Whiteness and Farmers Markets

 One idea that stood out to me in the article by Alison Hope Alkon and Christie Grace McCullen is that farmers markets can unintentionally feel like white spaces. The authors explain that this is not only about who attends the markets, but also about the values and cultures represented. Many farmers markets focus on organic food and supporting small local farmers. While this is often seen as positive, this tends to reflect white middle class culture and is also seen in the language used when talking about “buying locally from farmers” which romaticizes the white middle class life of being able to decide what you spend your money on and affording a couple dollars extra per item from a framers market. Because of this, the foods being sold and the conversations happening at the markets may not reflect the food traditions or priorities of many communities of color. This can make some people feel out of place even if the market is technically open to everyone. Another important point the article raises is the role of cost and access. Farmers market products are often more expensive than food at grocery stores, which means they tend to attract shoppers who have the time and money to prioritize local or organic food. This can limit who is able to participate in these spaces. This article made me realize things that are thought to be good for the environment in regenerative practices can hurt communities and marginalized groups as a result of racism. 

 

Pervasive Whiteness in Farmers Markets

 Allison Alkon and Christie McCullen's paper "Whiteness and Farmer's Markets: Performance, Perpetuations... Contestations?" goes to explore the whiteness that perforates farmers markets in the united States, particularly using two farmers markets in California as their means of gathering data and seeing how similar/different these markets can be and how consciously or unconsciously racist they are. The first market being examined is called "The Davis Farmer's Market" and initial descriptions seem to allude that the market focuses on organic and conventional products with political and activist groups on one end and food vendors at the other. It is also noted that the surrounding demographic is majority white and Asian while minority groups make up less than nine percent of the demographic. North Berkely, the other market being examined seems to operate in a similar manner with the overwhelming majority of the demographic in the are being upper middle-class whites. These markets exhibit subtle racial tendencies with white farm owners operating the market stalls, claiming to be the sole growers of the food. The truth however seems to be far from that statement as minority groups typically work the farms that these white farmers own. This dynamic creates a strict racial divide and keeps minorities down. 

    I'm sure this isn't only applicable to California and many farmers markets all over the country operate in a similar manner, however I don't believe all operate in this fashion. From what I can gather, the white takeover of the culture of farmers markets seems to mostly infect affluent or well off urban or suburban areas that support a farmer's market. Rural areas (at least from what I've experienced) that are more economically blended tend to exhibit a mixed culture in their farmer's markets and aren't necessarily dominated by white people and culture, granted, this is based on personal experiences with farmer's markets that I've been to and worked at. This may just seem to be the case on the surface and there may be racial division in a more subtle manner that requires more scrutiny to unearth.

The Inherent Whiteness of Markets

White dominance in supermarkets is something I never really noticed. I frequented the Birdsboro Farmers Market while it was still active, which is a town made of 90% white people, so it made sense to me that it was very white. This summer being my first time being able to experience a market in a more diverse setting, I'm eager to see what the turn out will be like. This chapter certainly shed light on my own blind spots and unconscious perpetuation of whiteness in markets. I definitely have held the opinion that agriculture and farmers markets are places to build community and connect yourself with your food and other people. I have, however, been aware that the people I am seeing at the market are not the entirety of the operation, in most cases. The sentiments that farmers markets build community and connect people with the ones who grow their food are not bad thoughts to have, in fact that's what sustainable agriculture is centered around (along with sustainability). The issue arises through lack of transparency from farm owners or managers who allow people to think they are the ones in the field doing the work. There needs to be greater transparency when it comes to the issues told in this chapter, otherwise sustainable agriculture will fall into the same systemic racial inequalities as "Big Ag".

There is no denying that in the entire history of the United States, systemic racism, prejudice, and classism has been at the base. And I hope to not undermine any struggles people may have faced due to their race. I think that humans have an inherent connection with their land and where they come from, a connection that has been greatly lost in the recent centuries. The "European rural imaginary" that the authors mention, I think, exemplifies the resurgence of white people in the United States reconnecting with their ancestry, which I think is great. However, I think it would be even better to couple that European culture with Native American, Asian, and African cultures as well. I was taught in elementary school that the United States is a melting pot of cultures, but throughout my life I have seen little evidence of this, I have just seen whitewashed everything. Farmers markets could act as a place to truly bring diverse cultures together and harness that melting pot energy, but many social, economic, and racial inequalities need to be addressed.

Solutions or More Division?

 Haute and elite, whiteness, “knowing where your food comes from.” According to Alkon all of these things have in common the color of someone’s skin and that’s it. It seems to me at least that she’s trying to address the racial disparities she notices in everyday life (in one of the wealthier cities in the U.S.), that’s okay. I think that she may be barking up the wrong tree though, when she says that, the philosophy of small farmers being romanticized and having their products bought by their consumers isn’t acknowledging the past. Making an assumption of what one believes is never a smart idea.

