81
Legitimate concerns about threats to the environment and public health were sidelined by the WTO process. Another example is fertilizer run-off
from American farms and the resulting depletion of marine life in the Gulf of [*128] Mexico. n82 Run-off from nitrogen fertilizer on farms, carried
to the Gulf by the Mississippi River, has contributed to the development of a 20 thousand square kilometer dead zone where shrimp and fish cannot
survive. n83 This depletion of fisheries is precisely the sort of threat that developing countries need to be wary of. The long term impact of current
policies such as this can have a negative impact for Mexicans who depend upon these resources for food or livelihood.
Trade liberalization often has the distorting effect of shifting the limited amount of resources a less developed country
may have from production geared towards local consumption to production for export to the global market. While the
net benefit of producing goods for export may be high, it comes at a steep price for many people in poor countries . Many
poor countries have limited arable land to grow food, a limited workforce to work the farms due to urbanization, and limited capital to support
production for local consumption. Agriculture employs nearly seventy percent of the labor force in poor countries around the world n84 and it is a
major contributor to their GDP. n85 With so many people tied to agrarian economies in poor countries, a tension exists
between providing the land and labor for agriculture required for food security, and the reduction of poverty and hunger,
and the use of the land for export agriculture to satisfy global market demand. This is perhaps most acute in tropical countries
where the pressures of the global market to grow food for export often results in insufficient production for local consumption.
TRADE LIBERALIZATION EXACERBATES FOOD INSECURITY
Carmen G. Gonzalez, Professor-Seattle University School of Law, 2004, “Trade Liberalization, Food Security, and
the Environment: The Neoliberal Threat to Sustainable Rural Development,” Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, Fall, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 419, p. 425-6
Many proponents of trade liberalization would agree with the above analysis and would argue that the solution is simple: level the playing field by
requiring the United States and the EU to eliminate agricultural subsidies and reduce tariffs. As explained in Part V, dismantling the protectionist
barriers of the United States and the EU would certainly reduce the inequities in the global trading system, but trade liberalization is not sufficient to
promote food security and ecological sustainability in the long term.
First, trade liberalization in the industrialized world is not sufficient to address the distortions and inequities caused by
the monopolization of agricultural markets by a handful of transnational corporations . For example, five agrochemical
companies currently control over sixty-five percent of the global pesticide market. Many of these companies have merged with companies that
produce seeds and fertilizers. These companies can extract monopolistic prices for key agricultural inputs. A similar concentration of market power
exists among the transnational corporations that process and market agricultural output. These companies utilize their market power to dictate
agricultural commodity prices. Farmers are increasingly squeezed between the handful of transnational corporations that
supply inputs and the handful of transnational corporations that purchase their agricultural output . The monopolization of
agricultural trade by transnational agribusiness places developing country farmers at an enormous competitive disadvantage and threatens to
perpetuate poverty and hunger.
Second, trade liberalization impedes the economic diversification necessary to promote food security at the national level.
Contrary to the free market prescriptions of the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, virtually all industrialized
countries (including the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom) relied on tariffs, subsidies, and other
interventionist measures to industrialize. Most recently, the newly industrializing countries of South Korea, Taiwan, and
Singapore successfully industrialized their economies using a combination of tariffs, subsidies, and regulation of foreign
investment. Trade liberalization deprives developing countries of the very tools used by industrialized countries to
diversify and industrialize their economies.
Finally, trade liberalization poses a threat to the biological diversity necessary to maintain healthy agroecosystems. The
elimination of U.S. and EU subsidies and import barriers is anticipated to increase crop specialization in the developing
world in accordance with the dictates of global markets. This development would continue the erosion of crop diversity and the
displacement of sustainable agricultural production techniques by chemical-intensive monocultures.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
117
Globalization Good Link
Protecting food security means challenging globalization
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 449-50
This paper has demonstrated that power is a key component in analysis of food security in light of recent trends of
development. Food security is best assured through the establishment of an appropriate policy framework, which
places the interests of people above that of corporations. Chronic food insecurity, including chronic
malnourishment, will continue to occur as a result of the power that the neo- liberal approach to development,
global wealth maximization through comparative advantage, has over the economic aspect of globalization. The
first portion of this paper addressed how this power is manifested and reinforced through: national strategies and
international promotion of grain overproduction, marginalization of local technologies and production systems coupled
with deification of the technological manifestations of cosmopolitan scientists, and the imposition of property regimes
which favor international trade and hence for the most part, trans- national corporations.
National protection of food security is inconsistent with globalization
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 509-10
There are two major themes in my lecture. First, I address the current phenomena of imported foods quickly
displacing locally grown foods in both the subsistence and commercial sectors. Second, I focus on the ways the global
food trade and the larger apparatus of neoliberal globalization have undermined the ability of local people to
have sovereignty or control over their place, culture, and food security. My most significant claim is that given
the adverse food security impact of industrial agriculture on family and subsistence farming, local farmers in
poor communities should retain sovereignty over access to genetic and natural resources as well as their farming
systems. They should also be supported to have access to financial and technical resources to enable them to
produce food for their needs without the fear of violating patents, plant-breeder rights, or restrictive methods,
such as anti-germination technology.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
118
Biotech Good Link
Green revolution triggers food insecurity
David Fazzino, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fall
2010, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, WHOSE FOOD SECURITY? CONFRONTING EXPANDING
COMMODITY PRODUCTION AND THE OBESITY AND DIABETES EPIDEMICS,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_fazzino,
p. 441-2
The Malthusian argument that has been advanced in the past regarding the need for high yield varieties fed by high
inputs of agri-chemicals to stave off mass starvation is being resurrected by proponents of the gene revolution who see
agricultural biotechnology, developed through specialized cosmopolitan techniques, as the means to assure food
security through both increasing the quantity and quality (vitamin content) of food. One advocate of agricultural
biotechnology is U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, who has used the terms 'immoral' and 'luddite' to describe
the European rationalization of its ban on food products that contain genetically modified organisms. This uncritical
acceptance of 'high' technology as the only rational and moral means to produce food is based on the underlying theory
that technology is value-neutral and induces progress autonomously. Conversely, continued utilization of previously
developed technologies is a result not only of stupidity and laziness, but also immoral because 'luddite tendencies'
condemn the poor to death as a result of the irrational fears of the privileged. Although the Green Revolution has led to
significant increases in some crops (cash crops) with benefits to some farmers, the Green Revolution also led to the
decrease in production of other crops, with the net result of increasing rural inequality in Africa, the U.S. and Latin
America. Stone has illustrated the weaknesses of the Malthusian justification for increased production, by showing that
while India has experienced a crisis of overproduction and subsequently increasing buffer stocks of wheat and rice, it
has also seen its population devastated by food security with an estimated quarter of a billion people malnourished and
1.5 million children suffering a malnutrition-related death each year.
