|
|
Local Food Systems:
Challenges and Threats
How is the local control of food being threatened?
- Consolidated corporate power. A few large
corporations are gaining immense wealth and control
in the food economy, acquiring disproportionate
political power and leverage. For example, by 2004,
the top ten food retailers controlled 25% of the
worldwide industry. The top ten seed companies
controlled half of all seeds worldwide.a
Local independent food and agriculture businesses have
either been bought out or forced to close because
they cannot compete with their large multinational
competitors.
- Economic subsidies and incentives that favor big
business. In 2004, the largest and wealthiest one
percent of farms received one fifth of all federal farm
aid.b
Lobbyists representing large food companies
pressure policymakers to structure farm subsidies
and other public funding programs in their favor.
In addition, there are many indirect subsidies that
favor large agribusiness at the expense of local
food economies. Publicly funded research programs,
physical infrastructure such as roads and ports, tax
breaks, and grants support global food systems, with
little assistance for local, sustainable alternatives.c
- Preemption. Federal and state governments,
pressed by the agribusiness industry, are actively
removing local authority over food. The intent of
the introduced legislation is to weaken protective
health, safety, and environmental measures. These
laws prevent local governments from passing
policies, ordinances, or initiatives that regulate seeds
and plants - including those that are genetically
modified.
- Free trade. Free trade treaties are another form
of preemption. Legally binding international trade
agreements can remove a country's ability to restrict
food imports for health, safety, or environmental
reasons. Most trade treaties, including World Trade
Organization agreements and the North American
Free Trade Agreement, allow one country to sue
another if its trade restrictions "unnecessarily"
impact corporate profits. Trade agreements have the
potential to take precedence over local, and even
national, control of food, agriculture, and other areas
of the economy.
- Health, safety, and environmental standards.
Regulations concerning health, safety, and
environmental standards are intended to make sure
that food production and handling practices do not
harm human health or the environment. However,
they are also being used by big business to shape
policy in its favor and burden smaller businesses.
For example, standards designed for industrial-scale
food processing and handling are applied at all
scales, including small community-based operations
that in many cases cannot afford to - nor need to
- meet industrial standards.
- Disinformation. Large corporate food interests
spend millions to defeat local ordinances that limit
corporate control. Advertising campaigns promoting
large retailers and agribusinesses as good community
"citizens" mask the detrimental economic and social
effects of their presence in local communities. For
example, leading food retailer Wal-Mart says: "We
believe that being a member of the community is
a privilege and that we are accountable to help
sustain the communities that rely on us."d
Yet the company has gained notoriety for siphoning
tax dollars and having poor labor practices and
business practices that undermine the local economy.
Marketing campaigns portray the global scale food
system as the key to economic prosperity. In fact,
strong local economies bring much bigger economic
returns to local communities by keeping more money
circulating locally.e
* References
Printer friendly version (pdf):
Local Food Systems: Challenges and Threats
Versión en Español:
Sistemas alimentarios locales: Retos y amenazas
|
|
|
PHOTO: Pam Roth
|
|
When food is locally controlled,
communities and their elected officials are
empowered to make decisions about their
food supply. Local control of our food is
being systematically undermined through
changing policy and market structure. As
a result, food systems are seldom shaped
in the public interest and instead act to
maximize profits for a handful of powerful
corporations. This shift is threatening
community food security, local economies,
and food quality, along with human and
environmental health.
|
|
|
PHOTO: Lisa M. Hamilton
|
As a Matter of Fact:
- As of 2006, legislators in nineteen U.S. states have
introduced legislation preventing local control
of plants and seeds. Fifteen of these states have
passed the provisions into law.
- The World Trade Organization (WTO) recently
found the European Union guilty of illegally
banning the importation of genetically modified
foods. The EU had temporarily banned imports in
order to first carry out studies to determine the
safety of these foods but was forced to lift the ban
in early 2006.f
- Communities across the U.S. have pursued ways
to limit superstores like Wal-Mart in an attempt
to maintain healthy competition and strong
local economies. In response, Wal-Mart has
undertaken strong defensive campaigns, spending
disproportionate amounts of money to defeat the
bans. For example, Wal-Mart paid over $1 million
in an attempt to defeat a local ballot initiative
in Inglewood, California, where the vote included
fewer than 12,000 people. Wal-Mart was able to
outspend its opponents 10 to 1.g
- Codex Alimentarius is a set of international food
standards that has been integrated with the WTO
and is being used to institute globally uniform food
safety standards. Codex is a key set of rules that
favors powerful global entities at the expense of
small, family businesses. The only non-governmental
U.S. attendees to the last meeting of the Codex
Alimentarius Committee on Food Hygiene were
from leading multinational food companies.h
|
|