The fact that Alkon goes on to stretch an interviewees’ word choice was quite shocking in regards to it being community based. When we speak our words should be taken in the context of which they are spoken, to say that the town feels community-based isn’t a bad thing, likewise I couldn’t agree any less that a moral decision opposed to an economic one yields affluence. If I feel that I need to help at least one person a month financially in order to commit a good act of charity, it doesn’t matter about the amount given, it’s strictly about the intention. A moral decision to shop for healthy food in the area where you live, regardless on it’s price, shouldn’t be misinterpreted as affluence. I believe that people genuinely do care about their food. All people care about their food and their health to some degree. To evaluate a rich city that’s predominantly white and say it excludes people due to the prices is one thing, and it’s true that leisurely affluence can be noticed in some areas of life, but it’s another when you say that embodying community regards affluence and whiteness.

To conclude, leisurely affluence isn’t something that’s subtle. Unless that is of course, Alkon can read our minds and judge our intentions. Affluence very well may be related to our habits. Let’s look at chocolate, for example. In ancient Mexico, it was the literal currency. Only those that were emperors or the elite would eat or drink it. Food in our time is not currency; it’s a consumable product that nourishes us and sustains us. I can agree with Alkon when she says the imagery that we choose to use will affect our logical reasoning. But I don’t think the disparity of a diverse ambiance solely exists due to wealth and the color of a person’s skin.  I agree that we need better farm labor relations and people should understand who is cultivating their food, but I almost get the feeling that she wants people to integrate into a culture that’s not their own. When she wrote about not having certain holidays included in the market, it seems almost unreasonable to suggest that cultural appropriation should occur. Furthermore, you can’t expect that anyone, regardless of their background, will automatically have a desire to assimilate into a culture. 

Whiteness in Markets

     This article touches on the idea that white skinned people dominate the alternative agriculture movement and unknowingly create a whiteness bubble within it. I personally have witnessed this with each and every time I've gone to a farmers market. It is not hard to tell that most of the time, its dominated by white people. The author's specifically focus on discovering the proportions of races in the two markets studied, and what the people within them think about the farmers markets role in their community politically and culturally. As we know, they found both markets to be nearly a whiteout. The author's do mention that the markets exist in places that are already mostly white in terms of the population, so some of this is to be expected, however, the turnouts of non-white races present in the markets reflected an extremely low percentage of non-whites in the markets comparative to the total non-white populations. The author's claim this is largely due to the extremely high percentage of whites in the farmers market at any given time, price premiums in organic markets, and the idea that the white customers are reinforcing an imaginary where the food presented in their farmers market was grown by white families. 

    As usual, this is a tough problem to try and fix. One thing I noticed is the author's did not try to pinpoint a cause to the low percentage of non-white shoppers in the farmers markets. They mention multiple possible causes, but not one thing. They are not saying that the low percentage of non-whites compared to whites is solely due to the fact that mostly whites shop at farmers markets. That is because this article is meant to bring awareness to a lesser-realized cause of an already known issue. There is no one main cause. High prices, high whiteness, farmers markets typically being in higher income areas, lack of education on food sources, lack of foreign culturally significant foods and events , and much more are all causes of this. The high percentage of whites is just one important cause.

    A final note to end on is a potential solution to the issues presented from this reading specifically. I wouldn't know the actual effectiveness of this, but a connection I noticed at the Reading Terminal Market compared to any farmers market is that it is very diverse in both workers and customers. While I don't know if this is why, I have a feeling that the reason many more people feel welcome at the Reading Terminal Market is because it hosts an incredibly diverse array of stands. You can get fresh raw food that is significant in many different cultures, or cooked meals from other parts of the world that are cooked by people from other parts of the world. They even host foods from other regions of the USA. Most farmers markets I have been to are pretty standard in what you can get, lots of it is standard Amish or PA Dutch foods around PA which while they do a great job, it isn't going to bring people in who aren't accustomed to it in some way. While I know the Reading Terminal Market is not a farmers market, it is still a community hub centered around food just like a farmers market, so I think ideas between the two can be exchanged. 

Whiteness and Farmers Markets: Performances, Perpetuations . . . Contestations?

One idea that stood out to me in this article is that farmers markets are not just simple places where people go to buy food. The authors explain that these spaces can also reflect social differences in race and class. Farmers markets are often connected with ideas like healthy eating, local food, and supporting small farmers. While these are positive goals, the article suggests that the culture of many farmers markets may mostly reflect the interests and lifestyles of middle-class white shoppers. Because of this, some people may feel more comfortable in these spaces than others.

At the same time, I think money and customer demand also play a big role in shaping farmers markets. Like any business, vendors usually try to sell what their customers want to buy. If most of the shoppers at a market prefer certain types of food or products, farmers will likely bring those items so they can make sales. In that way, the market develops around the people who regularly shop there.