The current structure of the agricultural biotechnology industry indicates that research and development efforts will
continue to center on the development of varieties that are integral to the continuance of industrial agriculture cash
cropping systems, which serve the needs of transnational corporations rather than serving the needs of the poor. Large
private firms dominate the commercialization of genetically modified varieties and would likely spearhead efforts of
agricultural biotechnology introduction in less industrialized countries. Indeed, agricultural biotechnology companies
are currently positioning themselves for market entrance in Africa by pushing African countries to adopt an 'appropriate'
intellectual property framework.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
119
Kritik of Food Security
“Food security” ignores socioeconomic development conditions
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1789
The AFSI and other such initiatives have no avenues for accountability. If the $ 20 billion does not materialize there is
no international court to indict the G8 and demand the funds. This is a major and predictable weakness in the document.
The initiative does take some welcome steps forward but it has not and arguably cannot address the underlying issues
related to establishing food security.
Food security as a policy objective simply does not take the necessary steps to look at the production of food and
the socioeconomic conditions that transport food from farmer to plate. Building a food secure world will not achieve the
democratic participation offered by food sovereignty, as food security sets the bar too low.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
120
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
121
Global/Local Kritik
Food is a daily thing, embedded in the practices of everyday culture and life, not
something that can be described or provided by a centralized action. They ultimately
end up plyaing on their enemies’ turf, in the realm of politis where the power of
corpoorations make the un-opposable. Only localization of our struggle for food can
combat the industrialization of the earth.
Esteva & Prakash, Mexican Activist & Associate Prof., Education, Penn State,
1998 [Gustavo and Madhu Suri, Grassroots Postmodernism: Remaking the Soil of
Culture, p. 23-26]
Afraid that local thinking weakens and isolates people, localizing them into
parochialism, the "alternative" global thinkers' forget that Goliath did in
fact meet his match in David. Forgetting this biblical moral insight, they
place their faith in the countervailing force of a competing or "alternative"
Goliath of their own, whose global thinking Man" (the grown-ups' version of
Superman) has more or less conquered every space on Earth (and is now moving
beyond, into the extraterrestrial), they think he is now advancing towards a
collective conscience: one conscience, one transcultural consciousness, one
humanity –the great human family. "It is the planetary conscience that takes us to a
`world society' with a 'planetary citizenship'," says Leonardo Boff, the Brazilian theologian, 9
describing a hope now shared by a wide variety of "globalists." Hunger in Ethiopia, bloody
civil wars in Somalia or Yugoslavia, human rights violations in Mexico thus
become the personal responsibilities of all good, non-parochial citizens of
Main Street; supposedly complementing their local involvement in reducing
garbage, - homelessness or junk food in their own neighborhoods. Global
Samaritans may fail to see that when their local actions are informed, shaped
and determined by a "global frame of mind,"10 they become as uprooted as
those of the globalists they explicitly criticize. To relearn how to "think
little," Berry recommends starting with the "basics" of life: food, for example.
He suggests discovering ways to eat which take us beyond "global thinking and
action" towards "local thinking and action." Global thinkers and think tanks,
like the World Bank, disregard this wisdom at the level of both thought and
action. Declaring that current food problems, among others, are global in
their nature, they seek to impose global solutions. Aware of the threats
perpetrated by such "solutions," the proponents of "Think globally, act
locally" take recourse to the tradition of Kohr et al. only at the level of
action, as a sensible strategy to struggle against the "global forces." By
refusing to "think little," given their engagement with global campaigns, the
World-watch Institute and other "alternative" globalists of their ilk
inadvertently function on their enemies' turf. How do we defeat the five
Goliath companies now controlling 85 percent of the world trade of grains and
around half of its world production? Or the four controlling the American consumption of
chicken? Or those few that have cornered the beverage market? The needed changes will wait
for ever if they require forging equally gigantic transnational consumers'
coalitions, or a global consciousness about the right way to eat. In
accepting the illusory nature of the efforts to struggle against "global
forces" in their own territory, on a global scale, we are not suggesting the
abandonment of effective coalitions for specific purposes, like the Pesticides Action Network,
trying to exert political pressure to ban specific threats. Even less are we suggesting that
people give up their struggles to put a halt to the dangerous advances of
those "global forces." Quite the opposite. In putting our eggs in the local
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
122
basket, we are simply emphasizing the merits of the politics of "No" for
dealing with global Goliaths: affirming a rich diversity of attitudes and
ideals, while sharing a common rejection of the same evils. Such a common
"No" does not need a "global conciousness." It expresses the opposite: a
pluriverse of thought, action and reflection. All global institutions,
including the World Bank or Coca Cola, have to locate their transnational
operations in actions that are always necessarily local; they cannot exist
otherwise. Since "global forces" can only achieve concrete existence at some
local level, it is only there – at the local grassroots – that they can most
effectively and wisely be opposed. People at the grassroots are realizing
that there is no need to "Think Big" in order to begin releasing themselves
from the clutches of the monopolistic food economy; that they can, in fact,
free themselves in the same voluntary ways as they entered it. They are
learning to simply say "No" to Coke and other industrial junk, while looking
for local alternatives that are healthy, ecologically sound, as well as
decentralized in terms of social control. Among the more promising reactions
in the industrial world is the movement towards Community Supported
Agriculture (CSAs), inspired by both local thinking and action. This growing
grassroots movement is teaching urban people how to support small local
farmers who farm with wisdom, caring for local soils, waters and intestines.
