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.

The Evolution of Food Justice Solutions

The approach of food sovereignty encompasses the distribution of adequate food supplies (food security), includes the autonomous right of the community to control it's own food system, and addresses a range of social and environmental justices. 

Something that I have understood in my own personal and spiritual life is that everything is connected; however as I further my studies, I see more and more instances of this in our society and the scientific world. Poverty, racism, deforestation, climate change, food access, corporate greed, they are all intrinsically linked to each other and should not be address in a vacuum. Much of science has been whittled down to hyper-specific fields and specialties that rarely cross boundaries. Not to say specialization is a bad thing, but I think when you lose sight of the connection with other fields or issues, the work you are doing can be futile. And I think that's what the approach of food security is. It looks at one problem, food access, and addresses that by increasing access of food. No concern for why the food insecurity exists in the first place, or the repercussions food distribution may have on communities. Food sovereignty takes this approach and widens the lens to allow more factors and consequences be visible. Just as it has been said we need large and small changes to fix these problems, we also need narrow and broad lenses to develop the solutions. 

The case study at the end of the article demonstrates this in many ways. For one, whatever reasons dams were built and water in the river contaminated looked only at the direct problem at the origin, whatever that may be - most likely poor agricultural practices. A broad view would have considered the effects that these practices would have on the nearby ecosystem (the river and the salmon), as well as communities along the river relying on those resources (the indigenous groups). Secondly, the "solution" of providing the community with canned seafood as a replacement only looks at the sustenance angle. Completely forgoing long term health effects of eating processed food, or the spiritual connection the indigenous culture has with the salmon. Of course no solution will ever be perfect (probably), but by taking into considered multiple aspects, we can get pretty close to true food justice (along with all the other justices).

Food Sovereignty: Indigenous input

 The article “Whose Justice Is It Anyway?” explores a central tension in contemporary food debates: whether food security and food sovereignty represent opposing paradigms or whether they can be productively integrated. According the paper, food security as traditionally framed prioritizes distributive justice, ensuring individuals have access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food through market-based and governmental distribution systems. In contrast, food sovereignty movements emphasize the right of communities to self-determine food production, agricultural policies, and cultural food practices, challenging the limited justice framework implicit in dominant food security approaches. Their argument reframes food sovereignty not as antagonistic to food security but as a broader justice framework that encompasses and informs the rights claims necessary for equitable food systems.

This philosophical framing resonates strongly with themes in an article I found on Indigenous food systems. The article states that for American Indian and Alaska Native communities, food security defined solely in terms of access and availability fails to capture Indigenous values, which include cultural foods, reciprocal relationships with land and more-than-human relatives, and community sharing systems. It argues that Indigenous Food Sovereignty (IFS) embodies a holistic food system grounded in relationality, reciprocity, and cultural values, suggesting that conventional food security measures are insufficient and sometimes inappropriate for capturing Indigenous food realities.

Taken together, these works support a critical point: food security is necessary but incomplete. Noll and Murdock’s justice-based critique parallels the article’s decolonial critique of dominant food security concepts. Both suggest that expanding our understanding of justice in food systems, whether through community agency and self-determination (food sovereignty) or through Indigenous worldviews that include environmental, cultural, and spiritual dimensions, offers a richer, more equitable basis for addressing hunger and inequity than access-focused frameworks alone.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11938391

It's Just Wordplay Sire

Food security being based merely on distributive justice will not solve the issue of world hunger. However, the word food security encompasses more than just distribution; as evidenced by one of the more accepted definitions according to a paper published by SupAgro in Montpellier, France and the University of Roma Tre documents that “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, [social] and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. (FAO, 1996) Food preferences imply a broader meaning; when you look at religious laws and regulations in governmental organizations they explicitly state that food preferences for religious accommodations should be met. 

There are four dimensions to food security and the more accepted definition of food security states that food preferences need to be addressed. Food preferences are not one of the domains when considering; access, availability, utilization and stability. 

However, when you think of stability one thing shifts in a routined schedule for the day, it makes people susceptible or vulnerable to have to adapt. Therefore leading to a lack of stability. When food security is not merely viewed as solution that can be solved via distribution, but as a logical process by its very definition it's understood that food security considers the marginalized groups. Vulnerability occurs in the future, it defines people that are at risk. In the example of the Indian tribe they were put at risk once their main supply of food became contaminated. I believe that this is indeed a matter of perspective and how you view the use of the word. In my opinion the article seems to be trivial in the sense of finding a solution to the problem. But maybe, the bigger issue at hand here is how we are being divided in masses over the jargon that policy uses to govern what is deemed as acceptable or not in aiding others in need. 