Another issue discussed in the reading is affordability. Food at farmers markets is often fresh and locally grown, but it can sometimes cost more than food at big grocery stores. This can make it harder for people with lower incomes to shop at these markets on a regular basis. Because of this, some communities may not have the same access to local food options.

Overall, the article made me think more about how farmers markets are influenced by social and economic factors. Even though they are meant to support local food systems, it is still important to think about who feels included and who might be left out.

Outcasts from farmer's markets

 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/wealth-inequality-and-the-racial-wealth-gap-20211022.html

My main take away from this week was towards the end in regards to minorities and low income impacting the ability to partake in farmer’s markets. As we have talked about this in class before, I wished to pull a legit source with some data on this disparity. The data is from 1989 to 2019, showing a growing wealth gap and possible reasons behind it.

On average, Black and Hispanic or Latino households earn roughly half as much income as White households and hold only about 15–20 % as much net wealth. These gaps have been evident for decades and have not closed substantially over time; overall wealth inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, has also risen, meaning the richest households hold an increasingly larger share of total wealth.

The authors introduce a decomposition method that compares actual wealth distributions with a “racial equality counterfactual,” in which all racial groups have the same representation at every level of the wealth distribution. Under this counterfactual, Black and Hispanic households would hold several times more wealth than they do today, while White households would hold somewhat less, highlighting how between-race differences contribute materially to overall inequality. The note also examines how differences in portfolio composition and returns on assets across groups can affect observed disparities.

Lower income and limited wealth among minority households have real impacts on daily life and consumption choices. Households with lower incomes tend to allocate a larger share of their budget to essentials and have less flexibility to pay premiums for higher-priced goods, such as organic foods, which typically cost more than conventional alternatives. Lower purchasing power makes it harder for lower-income consumers, including many in minority groups, to choose healthier or more expensive food options, reinforcing disparities in diet quality and long-term health outcomes.

Whiteness and Farmers Markets

  “Whiteness and Farmers Markets” by Alison Alkon touches upon the subject of farmers markets not being as welcoming to people of color as they should be. I found it very interesting that the researchers chose to interview not only customers, managers, and vendors, but “tourists” as well. The people who don’t buy anything, what is their purpose for attending a farmer’s market? I appreciate the researchers' determination to find out different points of view from different kinds of people. By looking at this topic through the eyes of different people, new ideas can be brought to the table that can potentially improve the movement as a whole. 

The article brings up the argument against popular slogans said in farmers markets such as “buy directly from the people who grow our food”. This slogan creates what the article refers to as a “white farm imaginary”. Which is the romanticization of smaller and independent farms (typically white owned or depicted as such). This just erases the reality of agriculturalism in the United States, only white people have had this glamorization of small scale agriculture. Many people of color’s efforts and contributions to agriculture in the U.S. are often overlooked. As mentioned in last week’s article, the same people who help produce our food can barely afford to eat it themselves. 

If there was more appreciation for the people who have to suffer through being paid close to nothing and doing hard labor, I believe there would be more being done on a government level (with policies and such). The article also mentions how Hispanic people are rarely ever seen at these farmers markets. This is very strange, considering Hispanic people contribute a lot to the produce sold at farmers markets. To read the dialogue between the vendors and the buyers was jarring. The buyers are convinced that their businesses are entirely family run, and that everyone there works hard to provide produce. However, consumers remain unaware of the real people behind the food they are buying. A divide continues to be built between the people who produce and the people who act like they did. Sure this isn’t the case for every smaller farmer out there, but most of the farm advertisements I’ve seen have had white people as the face of them. More representation is needed, credit needs to be given where credit is due.

 "Whiteness and Farmers Markets", Alkon & McCullen

This article is written at a high academic level which makes me believe the authors thoughts are separated from actual disparities related to the perception of whiteness in market culture. 

US capitalism has created many levels of shopping, catering to each person's purchasing abilities. We are all free to spend as we please without regard to real income. Though, in some cases farmers markets are managed by white entrepreneurs, this is not the case in large metro cities, such as the Reading Terminal in Philadelphia. Our society allows us to shop at retailers and markets of our own choice.  It would be wrong to go into the metro soul food restaurants and complain there needs to be more white people supporting these great eateries. They are catering to local demands, just like the farmer markets.

If a farmer's market aligns with white consumer tastes, so be it.  This business is filling a need in order for this business to remain sustainable.   

Today I can see many changes from this outdated thinking, as our palettes become more educated, we are open to unique and much different food choices. Focusing on one class of people or nationally only helps to continue promote racist ideas, that keeps our society believing prejudice ideas. 

Economic barriers will affect how we perceive food opportunities for the underprivileged populations, as we assist this segment to creating a more diverse open food market.

Whiteness and Farmers Markets - Thoughts

  Farmers markets are very popular as they are seen to be more “sustainable” than the corporate grocery stores. They are places where you feel like you are supporting your community. Most of the time, the demographic of the people that are frequenting these places is liberals with large amounts of money. The high prices found at the farmers' market are not just about the higher costs associated with organic farming, but rather a barrier to entry. This keeps the farmers' market as a white and wealthy place. Farmers' markets also romanticize the idea of an independent farmer. This idea ignores the reality of agricultural labor (commonly in California), which is overwhelmingly performed by minorities and people of color. These groups of people are often absent from the social and management faces of these markets.