In doing so, local communities simultaneously ensure that unknown farmers
from faraway places like Costa Rica or Brazil are not exploited with inhuman
wages and left sick with cancer or infertility. By taking care of our own
local food, farms and farmers, those of us who are members of CSAs are slowly
learning to overcome the parochialism of "industrial eaters": who are
"educated" to be oblivious to the harm done by purchasing from multinational
agribusiness and others who "Think Big," destroying millions of small family
farms across the globe. Those of us supporting CSAs are trying to abandon the global
thinking with which "industrial eaters" enter their local grocery stores: buying "goods" from any
and every part of the earth, motivated solely by the desire to get the "best" return for their
dollar. Of course, relearning to think locally about food (among other "basics") we
are also frugal: we also want the best return for our dollar. But for us this
means much more than maximizing the number of eggs or the gallons of milk
with which we can fill our grocery bags. We are interested in knowing about
the kinds of lives lived by the hens whose eggs we eat; we want to know what
type of soil our lettuce springs from. And we want to ensure that not only
were the animals and plants we bring to our palate treated well; we are
critically examining our eating habits so that the farmers who work for us
will not die of deadly diseases or become infertile because of the chemicals they were
forced to spray on their fields. We have now read enough to know why these ills
occur every time we buy grapes from California or bananas from Costa Rica. We
also know that when our food comes from so far away, we will never know the
whole story of suffering perpetrated unintentionally by us, despite the
valiant efforts of journals like The Ecologist or scholars like Frances Moore Lappe (1991);
nor, for that matter, once we get a partial picture, will we be able to do much about it.
Therefore, by decreasing the number of kilometers which we eat, bringing our
food closer and closer to our local homes, we know we are "empowering"
ourselves to be neither oppressed by the big and powerful, nor oppressors of
campesinos and small farmers who live across the globe; and we are also
reskilling ourselves to look after the well-being of members of our local
community, who, in their turn, are similarly committed to our well-being. In
doing so, we are discovering that we are also saving money, while being more productive and
efficient: saving on manufactured pesticides, fertilizers, packaging, refrigeration or
transportation over long distances. Self-sufficiency and autonomy are now new
political demands, well rooted in the experience of millions of Indians,
campesinos, "urban marginals" and many other groups in the southern part of the globe.
Rerooting and regenerating themselves in their own spaces, they are creating
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
123
effective responses to the "global forces" trying to displace them.
The alternative is to ignore the state—Saying ‘No!’ to the state and action through it’s
structures allows us to radically break from its domination, refusing to recognize it as a
legitimate site of governance. Demands will inevitably fail, but creating local forms of
agricultural resitance allows us to not ask for change, but actually create it.
Esteva & Prakash, Mexican Activist & Associate Prof., Education, Penn State,
1998 [Gustavo and Madhu Suri, Grassroots Postmodernism: Remaking the Soil of
Culture, p. 27-28]
Global proposals are necessarily parochial: they inevitably express the
specific vision and interests of a small group of people, even when they are
supposedly formulated in the interest of humanity (Shiva 1993). In contrast, if they are
conceived by communities well rooted in specific places, local proposals
reflect the unique "cosmovision" that defines, differentiates and
distinguishes every culture: an awareness of the place and responsibilities of humans in
the cosmos." Those who think locally do not twist the humble satisfaction of belonging to the
cosmos into the arrogance of pretending to know what is good for everyone and to attempt to
control the world. There is a legitimate claim to "universality" intrinsic in every affirmation
of truth. However, people who dwell in their places do not identify the limits of their own
vision with that of the human horizon itself. Among Indian peoples, for example, all over the
American continent, the notion of "territory" is not associated with ownership, but with
responsibility. If the Earth is the mother, how can anyone own her? Indian peoples feel a genuine
obligation to care for the portion of the cosmos where they have settled and they affirm the
truth of their notion of human relations with their Mother, the Earth. But they do not transform
that conviction into the arrogance of knowing, controlling -and managing planet Earth, seeking to
impose their own view on everyone. Growing coalitions of local thinkers/activists
are learning to effectively counteract the damage of global thinking and
action through a shared rejection. Their shared "No" to their "common
enemies" (whether a nuclear plant, dam or Wal-Mart) simultaneously affirms their
culturally differentiated perceptions, their locally rooted initiatives and
modes of being. When their shared "No" interweaves cross-cultural agreements
or commitments, they retain their pluralism, without falling into cultural relativism.
They successfully oppose globalism and plurality with radical pluralism,
conceived for going beyond western monoculturalism - now cosmeticized and disguised
as "multiculturalism" inside as well as outside the quintessentially western settings: the
classroom or the office. And they find, in their concrete practices, that all
"global powers" are built on shaky foundations (as the Soviet Union so ably
demonstrated in the recent past); and may, therefore, be effectively opposed
through modest local actions. The very size of gargantuan, disproportionate
and oversized "systems" make them out of balance and extremely fragile.
Saying "No,” in contrast, may be one of the most complete and vigorous forms
of self affirmation for communities and organizations of real men and women. A
Unifying "No," expressing a shared opposition, is but the other side of a radical affirmation of
the heterogeneous and differentiated beings and hopes of all the real men and women involved in
resisting any global monoculture. Saying "No, thanks" to mindless jobs or the medicalization of
society is the negative aspect of the affirmation of a wide variety of autonomous ways to cope
with globalist or nationalist aggressions upon people's communal spaces. Clothing the Emperor
Two million French workers in the streets and several weeks of massive strikes did
not stop the "neoliberal" design for France. A million farmers of India demonstrating
against GATT did nothing to stop the threat the latter is posing to their lives. In contrast,
Gandhi's Salt March, the simple decision of the oppressed to make their own
salt in their streets and neighborhoods, could be considered decisive in ending
the global British Empire. The rebellion of a few hundred Indians, poorly armed, could
begin the end of the nation-state of Mexico. All these cases help us to understand the nature
of modern power. However, they illustrate two distinct modes of power struggles:
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
124
those that clothe the Emperor in contrast with others that disrobe him.
