"Whose Justice is it Anyway? (Samantha Noll & Esme G. Murdock) Response (Feb 21)

Throughout this article, it is clear that both authors, Noll and Murdock, agree with the simple fact that food insecurity and food sovereignty should not been seen as conflicting interests, but two issues that go hand-in-hand. 

For starters, the difference between food sovereignty and food insecurity can be a blurred line sometimes, a gray area if you will. Food insecurity can be described as the idea that regions or groups of people all over the world are lacking access to nutritious food, and substance that keeps them on track with their suggested dietary needs and healthy. Food sovereignty, on the other hand, is the idea that communities gain the right to decide where they want their food coming from, in terms of the who and where of food production. 

One issue within the food sovereignty movement could be the fact that many people that follow the movement,unfortunately believe that food security is necessary within peoples lives in order for them to have food sovereignty. This idea essentially limits the groups or communities of people who are "able" to choose who produces their food and the laws/policies that surround the food they consume. 

I would agree with Noll and Murdock in the sense that, both food insecurity and food sovereignty have been put into place (especially for specific regions), due to the idea of distributive justice. The idea that certain populations, (usually impoverished or of a different race) are determined to be seen "less than worthy" in reserving the right to choose where their food comes from, or are subjected to food deserts more than other races and social classes, is extremely wrong and unfair.