The “habit of whiteness” is very convicting. When someone buys a bunch of organic foods, they feel as though they are “doing good” or “doing their part”. However, low-income residents of the area and people of color are unable to access this commodity. A lot of the managers of these markets have an idea of what the “community” should look like. This image is typically white-centric. This creates a feedback loop where the market stays white because it feels white. It feels white because it only attracts those who fit within that idea. 

This dominance is challenged at times with individual solidarity and institutional efforts. Some markets are beginning to accept SNAP or EBT benefits to support the general community as well as searching out a more diverse vendor base. Individuals within the community are also completing acts of solidarity and anti-racism when individuals of those groups enter the market. We need to make these spaces inclusive if we want to move past the performance of just “doing good”. We need to look at who is excluded from the space through signage, the “vibe” of the market, music, and the prices.

Policy Enforcement

 Intensive Production Yields Devaluation

Hunger is not solely caused by a physiological response, but rather a power struggle based on policy reform. The authors highlighted several policies that invoked irritation upon further review, mainly in part because how can one not question the motives of our leaders when the evidence seems to point to exploitation? We see exploitation manifest throughout policy agreements between Mexico and the U.S.; it’s easy to fall into the assumption that both parties were in accord with these decisions being that the laws were set in place. However, let me remind you of the time period in which this all began. In the 1980s Mexico was just coming off of a long-time economic downturn due to dictator regimes and war. Before this in the 1940s Mexico was already facing devastating environmental effects of the over 30 yearlong Dirty War. Fighting an uphill battle, tourism was used as a marketing technique that objectified Mexican women and tried to take advantage of U.S. dollars see Darthmouth's article on Mexican tourism. Taking advantage of the global political and economic situation of the U.S. after WWII, Mexico began to rethink their investment strategies and began changing their own laws to allow for more privatization of land, specifically an agrarian law commonly referred to as the ejido system. This was the first of many to spark big changes, this system was being reformed so that it eliminated staple prices and subsidies in the agricultural sector. Following in suit was NAFTA. Primarily enacted and accepted in order to “liberalize the economy,” after tight communist restrictions in Mexico, served as an ideal that translated to reform for many people. Little did many know at the time NAFTA reduced stability for the farm workers in their ability to earn livable wages mainly due to large changes in tariff policies. I believe this highlights the degree that when a system is abruptly changed it can cause devastating effects. Following NAFTA not even a decade later, Operation Gatekeeper was put into effect in response to increasing migration rates. One question stands out in my mind out of the many that have arisen due to evaluating American trade policies. Do we care enough about our own security to stand up for other’s when we see their security is being stripped away for our own gain?

Farmworker Food Insecurity and the Production of Hunger in California

     Before taking this class, I didn’t consider the people behind the food that I consume. I considered the animals behind it, or questioned expiration dates, but never much more than that. Now after discovering that farm laborers are unable to afford the food they produce was extremely eye opening for me. I appreciate this article going more in depth on this topic, and I think that more people need to be educated on this subject. Eighteen years of my life never before hearing about this is too long, many people live their lives without knowing what goes on behind closed doors. 

    “A majority of farmworkers in the United States today are immigrants from rural Mexico.” This quote really stuck out to me. In recent times, the importance of immigrants to our culture and how we survive is often overlooked. From the beginning of the U.S.’s history to now, immigrants have been very important in our success as a country. Continuously letting the people who do so much for us starve is parasitic and inhumane. Taking and giving way less than what these people deserve. I completely understand why a farmworker would rather not be employed year round, the work load is extremely intense physically, and for what they get in return I can’t imagine how it isn’t mentally damaging as well. 

    Knowing that agribusinesses will sometimes abuse their power against the immigrants that work for them really makes you wonder what their morals are. Because of things like language barriers and not being protected by U.S. laws because they don’t live here legally, they are put at risk of being mistreated by employers. This is almost like modern day slavery, companies and employers being abusive towards the people who are the reason why the company is successful in the first place. 

    

    Other food movements not paying attention to farm labor issues is also very shocking to hear. I understand it may be difficult for every organization to raise enough money for every problem within the food system, however spreading awareness is free. As last week’s article suggested, instead of just focusing on a singular issue within the system, we need to examine every problem with it. 

    When talking about injustices in the modern United States, California is one of the last states people would point to. However, the upbringing of California’s agricultural system was filled with the mistreatment of farm workers (typically immigrants). This goes to show that despite it being one of the more progressive states, people are still being exploited just because of where they come from.