Examining the reasons for their differential outcomes may help to see how real men and women can
successfully exercise their power to pursue their own purposes; or, alternatively, be highly
counterproductive in their confrontations with the "global forces" threatening them. With the
Salt March, Gandhi rendered naked the inhumanity of colonial domination. By
doing so, he also revealed to the "common" men and women of India their own power to liberate
themselves from colonial oppression. When Gandhi mobilized the people for "self-rule" (swaraj)
through initiatives that involved taking over their own production of salt in deliberate
violation of oppressive British laws, the colonial government deliberately refused to put him in
jail, having learned from past experiences that every incarceration only increased Gandhi's power
to disregard his "rulers." Ignorant of the possibility that millions of oppressed
Indians would follow Gandhi's initiative by producing salt in every corner of
India in order to regain their own autonomy and power, the Viceroy discovered his
miscalculation too late. By then, it was obvious to the colonized "social
majorities" that their minority colonizers did not have enough jails to
incarcerate all those audaciously disregarding their oppressors' laws. The tax
imposed by the British on salt production was economically irrelevant for both the government
and the people. But it had symbolic value and critical importance as a means of establishing
minority control over the majority. The simple decision of the latter to reject such control
broke a fundamental principle of colonial government. In autonomously producing salt for
themselves or weaving their traditional clothes - instead of buying British textiles - India's
masses rediscovered their own strength and power. Nothing else has proved to be more effective in
dismantling an entrenched, "powerful," well-established, politically oppressive regime. The
French workers will probably succeed in their struggle to slow down the
actual materialization of a plan depriving them of their "rights" to jobs,
pension plans or personal security. But even if they kill the Juppe plan, and even
though they have helped to throw Juppe himself out of office, they will only get more or
less of' the same from the machinery of the state to which they are
presenting their "rights" or demands. By claiming from the state what the
state has (or does not have), they are strengthening it; further feeding the myth
of its centrality, its importance to their lives. Following its logic, the
government will negotiate with the unions and a "good" agreement will finally
be reached: a compromise between what the workers want to protect and what the government
needs to dismantle. But the very basic "issue;' the evil threatening people's
lives in France and everywhere else, will remain untouched. `What resists,
supports," once observed an old Mexican politician, taking his metaphor from engineering:
resistance of materials makes for sound construction. By strongly opposing Juppe's
plan,
French workers are, at the same time, legitimizing its authors; revealing how
much they need them; engaged in a power dispute in which "the people" remain the weaker
party. Gandhi's radicalism lay in the philosophy and praxis of simply ignoring
British "power" - its laws, its technology, its industry. Turning away from
political structures that weaken "the people," he moved the struggle for
power to spaces where they can exercise their capacities for self-rule;
governance that renders redundant rulers "on top." Affirming the liberation of
"the people" from their rulers, he was underscoring the opposite: the
dependency of the "rulers" upon the "ruled" for maintaining the myth that the
former possess power, or that power is concentrated at the top of pyramidal structures.
Failing to take paths like Gandhi's in their own liberation, those resisting
recolonization today through GATT and other "global forces" are not overcoming the
real threats these pose for the "social majorities" across the world, including millions of
farmers in India. By concentrating their attacks on the institution, on the
emblem of those arrangements, they render even more opaque the technological
system that maintains the myth of global power.' This opacity hides the
nakedness of the Emperor. In this darkness, it is easy to maintain the pretence
that the Emperor is clothed. All the energy used for the massive
demonstrations organized by the prestigious activists of India has not only proved to
be sterile; it has further added bureaucrats to the heavy structure of GATT,
reinforcing the feeling of powerlessness "the people" experience before such
Goliaths. Real men and women, like monuments or pacts, are often the symbols of a complex
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
125
evil: a whole set of social relations and institutional arrangements. Destroying them can have a
powerful symbolic impact, when that action reveals their nature and weaknesses, while enriching
"the people's" awareness of how to deal with them. The Bastille, the Winter Palace, the Berlin
Wall, are now classic examples that demonstrate the end of an era through the final destruction
of some of its main symbols of power. The opposite can happen, however, if the assaults are
launched against the priests the ghosts, the rituals, the clothing, of the identified evil, while
leaving the latter intact. Rather than weakening or destroying it, the action may
strengthen it; rather than awareness, it may generate blindness.
And, Precisely where the global food is weakest is where local solutions can have the
most impact, creating alternatives and blocking cooption
Hendrickson & Heffernan, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University Missouri-Columbia, 2002
[Mary K. & William D. , “Opening Spaces through Relocalization: Locating Potential
Resistance in the Weaknesses of the Global Food System,” Sociologia Ruralis 42.4,
October, Blackwell, p. 360-361]
What challenges do firms face? These large global firms also face some challenges. One of the problems faced by the global firms
organized to mass produce and distribute foods to a global market is the problem of serving smaller, more differentiated markets
(Kirschenmann 2002). Mass production is inconsistent with the emerging ‘unique’ markets that are now developing. As some
consumers choose to eat seasonably and more locally grown foods, local communities send their own market signals. In addition, a
growing number of consumers are asking questions about where their food was produced, how it was produced, and who produced it.
consumers often choose alternatives to the mass produced food system based
on concerns about social and economic justice and the ecological soundness of
the industrialized food system, as well as concern for small farmers and
rural communities. The food system is very dynamic, and processors and retailers are always seeking to adjust. For
These
instance, food processors and retailers are attempting to serve a differentiated market in the organic foods arena. However, the
organic standards recently released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture point to a standardization of organic that will fit an
essentially philosophical vision of food and agriculture into an industrial model of mass production and consumption (Allen
groups in the US are moving ‘beyond organic’ to discuss the
relationships in community food systems that were an original component of
the organic agriculture movement. Careful analysts will recognize that retailers are not protected from
2000). Thus,
the
challenges posed by these emerging unique markets. As retailers grow larger through acquisitions and mergers, they develop their
own supply and distribution systems that negotiate with ever-larger suppliers that have difficulty reacting quickly to ‘niche’
markets. The dominant firms realize this. One influential American agriculture analyst, Mark Drabenstott of the Federal Reserve
Bank (2002), predicts that the farm economy will split into two segments – one consisting of a small number of large-scale
farmers engaged in commodity production who depend on technologies and economies of scale to survive on razor-thin margins. The
other segment will focus on the product-oriented, consumer-driven, end-user approach to agriculture production and processing.
Closely related to
the issue of serving niches is the difficulty of reorienting a large global
food system cluster. A former Cargill executive in Canada compared changing the global system to the slowness of
Thus, alternatives cannot take for granted their ability to capture this space without a struggle.
changing the direction of an aircraft carrier at sea. Changing food fads create problems for the global firms, but provide
A third major problem faced by global firms is the need
to develop a trusting relationship with consumers. Consumers often distrust the large global
opportunities for smaller systems.
firms, knowing they are primarily motivated by profits. The global firms must depend on brand names on which they must spend
Other
problems faced by the global firms are the social and environmental problems
they create. For example, food shipped from the far corners of the world –
often requiring refrigeration – and its elaborate packaging requires an
enormous quantity of fossil fuel. As the global food firms travel the world
‘sourcing’ their raw products as cheaply as possible, they create problems in
the area of social justice, and often draw attention to some of the negative consequences of this system. Spaces
for alternatives? In our view, these vulnerabilities are exactly the place where farmers,
workers, consumers and communities need to position alternatives. To be effective,
these alternatives must be personalized and sustainable and propose a new
vision, a vision of authentic social, economic and ecological relationships
between all actors in the food system. Such relationships are unique and focus on retaining a widemassive amounts of money in advertising. Small firms may have a better ability to develop more personal relationships.
