From Johnston, Biro & MacKendrick, “Lost in the Supermarket: The Corporate-Organic foodscape and the struggle for food democracy”

There has been a massive surge in the popularity of organic food in the last two decades. With this, the organic industry has been transformed from marginal and niche to mainstream, with organic products standing side by side with conventional versions on most supermarket shelves. The meaning of ‘organic’ has itself changed correspondingly. For many consumers, organic has become simply a more expensive option, a price premium justified for the sake of a ‘purer’ vegetable or piece of meat, untouched by chemical pesticides, preservatives or antibiotics.

But this is far from the founding principles of organic farming. The organic belief system encompasses a range of issues designed to create an alternative way of producing and consuming food that benefits not only the environment and human health, but encourages a deeper understanding of the social and ethical aspects of food production. Had organic beliefs hit the mainstream in their purest form, the foundation for an ethical food revolution may have been set – the fact that they were instead watered down was a result of the corporate co-option of the organic movement.

References: [1]Johnston, Biro & MacKendrick, “Lost in the Supermarket: The Corporate-Organic foodscape and the struggle for food democracy” In: Antipode Vol 41, No 3 22/5/2009

Click here to download this guide for free.

The post Eating Up the Alternatives: Part 2 – Corporate Organics appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Provenance (where foods come from) sounds sexy. Think Cornish clotted cream, Scottish raspberries, all the rage on the menus of fancy restaurants and in supermarket advertising in the Sunday supplements. But declaring provenance doesn’t equate to saying it’s locally produced: You can buy, for example, Cornish clotted cream in Scotland and Hereford beef in London. Provenance is also somewhat one-dimensional; it describes the physical place of production but does not provide the broader economic, environmental and social aspects and benefits attributable to local food.

‘The typical supermarket contains no fewer than 30,000 items. About half of those items are produced by 10 multinational food and beverage companies. And roughly 140 people ? 117 men and 21 women ? form the boards of directors of those 10 companies. In other words, although the plethora of products you see at a typical supermarket gives the appearance of abundant choice, much of the variety is more a matter of packaging and branding than of true agricultural variety, and rather than coming to us from thousands of different farmers producing different local varieties, has been globally standardized and selected for maximum profit.’ – Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé in ‘Hope’s Edge’[1]

The Soil Association says that local food is “food arising from a system of producing, processing and trading, primarily organic and sustainable forms of food production, where the physical and economic activity is largely contained within and controlled within the locality or the region where it was produced, which delivers health, economic, environmental and social benefits to the people in those areas.”[2]

Whilst supermarkets are very keen on provenance and have created a variety of ‘local’ sourcing initiatives, in reality the genuine local food sector is in danger of being co-opted by the big food retailers.

References [1] Francis Moore Lappe and Anne Lappe, In Hope’s Edge

[2] Sustain, Sustainable food chains; Briefing Paper One; Local Food, Benefits, Obstacles and Oppurtunities, 2002 – www.sustainweb.org/pdf/briefing1.pdf

Published in 2010.

Click here to download this guide for free.

The post Eating Up the Alternatives: Supermarket Local Sourcing Initatives appeared first on Corporate Watch.

Dwayne Andreas, former Chair and CEO of global grain trader, Archer Daniels Midland[1]

The UK farming industry is of vital importance for the production of our food. On top of this, farmers are entrusted with a number of other responsibilities. They are expected to care for and manage the land in a way that promotes wildlife and preserves the landscape; they are expected to produce food which is safe, hygienic and ‘natural’; they are expected to treat their animals humanely; and they are at the hub of the rural community.

But farmers have taken a battering from environmentalists, and from the public in general, for not carrying out these responsibilities as well as they should. Much of this criticism is justified. However, this report argues is that it is not entirely the farmers’ fault if they have failed in these undertakings. The problems that surround the farming industry are very largely attributable to one elementary fact which is beyond the farmers’ control.

It is tempting to say that farmers are simply not paid enough; but that is not quite accurate. Many farmers are currently very badly paid; but some do quite well, because they are large and economically efficient, or because they receive generous subsidies, or because they manage to surf on a wave of bank loans that never breaks, or because they have diversified.

The truth is that farmers are expected to work to impossibly small margins, which no other industry would contemplate. When the profit from a full grown pig, whose meat may be worth £150 or more once processed and retailed, is around £2.50, or the profit from a litre of milk selling for 50 pence is less than a penny, then we cannot expect farmers to do the job as well as the public expects. A great many farmers are simply struggling to survive.

This report argues that at the root of the farming crisis are food and agriculture policies and global trade agreements which promote trade liberalisation. These factors have facilitated the globalisation of the trade in food and the concentration of market power in the hands of a very small number of multinational food corporations and supermarkets, who now control the flow of food from ‘farm to fork’.

Competition among farmers for limited markets has increased, which drives down farmgate prices and farmers’ profits. At the same time corporate concentration has decreased competition among agribusiness corporations, increasing their profits.

When the UK Government commissioned the Curry report to investigate the farming crisis, it expressly forbade the panel to question the impact of international trade relations upon the UK farming industry.[2] The unsurprising result was a document that failed utterly to address the underlying causes of the problem.

The purpose of this report is to examine these underlying causes, and to make proposals for how we can start to address them. However, in a document this short, our analysis of the food system is necessarily ‘rough’ and we certainly do not hold ourselves up as having all the answers, but we hope this report will provide food for thought and action.

The report comes to a number of conclusions, but one is perhaps more important than the rest: that farmers, environmentalists and people concerned about social justice have a common cause: the transformation of the current damaging and highly exploitative food system and the creation of a pattern of food production based on respect for the land and the needs of local communities rather than exploitation and greed. None of us will succeed in this cause until we learn to work together. References

[1] Quoted in William Heffernan with Mary Hendrickson and Robert Gronski (1999) Report to the National Farmers Union: Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System www.nfu.org/images/heffernan_1999.pdf Viewed 6/1/04 [2] Farming & Food: A Sustainable Future, Cabinet Office, 2002; www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming Viewed 5/1/04

Published in 2004.

Click here to download this guide for free.

The post A Rough Guide to the UK Farming Crisis appeared first on Corporate Watch.

The post Food Revolution Poster appeared first on Corporate Watch.

The post Apartheid in the fields: From occupied Palestine to UK supermarkets appeared first on Corporate Watch.