    “Producing an “ other, ” in this case a labor force that can be viewed as undeserving of the rights and benefits,” this quote is another one that really stuck with me. Immigrants get treated like machines rather than actual humans who deserve respect and rights just as anyone else. I appreciate how the article brings up various other points in the U.S.’s history when specific groups of people were mistreated by the government, while still contributing to the advancement of the country. 

    Migrating to the U.S. in hopes of a better life, only to be refused basic rights in your place of employment. Not only that, they are treated like animals and paid an unlivable wage. People who are anti-immigration jump to conclusions as to why people keep immigrating to the U.S. They don’t recognize that they flee their countries because of things like domestic abuse, to give their children better lives, to be more financially stable, and so much more. I don’t see why people are so against immigration, as a country, we should invite people in with open arms. This country was built up from the bottom by immigrants, it's a "melting pot" of all different kinds of people and cultures, and they continue to support us, so we should be more than happy to support them in return.

"They're Taking Our Jobs"

As I read this chapter, I keep dwelling on the ideology that illegal immigrants are coming into this country and taking our jobs and mooching off of our government. I can't help but wonder what US citizen is willing to work hard, manual farm labor for a salary between $5,000 and $8,000 a year? What US citizen is willing to relocate every couple of months just to follow the few dollars they are getting? What US citizen is willing to work in these horrid conditions, supplying the nation with food, while receiving little to none of it themselves? These questions will never be answered because these people don't exist. Immigrants are not taking our jobs - the "Big Agriculture" industry creates these jobs specifically for illegal immigrants so they can create the highest profit margins, while simultaneously fueling the anti-immigrant propaganda to keep us divided and at odds with one another. It is not an exaggeration to say that immigrants are the backbone of our country. There are hundreds of thousands to millions of immigrants who are responsible for making sure every one of us fed, while in many cases going hungry themselves. This is one example of how we have completely lost touch with our biology. Migration is a natural habit of nearly all species on Earth, humans included. However in recent history, it has only become acceptable when it's white, colonial settlers on the prowl for the next best resource. Migration is no longer acceptable to the human species because we've adopted this idea of "land ownership" and set boundaries and rules for who can cross and when, and the punishment for violating those rules far outweigh the crime. Everyone should have access to healthy food, regardless of what side of the border they come from, especially if they are the ones harvesting the food. 

Production of Hunger and Farmworker Food Insecurity

I feel like I always knew some of the fundamental systems the world was built on were messed up, but this reading really put that into focus. Sandy Brown and Christy Getz do a very good job, in my opinion, with presenting the facts versus opinions of the under-observed issue of farmworker food insecurity. They are so clear about the components of complexity, and they lay out the uncertainties in detail. Pointing out the irony of the situation is very effective in explaining the paradox of this food justice issue. At this moment in time, the role of immigrant workers within the United States seems more important to highlight than ever. This reading was published in 2011, and it shows the injustices and inequities faced by marginalized minority groups, emphasizing this trend within the history of the United States. This supports the argument that the fundamental sociopolitical context preserves the inequality and exploitation of immigrant workers and farmworkers. 

I honestly feel pretty mortified thinking about how the reading states that food insecurity is produced by the global economic system. Thinking about how greed and capitalistic ideals are what cause the hunger found within marginalized communities infuriates me, and the fact that these broken systems seem to be so implemented into society breaks my heart and brain. How do you rework such a system?

The irony is further seen in certain views of immigrants within the United States, where they are seen as “stealing” jobs. In reality, they are “sharing” jobs- as farmworkers- and struggle with food insecurity and hunger due to this instability of work. Other societal views also have elements of irony; for example, views that look down upon immigrants or shame them in society. The irony in this is that a main propulsion of global immigration is the international trade regimes that have privileged interests of widespread, international/transnational corporations over those of smallholder agriculture (Brown and Getz).

Farmworker Food Insecurity

 In Chapter 6 of Farmworker Food Insecurity, Brown and Getz talk about how farmworkers often struggle to afford enough food to feed themselves and their families. They explain that this is a result of how the food system is set up. Farm work is usually low paying, seasonal, and unpredictable. Even when workers are employed full time, they often do not make enough money to live off.The chapter also explains many farmworkers are undocumented or have temporary visas. Because of this, they may avoid applying for food assistance programs out of fear of deportation or losing their jobs. This makes them more vulnerable to exploitation and less likely to seek help. They argue that food banks and emergency food programs help in the short term, but they do not fix the real problem. The root issue is low wages and lack of power in the food system. The authors connect this to food justice and food sovereignty, saying real change would require better pay, stronger labor protections, and more decision making power for workers. 