ranging knowledge in each and every person (DeLind 1993). Developing alternatives, however, also means understanding the limits
to those alternatives, i.e. decentralization of numerous enterprises and actors across multiple places. Moreover, these
It is the
development of authentic relationships that have social and ecological
components rather than being exclusively exchange oriented that makes firms
alternatives require a notion of community self-reliance rather than either dependency or selfsufficiency.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
126
operating in the global system most vulnerable. While advertising (promoting brands)
can create the illusion of connection, it is only within the context of
integrated relationships that authenticity can be developed. However, the development of
these authentic relationships in the structure of our everyday lives (to be incorporated into what Agger (1992) calls everyday
Time
praxis) is indeed difficult and time-consuming.
may indeed be one of the biggest barriers for alternatives, yet one of the
greatest strengths. Many alternatives do take more time, and thus are less attractive to people squeezed by work and family
becomes a reason
alternatives are difficult to replicate by the dominant firms. The global
system is predicated on controlling and speeding up time – in both production
and consumption – and eliminating unique sets of knowledge and management
that require more time to amass and apply. There are a large number of
alternatives being expressed throughout the Midwest, the country, and the
continent. Many researchers have examined movements in sustainable agriculture and food (Feenstra
1997), community food security (Allen 1999), civic agriculture (Lyson 2000) and fair trade
(Raynolds 2002), all of which McMichael (2000) suggests are expressions of the crisis of
development in food and agriculture. To succeed, these movements must organize
where the dominant system is vulnerable – by making ecologically sound
decisions, by relying on time and management rather than capital, and by
building authentic trusting relationships that are embedded in community. We turn
responsibilities, which has important classbased implications (Hinrichs 2002). However, that
now to a case study that exemplifies such alternative agrifood movements.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
127
Food Sovereignty Alternative
Food sovereignty definition
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 533-4
While a primary aim of the right to food is access to food, food sovereignty pertains to a much broader set of issues.
One way to combat global hunger and farmer suicides is to promote "food sovereignty." The Declaration of Nyeleni,
which was written by a transnational group of peasant groups, La Via Campesina, defines food sovereignty as "the right
of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and
their right to define their own food and agriculture systems." Food sovereignty puts the needs of farmers and consumers
at the heart of policymaking, rather than the demands of markets and corporations.
Food sovereignty has also been defined as the right of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own
agricultural, labour, fishing, food and land polices, which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally
appropriate to their unique circumstances. It includes the true right to food and to produce food, which means that all
people have the right to safe nutritious and culturally appropriate food and to food-producing resources and the ability
to sustain themselves and their societies.
Based on these definitions, the food sovereignty movement is comprised of the following basic tenets. First, people
have rights to define their agricultural, labor, fishing, food, and land policies, as well as the plant genetic resources on
which their food and survival depend. This right of self-determination is a recognized principle of international law.
Vindicating this right involves restoring community control over productive resources including seeds and other
resources that are under continual threat from multinational corporations, or what Jack Kloppenburg has called
"agroscientific capital." It also involves ensuring that farming communities are able to produce their food needs free
from fear that patents, plant breeders' rights, restrictive methods, or even technological methods, such as antigermination technology, will be used to restrict their access to seeds.
Second, people have a right to produce safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food to sustain individuals and
societies and a collective entitlement to produce for survival and community continuity, rather than for profit or surplus.
This means people should not have to depend on food imports or substitute local nutritious foods for imported food,
which may not be as healthy. To protect this right, the state has a responsibility to ensure fair farm-input prices and
access to productive resources, including land, water, and fishing areas.
Third, people have an obligation to practice ecological soundness. This means ensuring the land, water, and air
resources are used in such a manner that they remain productive assets for current and future generations. The natural
capital of a place should not be depleted to satisfy only current needs for subsistence or those of intensive profitoriented agriculture.
Food sovereignty is about more than food security – it includes protecting the local
environment, indigenous people, and agriculture practices
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 531-2
Food sovereignty is a much broader concept than the right to food. The global trade regime and the larger apparatus of
neoliberal globalization in the context of food security have in turn produced a countermovement or social movements
for the ""defense of practices of cultural, economic and ecological difference.'" Food sovereignty is about protecting and
building alternative "socionatural worlds" that can provide a healthy food supply to farming communities than those
being currently defined by neoliberal trade policies. However, the food sovereignty movement is about more than food
sovereignty as such. It is about protecting the local environment, indigenous peoples, and agricultural practices that are
not necessarily aimed at surplus production. In affected societies, communities are increasingly organizing into social
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
128
movements. In doing so, they are faced with at least three choices: the local regimes, which they want to defend and
transform from a position of autonomy; the capitalist [or neoliberal regime], the advancement of which they want to
contain; and the techno regime, [the rise of a science and policy movement around biodiversity and sustainability that is
heavily reliant on evolutionary biology and a neo-Darwinian ecology paradigm in which gene technology and patents
are used to consolidate power over food and nature and in which the species is represented as under threat of
extinction], which through processes of counterwork and politics of scale they want to utilize for the defense of identity,
territory, and place.
Social movements fighting global food production
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 532-3
The backlash created by globalized food production is evidenced by the emergence of social movements, particularly in
"remote highland or jungle environments." Movements such as those in the Chiapas in Mexico or in the Narmada
Valley in India are all forms of grassroots resistance to not only the globalization of food production, but also to
massive development programs being implemented by governments and international institutions. Such massive
development programs like cattle production in Latin America and similar industrial agricultural programs are justified
as being in the interest of urban and rural development. Yet, often they are protested by social movements consisting of
a broad cross section of groups including women, environmentalists, human-rights activists, indigenous peoples, and
religious activists. These groups continue to raise concerns about the impact of bringing development to them in a way
that compromises their ability to provide food for themselves as well as in undermining, if not entirely uprooting, their
local economies and cultures.
Food sovereignty should be protected
James Thuo Gathii, 2001, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship and Governor George E. Pataki Professor of
International Commercial Law Albany Law School, Loyola Law Review, Food sovereignty for poor countries in the
global trading system, p. 536-7
In a number of ways, food sovereignty helps social movements defend local regimes by articulating a much broader
vision than that offered by the important right to food and the techno-regime of biodiversity and sustainability. First,
social movements and local farming communities marginalized by globalization seek not only to defend sustainable
farming methods, but to defend their territory and land from encroachment by industrial agriculture and development
programs not designed for their benefit. Food sovereignty is therefore about more than the right to food and food
security. It also involves ensuring a place for traditional production systems and defending local economies.