Whose Justice is it Anyway? - Thoughts

    "Ending world hunger" has been a headline for decades. This normally comes with images of high-tech farming solutions that have been built to maximize yields, grain silos, or grocery vouchers. This is a hard topic to argue with, as we should be getting food to the hungry people. But having enough to eat is not actually enough.

    The term "food security" has been a gold standard around the globe. This is the idea that everyone can have economic and physical access to nutritious and safe food. However, this idea is focused primarily on distributive justice, which treats people as though they are buckets that simply need to be filled. It does not take into account where it came from, if the food is culturally appropriate, or if the people eating it have any say in how it is made. In most cases, getting food for a community entails flooding the area with imported surplus that ends up putting local farmers out of business. This ends up leaving the community even more dependent on those global corporations.

    Food sovereignty, on the other hand, is the right for people to define their own food and agriculture system. This looks more at who controls the seeds, who owns the land, and if the meal respects the culture. This idea and the idea of food security are at odds. By focusing on local control and more traditional methods, it would almost be impossible to feed 8 billion people around the world. 

    Instead, this problem should be looked at as one cannot exist without the other. Food sovereignty is what keeps you healthy and out of the emergency room while food security is the emergency room. You do not want to live in the emergency room, but it can be a necessary thing to get you back on your feet. It is the same for the food justice system. Groups of people do not want to be reliant on the global organizations for all of their food.

    Justice is not just making sure that there is a fair distribution of "stuff" across the world but is instead a recognition of both the producer and the autonomy of a culture. Instead of asking if there is enough food to go around, we should be asking whose system are we getting out food from and what is the cost of that (both economically and at the expense of our health/culture). 

Food Security vs. Food Sovereignity

 McClintock & Noll discuss their ideas of conflicts between food security & food sovereignty beyond the effects of food distribution and how it is marketed.

They state that food sovereignty encompasses wider food justice endeavors that includes key points of food security. Using Food security as a strong base with emphasizing food security lesser role to build more just food system.

Goals of food security are dictated to provide the population with adequate, safe, & nutritious foods. Providing our food are assessable through economic and physical parameters. (ie: "Food Desserts").  Heavily relying on free market and its corresponding economic abilities.  Identifying food as a commodity letting the free market dictate growth and control.  Cons to food security its strong relationship to Neoliberalism's dynamics, inducing fewer local influences & opportunities.  Thus, allowing for more environment damages.

La Via Campesina (LVC) is an international movement representing 200 million farmers.  This cohort established the term food sovereignty in 1996. It gives people the right to healthy, culturally appropriate & ecologically purchased food. Emphasized on its local production, smaller-scale farming & community control, over resources of the land, seeds, & irrigation.

"KEY GOALS FOR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY"

• Individual rights - enact personal agriculture/food policies, not dictated by market demands.
• Main focus on sustainable, agroecological practices.
• Food for the people, local control building knowledge and skills in tangent with nature. 
• Giving farmers rights to needed Agri materials. Ending misogynistic threat in rural areas.
• Priority over food as a commodity eliminating corporate controls. Viewing human needs as a priority.

Food security & food sovereignty should not be allowed to conflict.  Both should encompass 1) access, 2) culture, 3) ecology, 4) shared power, 5) rights of the community.

From Industrial Gardens to Food Deserts

In Chapter 5 of industrial Garden to Food Desert by Nathan McClintock, he argues that food deserts are not accidental and are caused by systemic racism, demarcated devaluation, and redlining. McClintock states “Most have concluded that in the United States, food deserts disproportionately impact people of color.” this is true because it highlights the injustices people of color face in their communities. Demarcated devaluation is the action of isolating people in less desirable areas usually with people of color living there. This makes their houses and land less valuable and often poorly built. Grocery stores were too expensive for the people living in the food deserts, so they moved to the hills of Oakland and fast food restaurants and convenient stores with old poor quality produce and processed food was available. McClintock cites “There are four times as many fast food restaurants and convenience stores as grocery stores and produce vendors in the East Bay (Spiker, Sorrel green, and Williams 2007).” While white people and people living in the hills of Oakland blamed the obesity and health problem in the flatlands on the people living there not what they have access to and that the system had screwed them on purpose. A quote from this article where people are being interviewed about how they feel about the food in the valley, an individual says “ I wish we could have more fresh foods rather than junk food, candy, and soda that we’re all used to eating because that is the only thing around” (Ibid.). further proving that the crisis does not come from the flatlands it comes from the people devaluing their land and homes and isolating them as a form of racism and gatekeeping nutritious food and good living situations.   