Farmworker Food Insecurity

 In Sandy Brown and Christian Getz's writing: Farmworker Food Insecurity and the Production of Hunger in California, a paradox is brought up which seems to be the theme that most points of the paper are based around where: Mexican farmworkers in California generate a majority of the produce for the populace yet can't afford the same food that they generate, and the majority of crop growers in the state are food insecure. The paper does touch on the fact that this is not a phenomenon only seen in California but the entire country as a whole. Cezar Chavez, head of the United Farm Workers is quoted stating " The food that overflows our market shelves and fills our tables is harvested by men, women, and children who cannot satisfy their own hunger." A study has shown that the largest indicator of devalued positions in the agricultural business over the years is seen by the twenty to twenty-five percent fall of wages over time between 1975 and 1995. While the study ends there the current declining situation for farmers has not. Poverty and the irony of farmworkers not being able to afford the crops that they grow is still prevalent today and continues to be a major issue which could lead to the collapse of the agricultural business all together and a major food crisis in the United States shortly following. It is imperative that wages for farmers be increased to match inflation across the country.

Farmworker Food Insecurity

     This weeks reading highlights the disparities between immigrant farm workers and citizen workers. The author's claim is that our countries food systems/policies were formed with this slightly baked-in, and that it may be intentional that we have an immigrant workforce being treated to worse off conditions than our country promises. I personally would believe that. A seemingly large theme in this country is to get built up by immigrants, then dispose of them like an asset, and this reading only supports that. An important segment of the reading talks about how the global trade system has been manipulating countries outside of the superpowers, specifically by forcing out small farmers to rely on our way of food production because our products may be cheaper. This initial start of the cycle is what leads to farmers losing their way of life, then relying on USA based food systems, and ultimately creating economic struggle to said area where our systems are introduced because those families and the ones around them are out of a supporting job, then possibly forced to relocate.

    Some of this reading felt a bit redundant in the data they were giving, but overall was a powerful article. To circle back into disparities being baked-in, I think it shows our countries general lack of morals when it comes to becoming built-up. Allowing immigrants to work when it benefits us, then deporting them when it no longer does. It is obvious that any country would probably do this if they had the chance, since it allows to keep your citizens worrying less and you have the excuse of "oh, they aren't legal". It does bring up a big question to me though, and that is, while I know it is important, how much of migrant workers food insecurity is our issue to tackle? I know it is important for us to be aware of it, but we also know of many citizens facing the same challenges. It is hard to determine which illegal workers migrated because they had to or not, and most would argue the ones who get helped first should be the ones who immigrated because they had to, but again, that is a very hard and slow process to determine. The average income of someone living in a country illegally is almost always going to be low, so, should that be a higher up priority in food security, or should it not because they are not citizens? I personally haven't got a clue but I am curious what others think. 

Farm Worker Insecurity

Brown and Getz focus on food insecurity among farmworkers in California. The main point that stood out to me is the contradiction in the system. The same people who harvest and produce food for the country are often the ones who struggle to afford enough food for themselves. California is one of the most productive agricultural states, yet many of the workers behind that production experience hunger.

The authors explain that this problem is not just about low wages in a basic sense or about personal choices. It is connected to how the agricultural system is structured. Farm work is often seasonal, hours can be inconsistent, and pay does not always increase even when agricultural profits rise. Workers are essential to the industry, but their well being does not seem to be prioritized in the same way that production and profit are.

A large part of California’s farm labor force is made up of Mexican and Hispanic migrants. Many workers also face challenges related to immigration status, which limits their ability to ask for better pay or safer conditions. When people do not have full legal protections, they have less power. That lack of power contributes to food insecurity because workers may feel they cannot risk losing their jobs by speaking up.

The article also connects this issue to larger economic policies. Trade agreements and global market pressures shape the way agriculture operates. Companies focus on keeping costs low to stay competitive, and labor is one of the main costs that gets controlled. Because of that, hunger among farmworkers is not random. It is tied to larger systems and decisions.

What stood out to me most is how unfair it feels. The people who help feed the country should not have to worry about feeding their own families. I have seen similar patterns in food production jobs where immigrant workers make up most of the workforce. These companies rely heavily on their labor. It makes me question whether corporations are willing to take responsibility for the everyday well being of the workers they depend on. 

 FARM WORKER INSECURITY

Brown & Getz focal point is the farm worker's food insecurity in the California agricultural business. They state that the vast and significant labor force that produces for the largest state are among the most likely food insecure group. This crucial labor force is seemly invisible to the majority of large businesses and corporations, which rely on this labor, for their own sustenance.

Farm labor food insecurity and hunger is not identified by traditionally lower wages or individual obstacles but a structural outcome of the political economy of US agribusiness. 

The high concentration of Mexican/Hispanic migrants into the Cali Agri business labor show a higher rate of food insecurity.  Contrasting the same labor used to feed our nation showing an inability to afford enough food for the individual laborer and their families! These insecurities are not the laborer's personal choices but structural causes contributing factors. It includes low and /or stagnant wages, seasonal demands and immigration limitations. Corporations influence of Neoliberal trade policies with capitalistic agribusiness that emphasis on lower production costs over worker welfare.

A condition of food insecurity creates a situation enticing workers to migrate find themselves still facing poor access to food. California's agriculture exasperates insecurities with weakening of collective action and immigration policies that hinder the workers' rights and mobilities.  Global economic policies place limitations against improvement. Policies improving wages, labor rights and immigrant protection will help improve this discrepancy.