Further, it means ensuring that a bottom up approach to agriculture based on the knowledge of farmers, supported
by civil society organization and publicly funded research institutes "working in the public domain for the common
interest," is not displaced by industrial agriculture supported by scientific solutions supported by the private sector for
profit. It means coming up with solutions to the encroachment on resources of local farming communities, like seeds
through new, concrete and innovative concepts such as "biological open space" that would stop the dispossession of
such resources from those that need them most for their food and survival. In poor regions such as sub-Saharan Africa,
this objective is evident in the fact that close to 80% of the population resides in rural areas and is engaged in
agriculture as a major economic activity. Supporting local farmers would therefore mean strengthening indigenous
ecological knowledge and practices to assure their viability, rather than assuming modern ecology and the attendant
patent regime that comes with it has all the answers.
Second, by thinking of land in terms of life corridors linked to particular landscape units, be they mangrove
ecosystems, foothills, rivers conceived as sociocultural forms, rather than simply as patches of territory that can be titled
under a modern system of land registration and as such are marked by multidimensional uses that are marked by social
relations (kinship, gender, and ethnicity). By life corridors I mean that of all varied landscape units that are often
thought of discretely, should instead be regarded as being part of an interconnected ecosystem or as one "comprehensive
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
129
whole." Notions such as life corridors have become an important way of developing a more complete picture from
fragmentary information in a number of areas tracking how sea creatures migrate, feed, mate, and reproduce across a
vast swath of the Pacific Ocean.
A corridor approach has even been used to organize and prioritize environmental stewardship efforts for the twelve
million acres of land alongside state and local roads owned and managed by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
n122 This approach to life-corridor environmental stewardships is more consistent with the reality of local communities
as complex sociocultural ecosystems and habitats, rather than as fragmented patches of property to be privatized. On
this concept, the social movements of indigenous and local communities have a cultural-territorial basis and often
articulate ideas of ethnic and cultural identity as well as food security and sovereignty to ward off displacement.
Consistent with this idea of life corridors is the need to recognize that African countries in particular have a variety
of agro-ecological zones (arid, humid, and sub-humid zones for example) and as such, no single crop or set of crops,
seed variety, soil or water management technology, infrastructure or institutions will work. A one-size-fits-all approach
as embraced in industrial agriculture is unlikely to work in these varied areas. Much creativity must be embraced to find
individualized and workable solutions in each context. Project aid and national development policies that are not
sensitive to this reality on the ground are unlikely to help address problems related to food security and sovereignty.
Third, pursing food sovereignty often means seeking alternatives to the development paradigms offered by
neoliberal globalization. As I have just noted, many agricultural development programs in Africa are insensitive to the
diversity of agro-ecological zones, since they are often designed as one-size-fits-all. Agricultural development projects
that focus exclusively on the export sector and thus on a narrow range of cash crops do not integrate well with local
structures and are not designed to help local farmers and the poor address the challenges of hunger and malnutrition.
Alternative approaches to addressing food insecurity and sovereignty should not assume that the way to address the
challenges of hunger and malnutrition is to incorporate local farmers and groups seamlessly into the official
developmental discourses of genetic resource conservation and intellectual property rights and export-led development.
Rather that these groups should be left with the autonomy to retain a degree of independence within their local
communities understood holistically rather than in the often spatially and conceptually fragmented ways promoted by
neoliberal reform projects.
Giving autonomy to locally-defined goals and perspectives would, in turn, increase and enhance the ability of such
local communities to leverage their biodiversity resources for their benefit. Giving autonomy to these groups would also
need to be coupled with meaningfully and effectively empowering them. In the context of African countries, this would
mean enhancing access to meaningful extension services, including fertilizers and other farm inputs, and investing in
developing crops that are tolerant to drought, flood, disease, and pests. It would also mean technology transfers, farmer
training in new and sustainable techniques of crop, and farm management, as well as end product quality to give their
produce a shot in the market place. These new and sustainable techniques must be practical, accessible, affordable, and
helpful. They would constitute a way of democratizing expertise about agricultural production in a way that would
make the technical and scientific knowledge that has transformed agricultural production in the green revolution in Asia
unlike in corporate-dominated agriculture that is not accessible and usable to poor farmers.
Such an empowerment-based approach of knowledge sharing would ideally also include meaningful financial and
other support to farmers to turn staple crops into tradable goods that can earn these farmers an income. This implies that
the needs of local farmers would become an integral part of national agricultural planning in the same way export-led
agriculture has become. Governments are responsible for involving a broad cross section of stakeholders including local
farmers in decentralized agricultural policy planning and implementation. This would include planning around such
issues as pricing of farm products and inputs, marketing, credit, mechanization, and research. Farmers ought to be
involved in long-and medium-term planning for the agricultural sector as well as project planning and implementation.
Regarding the example at the beginning of this Article about foreign canned fruit in the South Pacific, my proposals
would help farmers in the South Pacific develop the capability to can their own fruit and market it competitively to
avoid being displaced by canned fruit from farmers thousands of miles away. These sensible reforms at the national
level would help reform the global agricultural system into a more equitable and efficient system in which countries
move away from high agricultural protection as they have done for nonagricultural goods. Ultimately, it is vitally
important for food security that local farmers in poor communities retain sovereignty over access to genetic resources,
financial resources, and technical resources, as well as local control of their natural resources, including their farming
systems. In addition, food sovereignty helps society to acknowledge not only the importance of control over resources
and territory but of culture and identity.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
130
Legal Topics:
n41. Raymond F. Hopkins, Food Security, Policy Options and the Evolution of State Responsibility, in
Food, the State and the International Political Economy: Dilemmas of Developing Countries 6 (F. LaMond
Tullis & W. Ladd Hollist eds., 1986).
n42. Hopkins, supra note 41, at 27-28.
ntoday.in/site/Story/130549/india/food-security-govt-plans-to-limit-food-served-at-weddings.html.
n77. South Centre, The Proposed Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) in the WTO: Is it still "Special'?, at
2 (Nov. 2009), http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1367%3Atheproposed-special-safeguard-mechanism-ssm-in-the-wto-is-it-still-special&catid=51%3Atrade-in-agriculturalgoods&Itemid=67&lang=en [hereinafter South Centre Policy Brief].
n90. See generally Han Morten Haugen, The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement - With A Particular
Emphasis on Developing Countries' Measures for Food Production and Distribution (Brill 2007).