From Industrial Gardens to Food Desert

  I found it really surprising that an area that started off as promising, has turned into a food desert and has remained that way decades later. Having more grocery stores in the 1930s than the 1980s was baffling to hear, as I would typically expect the opposite. Especially considering the overall population increase since then, I believed that there would be more grocery stores in these areas since they have more residents. I also found it strange that liquor stores and convenience stores are more accessible than fresh produce. It enables addictions and unhealthy habits. Why is accessibility to beer being valued more than to healthy foods? Thinking more about this fact makes me think of this statistic I heard once that over 60% of tobacco stores are located close to elementary or middle schools. By exposing children to things like this, it teases their curiosity to try it, potentially leading to addiction. I can’t imagine this effect is much different in these food deserts. 

In my opinion, I think that educating people on nutrition and how to grow their own food is a good way to start making a change in food deserts. Rather than just donating nonparishable foods and such, teaching people what they can do personally to improve their situation is much more effective. However, as McClintock mentioned we have to “rethink and rebuild the entirety of the metropolitan and regional food system”. Doing this requires more than just educating people about nutrition, how to cook, or grow food. It will require a lot of larger corporations to change their policies, and how they function, which will take a while to get there. Despite this, smaller efforts do count and they do positively impact others within food deserts. 

Food Deserts in the United States

     As Nathan McClintock stated in his writing: From Industrial Garden to Food Desert, Food deserts are proportionately popular in low economic areas, specifically urban communities of color. This hypothesis has been brought up in our class discussions and is unanimously accepted as many people have had personal accounts to validate this claim. While the article focuses on areas of California, this same problem can be seen across low income urban areas of the United States as a whole and is a significant problem and also indicator of the disproportionate distribution of nutritious food which also highlights the overall economic issues the country faces.

    McClintock also highlights how these low income areas have congregated people of color using the military industrial complex boom of World War One to gather these citizens, with their hopes being that there would be stable jobs that pay decently. While this may or may not have been the case and intention  of the US government at one time. this has now inadvertently created and sustained the food deserts we see today which has now essentially forced these communities to take whatever jobs a shipyard offers regardless of pay or the person's skill due to that corporation dominating the job market in the area and also forcing these communities to live in subsidized housing with no perceivable way out of the arrangement. Personal accounts in class discussions have also supported this argument. 

    The current situation these communities face show signs of past and present racism and prevent these communities from escaping their food desert and economic standing.

Industrial Gardens to Food Deserts

While I have been aware of historical ideologies having a negative lingering effect on societies today, I was not aware of the exact history of the process and why specifically some areas receive repeated cycles of poverty. I've known about zoning and other policies restricting grocery access to areas of low income, but it is an eye opener for me to learn now about how and why these things stay the way they are, more so than just "racism". It is quite clear that racism is a huge proponent to how this ball started rolling. Looking at the historical Oakland zoning maps was crazy to me, seeing how they were labeling other people as "lower graded elements" of a system as an excuse to restrict where new investment flows into is just hard to comment on. But I don't think thinking about the past and how it all started in the first place is going to solve any of the problems the past has left behind for this specific issue. 

Today, as we just read, these areas still exist. Today, people are still struggling to have fair access to fresh food. McClintock is right to say that food deserts exist once existing capital is no longer performing as much as is wanted. But how do you even fix that? How do you convince businesses to move back into areas where they know they will lose money? It certainty won't be out of the goodness of their CEOs hearts, at least not a significant or meaningful amount. McClintock talked about that even restarting the cycle that once brought capital in just continues to yield the same result of poverty for those in previously labeled red or yellow areas. This can be due to things mentioned like majority of businesses and housing not being locally owned, people spending money in adjacent towns due to higher quality selections, and repeated loan disapproval and caution against investment in previously labeled red and yellow areas. Racism likely does still play a role as a barrier to changing this system, as even today, grocers are not running to re-open their doors in the areas they previously closed them in, but I think today the hesitation is more because of an economic fear than a racial matter. For areas like Oakland to change, they will need numerous things, but most importantly, more stable, paying jobs, majority local ownership of businesses, and locally owned housing options. I think this because if you provide capital influx in some way to a system like Oakland, and it is all being spent in adjacent towns, or on rents to landlords over seas or in different states, the city is ultimately losing money even when subsidized, and to restore incentive for a grocer to reopen its doors, you need to prove to them you have enough purchasing power to keep their grocery store running.