I have seen the high Hispanic labor forces in Ruiz Foods in Fresno CA and Georgio Mushroom in Blandon, PA, and the Somalian labor in Hormel plants in MN.  Corporations demand this type of labor, are they willing to contribute to their everyday welfare?

Farmworker Insecurity - Thoughts

  Often, we think of hunger as a result of there not being enough food in an area. However, in California, the problem is power and access. The people who are picking the food cannot afford the food because of the system that has been built. Farmwork is seasonal which causes the full-time laborers to fall below the poverty line. With the high cost of living in California, workers are unable to afford both rent and food. Additionally, farmworkers are often legally and socially marginalized. This means that they are often out-of-sight and out-of-mind. With this mindset, it is easy for exploitative conditions to persist without any public outrage. So, while we sit here and eat a piece of fruit or a salad, the person who harvested that food may not be able to afford a meal for their own family. So, in order for the food costs to remain lower, a class of people are going hungry. 

There are three things we can do in order to make this better. We should be advocating for overtime pay, heat protections, and collective bargaining rights. This could be done in the form of unions and strikes. We should also be shortening the supply chain. There should be direct-to-community food access. Eliminating the middleman will ensure that the farmworker is paid a fair price. Additionally, there needs to be policy reform. This needs to include a change in the minimum wage to match the cost of living in California. This is common in every single state in America. People are making the same amount of money they did twenty years ago even though the cost of living has multiplied. Changing the minimum wage one time will not be efficient. This number should be fluctuating as the cost of living fluctuates. By the time you change the minimum wage to match the cost of living, the cost of living will have increased again. This creates a cycle where you never “get ahead”.

3/4 Food Security & Industrial Ag

 The focus on this week's reading was food security, with a specific view on California and Mexican farmers. I wanted to focus on how else food security has been impacted, especially our more controversial industrial farming.

Food security means that all people have reliable access to enough safe and nutritious food to live healthy lives. It’s not just about producing large amounts of food but also stability, affordability, nutrition, and long-term sustainability. That first point is something that industrial farming claims to solve, therefore fixing the rest. Is that the case, though?

Industrial farming, also known as intensive agriculture, focuses on producing as much food as possible using machinery, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and large-scale monocultures (growing one crop over huge areas). In the short term, this system has significantly increased food availability. By producing high yields of crops like corn, wheat, and soybeans, industrial agriculture has helped lower food prices and supply growing populations.

However, food security isn’t only about quantity, it’s also about long-term stability. Industrial farming can weaken food security over time. Growing a single crop repeatedly reduces biodiversity and makes farms more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and climate shocks. If one disease spreads through a monoculture, entire harvests can fail. Heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides can also degrade soil and pollute water, reducing the land’s future productivity. These weakening environmental factors have also led to lower yields since the introduction of industrial farming.

Another issue is nutritional security. Industrial systems often prioritize a few staple crops, which can lead to diets high in calories but low in variety. True food security requires access to diverse and nutritious foods, not just cheap calories. Yes, we could feed our current world population with the amount of calories we produce, but are we covering the nutritional needs?

https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-does-industrial-farming-affect-food-security 

2/23 food sovereignty

 In Whose Justice Is It Anyway? The topic of food sovereignty and food security are addressed. They argue that even though these movements are supposed to fight inequality they often unintentionally reinforce it through white people and non minorities. A lot of the solutions focus on things like teaching people how to garden or encouraging healthier eating which can be helpful, but that can ignore the large scale racism that creates food inequality in the first place. It blames individuals for their food choices instead of looking at racism and land access  which contradicts food sovereignty. Something that stood out to me was that justice is not the same for everyone. If people can’t afford to shop at a farmers market or buy fresh produce they can eat that aligns with their culture, food injustice is then repeated even if that wasn’t the intention. Instead of outside organizations deciding what solutions should look like, justice would involve listening to what communities actually want and need. I had not really thought about how food justice efforts themselves could worsen privilege and injustice. By addressing systemic racism at the local and government level first we can better assess and support communities experiencing food injustice while also moving closer to true food sovereignty. 

From Justice to Sovereignty

 The key idea of this reading was that food security on its own is a necessary requirement for food sovereignty, but it is not equal to food sovereignty on its own. Specifically, food security was defined as having the means to provide oneself or family with food. But the exact nature and quality of that food is left undefined, and we are led to believe that was purposeful. Food sovereignty is this reading was generally defined as a community being able to provide each person with food that they desire, produced in ways they endorse, and without damaging the health of the community or its surroundings like ecosystems. 