n91. For a good analysis of how global trade rules adversely affect the right to food, see Jacqueline
Mowbray, The Right to Food and the International Economic System: An Assessment of the Rights-Based
Approach to the Problem of World Hunger, 20 Leiden J. of Int'l L. 545 (2007); see also Carmen Gonzalez,
Institutionalizing Inequality: The WTO Agreement on Agriculture, Food Security and Developing Countries, 27
Colum. J. Envtl. L. 433 (2002).
n92. Christine Breining-Kaufman, The Right to Food in Agriculture, in Human Rights and International
Trade 349 (Thomas Cotter et al., eds. 2005).
n105. Balakrishnan Rajagopal, From Resistance to Renewal: The Third World, Social Movements, and the
Expansion of International Institutions, 41 Harv. Int'l L.J. 529 (2000).
n106. Forum for Food Sovereignty, Declaration of Nyeleni (Feb. 27, 2007), http://www.worldgovernance.org/IMG/pdf_0072_Declaration_of_Nyeleni_-_ENG.pdf.
n109. Jack Kloppenburg, Impeding Dispossession, Enabling Repossession: Biological Open Source and the
Recovery of Seed Sovereignty, 10 J. of Agrarian Change 3, 384 (2010).
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
131
n127. Baris Karapinar & Christian Haberli, Conclusions and Policy Recommendations, in Food Crises and
the WTO: World Trade Forum 332 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2010). It is doubtful that the landgrabs currently
ongoing in Africa are consistent with the concept of food sovereignty as discussed in this lecture.
Food sovereignty is broader and a better concept through which to approach food issues
aggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 15960
According to the World Food Summit of 1996, food security exists when all people, at all times, have access to
sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. n12
La V[#xED]a Campesina, the Peasant Way, an international federation of peasant farmers, looked at this concept and
saw limitations in its failure to address the power dynamics and imbalances within the food system, such as who
controls how food is produced and distributed, and the question of power in turn implicates gender. This focus on power
frames the question as one of food sovereignty rather than food security. Food sovereignty is defined as "the right of
peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and
their right to define their own food and agriculture systems." Food sovereignty penetrates much deeper than food
security and is the subject of this article. Moreover, the use of gender as a lens to understand the global food system,
based on the similarities between patriarchy's control over the agricultural system and its control over women's bodies
and reproductive capacity, creates a perspective that has not been sufficiently offered elsewhere.
Food sovereignty also protects against violence against women
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1601
In 2008 in Maputo, Mozambique, La V[#xED]a Campesina held its fifth international conference called "Feeding the
World and Feeding the Planet." At this conference a policy letter was drafted called "An Open Letter from Maputo,"
which included a call for a new program of action under the slogan "food sovereignty is about an end to violence
against women." That statement is the inspiration for this paper. The power of this statement is perhaps not immediately
recognized, yet there is profundity in what it can offer. In not only building a food secure world, but also, by changing
relationships on an interpersonal level between individuals sitting across a table, food sovereignty offers an alternative
to our current food system and a more profound analysis of power than food security. Food sovereignty, literally
people's self-government over the food system, argues for a complete transformation of society, or nothing less than
food revolution. This article demonstrates the key role that the set of practices known as food sovereignty can play in
rebuilding democratic systems of food production. Food sovereignty is also a feminist issue and applying a gendered
lens to the food system reveals the failings of food security as a goal for food system transformation. This article will
examine the role of social movements, such as La V[#xED]a Campesina, in changing the framework governing food
production, and advocates looking to these movements for leadership.
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
132
Food security ignores issues of power
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1767
However, this assessment fails to mention the process of bringing food to plate, something which is fundamental to
food sovereignty. Food security, while a laudable goal in itself, does not encompass the deeper analysis being offered by
social movements of power. Author, activist, and academic Raj Patel states,
You can have food security under a benevolent dictator. Your dictator can provide you with meals and
McDonalds and a little bag of vitamins to compensate your body for the nutrition that McDonalds will
not provide. But that will be a situation of food security. In other words, what food security fails to talk
about is control and power. And that's what food sovereignty does.
Food sovereignty is broader and better than food security
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law
in 2011, and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is
a practicing criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a
Gendered Issue, p. 181
There is a large and growing global movement focusing on the concept of food sovereignty, also described as selfgovernment of the food system. La V[#xED]a Campesina views food sovereignty as "people's right to healthy and
culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their
own food and agriculture systems." This idea is broader than food security because it focuses not just on access to food
but on all of the processes involved from planting to plate such as land use, farmworker rights, urban agriculture,
cooking, and nutrition.
The FAO offers another definition of food sovereignty:
...the right of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own agricultural, labor, fishing, food
and land policies which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their unique
circumstances. It includes the true right to food and to produce food, which means that all people have
the right to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food and to food-producing resources and the
ability to sustain themselves and their societies.
This definition articulates well the very surface of the concept of food sovereignty, but misses the forest for the
trees. It excludes the interpersonal dynamics involved in producing and sharing a meal. This definition ignores the
history of agricultural production as a tool for social control. One of food sovereignty's particularly powerful points is
the very crux of its dealing with food. Everybody has to eat, and therefore everyone has an interest in agricultural
production. This point alone is remarkable because it demonstrates what hope for food system transformation lies in
being able to motivate and mobilize people, and build social movements. The power of food sovereignty exists in this
possibility, and more.
The Oxford-trained economist Raj Patel, quoted earlier, expresses this sentiment well.
Food sovereignty is about power in the food system. It's about who gets to control how food is
distributed in a society and an economy... [Food sovereignty] says look we need an international
discussion, a national discussion, a municipal, a regional discussion. But it also means having a
discussion even at the level of the household. I think that is what is really one of the most important
elements of food sovereignty is that it takes relations around power even at the household level and tries
to make them level. That's the project of food sovereignty. [One of La V[#xED]a Campesina's slogans is
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
133
this]-- Food sovereignty is about an end to violence against women. Now that doesn't sound like it has
anything to do with food but of course it has everything to do with food. Because of women's role in the
food economy, because of the relations of power that exist even across the table. Food sovereignty aims
to level those power relations from right at home all the way to an international level. And that is the
great promise of food sovereignty.
When La V[#xED]a Campesina coined the term food sovereignty in 1996, the goal was the transformation and
democratization of the food system. It places those who produce and eat food, not agribusiness and economics, at the
center of decision-making about food and agriculture. This is a radical departure from the way global food policy is
currently managed. Food sovereignty demands recognition of the social connections and relationships people and
communities have to food, its production, consumption, and sharing.