Prior to this reading, I am sure most of us thought of food justice as some in between definition of food security and food sovereignty, or at least I did. We have been talking about expanding access to healthy foods these last few discussions, and how to do that. Some of that discussion was taking place within international markets, and hence our discussions leaned more towards food security if one had to be chosen, but we all would agree with the methods of food sovereignty more-so than security. That alone is eye opening to me because this weeks reading mentioned that the UN's definition for food security was limited to distribution, and thus less sensitive to cultural, indigenous, and environmental needs. The reading mentioned that this makes it more likely to miss unknown harms as a result of equal distribution, and that's exactly what we failed to talk about in discussion last week. In some way that has indirectly affected at least my own views of food justice up until now as I too was mostly focused on distribution of healthy foods over all of the terms in food sovereignty's umbrella.

Lastly, the example given with salmon was a very good one. It paints the picture clearly that fulfilling a communities food needs through distribution of anything called food does not always solve the initial problem, and can even create or fail to see other problems. It shows clearly how food is being manipulated to be treated as a common product more so than as a fruit of nature. A world where all nations are food sovereign does strike me as very hard to reach, but definitely not impossible. 

Food Security and Food Sovereignty

 In Samantha Noll and Esme Murdock's paper. The differences between two different approaches to fighting world hunger, food sovereignty and food security. Food security's stance on the matter is giving access to food of all kinds to everyone whereas food sovereignty is similar but also focuses on how healthy the food is, the location, and methods used in agriculture. The paper then goes onto note that many attempts to combat hunger using food security have happened in the past with noticeable "gaps" which can cause unintended harm to minority populations. A way to fill those gaps as suggested is by addressing the issue using food sovereignty as well. However there are still conflicts between the two approaches. For example, the Columbia River salmon contamination situation highlights the issues with food security at the least because while the solution met the demands of food security organizations, high levels of mercury causing deformations and exposing the indigenous tribe to increased risk of cancer due to industrialization upstream and downstream of the tribe does not allow the situation to meet the standards of food sovereignty organizations. 

Rethinking Justice in Our Food Systems

What stood out to me most in this article was the idea that the disagreement between food security and food sovereignty is not really about food itself, but about different understandings of justice. Food security focuses mostly on making sure people have access to enough safe and nutritious food. On the surface, that sounds like the obvious solution to hunger. But the authors argue that this approach is rooted in distributive justice, meaning it is mainly concerned with who gets what and whether resources are evenly distributed. While that is important, the article shows that it can be too narrow.

Food sovereignty, on the other hand, looks at food in a much broader way. It emphasizes the right of communities to make their own decisions about how food is grown, distributed, and consumed. I think this is important because it shifts the conversation from simply giving people food to giving them power. The example of the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network really helped me understand this. It shows how leadership and decision making within the community matter, especially when outside groups might unintentionally take control.

The section on Indigenous models of justice was also really powerful. The idea of justice being relationship centered, focusing on restoring balance between people, land, and nature, feels very different from just counting whether everyone has enough food. The Columbia River salmon example made this clear. Replacing contaminated salmon with processed food technically solves the access problem, but it ignores cultural traditions, spiritual meaning, and environmental damage. That really made me see how a food security solution could still create harm in other ways.

Overall, I agree with the authors that food security is necessary, but not enough on its own. Making sure people are not hungry is essential, but justice also involves culture, environment, participation, and self determination. Looking at food through a more holistic lens helps reveal issues that might otherwise be overlooked.

Whose Justice is it Anyway?

 Relating food justice to the way that indigenous groups view justice was an interesting concept to read about. The “holistic philosophy” that they have that emphasizes the major issues that need to be solved in order to achieve peace for everyone involved is an effective way to put into perspective the significance of food justice. It also brings up the need for calling attention to issues, finding solutions, and restoring what had been previously broken. Awareness is the first step, and it’s very important for people to know what’s going on and what the issues are either where they live or in other communities. Calling attention to food injustice issues can lead to possible solutions. 

I also think it’s important for people to be able to feel empowered within these communities as mentioned in the article. Neighborhood gardens help to support the people living there in more ways than just giving them more access to fresh produce. It helps these people recognize their democracy as well as have the ability to embrace their cultures. Maybe by making traditional dishes with the produce they make, and sharing it with other people within their community. In my opinion, people should have the ability to share their cultures with their neighbors. It goes beyond the context of food justice and is tied to the importance of human connection and support for one another. 

I like how this article also brought up environmental justice, specifically the example of the location of toxic waste sites. I find this to be extremely unjust and cruel to the communities living there, these companies and the government don’t care about these people and don’t consider how it could affect them either. 

I can definitely see how focusing on only food access and distribution could be harmful, and it shouldn’t encourage ignoring other issues just to meet the needs of these issues. The article mentions that sometimes if a food justice movement only focuses on the distribution aspect of it, it doesn’t really involve members of that community. This further silences their voices and avoids listening to what they truly desire and need. We are then led back to the holistic approach to food justice, that will tackle any issues that might’ve otherwise been overlooked. As I mentioned before, this is extremely important, examining and reworking everything that is an issue within the system is necessary to achieve a stable food system.