In its Maputo Declaration, La V[#xED]a Campesina states: The principal theses of neoliberalism are
being stripped of their legitimacy in public opinion, and the . . . international financial institutions (World
Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization) are proving to be incapable of
administering the crisis (in addition to being among the cause[s] of the same crisis). This creates the
opportunity to eliminate them, and create new institutions to regulate the global economy that serve
public interests. [I]t is clearer every day that the global corporate food regime is not capable of feeding
the great majority of people on this planet, while food sovereignty based on peasant agriculture is more
needed than ever.
Food sovereignty privileges local peasant production over agribusiness and concludes that this model is the only
model capable of feeding the world. Small-scale farming will not only improve food security but will also fight climate
change. Experts disagree on the exact number, but some estimate as much as 37% of climate change gasses can be
traced to the food system. n128 In the United States, that percentage is 19%. This makes pollution caused by the food
system in the United States the second highest source of pollution from the world's biggest polluter, just after cars.
n130 The clearing of land for agriculture, particularly industrial agriculture, releases large amounts of carbon into the
atmosphere. n131 The use of chemical fertilizers (derived from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm
machinery, modern food processing, packaging, and transportation are also direct contributors to global climate change.
n132 Such inputs are rarely discussed, but are just as responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases as the oft-cited
direct burning of fossil fuels. Switching to small-scale farming and abandoning industrial agriculture as called for by
food sovereignty is one of the major steps to mitigating the impact of global climate change.
People’s trade agreement is an example of an alternative that protects food sovereignty
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 2010-11, Ellinger received her J.D. from City University of New York School of Law in 2011,
and her B.A. in ecofeminism from Antioch College. She is admitted into the Missouri Bar where she is a practicing
criminal defense attorney, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, v. 18, Food Sovereignty as a Gendered Issue, p. 1913
There are other regulatory programs that can be used to foster change. The Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas
(ALBA) was proposed by the Venezuelan government in 2001 as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
In 2004, Venezuela and Cuba signed the first exchange agreement. Since that time seven other countries have joined the
alliance, bringing the total to eight: Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Dominica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and St.
Vincent and the Grenadines. Notably, ALBA has a three-tiered council structure: presidential, ministerial, and social
movements. The advisory council of social movements serves to provide direction and oversight for the other two
councils. Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, and Dominica have established a food production
company that seeks to build food sovereignty.
In 2008, under the leadership of Bolivian President Evo Morales, ALBA countries approved the People's Trade
Agreement (PTA), which seeks to establish an integrated economic and monetary zone complete with its own currency,
the Sucre. The PTA has ten principles; number five is apropos of the discussion in this article: "[t]he PTA recognizes
the right of the people to define their own agriculture and food security policies; to protect and regulate national
agricultural production, assuring that the internal market is not inundated by surpluses from other countries."
Planet Debate
Food Security LD Release
134
The PTA seeks to build development and production methods based on complementary relationships instead of
competitive ones. It seeks to live in harmony with the environment and believes in state regulation. It believes that most
basic services are public goods that cannot be turned over to the market. And while it seeks regional integration, it
acknowledges and takes into account national differences.
The PTA is an example of a regulatory alternative to the current neo-liberal model dominating much of the rest of
the world. Its privileging of social movements and grassroots organizations holds promise for policy makers and
government actors considering reshaping the food system. By looking at these movements for leadership, building food
sovereignty is possible.
There are other examples of regulatory change, rooted in an ecologically sustainable approach, such as Ecuador's
Food Sovereignty Law of 2009. To oversee its implementation the law establishes a permanent Consultative Body for
Food Sovereignty. n169 The law explicitly privileges smallholders and agroecology, and declares the nation free of
genetically engineered crops except in very limited circumstances.
On March 8, 2011, the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter,
released a groundbreaking report titled "Agro-Ecology and the Right to Food" which he presented to the United Nation's
Human Rights Council. This report consists of an assessment recent scientific literature and demonstrates that
agroecology, if adequately provided for, can double food production within ten years while assuaging the ravages of
climate change and the effects of rural poverty. Agroecology, which mimics nature instead of industry, is based on the
convergence of both agronomy and ecology. Thus, drawing on principles of ecology and applying them to agronomy
"agroecological practices can simultaneously increase farm productivity and food security, improve incomes and rural
livelihoods, and reverse the trend towards species loss and genetic erosion." The report ends with specific policy
proposals that the United Nations, nation-states, and private actors can implement to rebuild agricultural practices with
agroecology at its core. The report also draws attention to the specific impact of the global food system on women and
calls for engagement by donors with groups such as La V[#xED]a Campesina.
Reform can come from the bottom up as well. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) is a group of over
4,000, mostly Latino, farmworkers based in Southwest Florida who have been fighting to improve their working
conditions since 1993. They utilize numerous tactics in their successful campaigns including work stoppages, hunger
strikes, marches, and savvy use of the media. Because the companies that employ many of the farmworkers are family
owned, and not publicly traded, they cannot be shamed into paying better wages to their workers. As a result, CIW
began putting pressure on the companies that purchase agricultural products from the grower employers. The hugely
popular "Boot the Bell" campaign against Taco Bell led the company to agree to stop working with growers that paid
their workers "slave wages."
The Restaurant Opportunities Center United n183 began after 9/11 when the workers at the fine dining Manhattan
restaurant, Windows on the World, were left without jobs after the collapse of the World Trade Center. They first
organized themselves, and later went on to launch many successful campaigns, improving the working conditions of
restaurant workers across the borough. They have also opened their own worker-owned restaurant in Manhattan called
Colors. Another Colors restaurant will soon be opening in Detroit, and the organization has spread to eight other cities.
Slow Food began in 1986, in Piedmont, Italy, by Carlos Patrini. Slow Food is now an international organization
with members in over 150 countries. Using the symbol of a snail, Slow Food argues for alternatives to fast food and is
concerned with the pleasure of food in addition to its political dimensions. The Movimento dos Trabalahadores Rurias
Sem Terra (MST), begun in 1984, also is transnational, but based in Brazil, and uses direct action to occupy land and
seek equitable redistribution.
These examples of self determination by grassroots groups are representative of the work of people involved with
food sovereignty globally. Further examples include the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty,
composed of over 500 rural social movements and NGOs. There is also the Community Food Security Coalition
representing almost 300 different organizations from around North America working on the various issues of food
sovereignty. These grassroots reform efforts hold the potential to create an alternative regulatory framework that would
build up food sovereignty region by region, country by country.