Whose Justice is it Anyway?

            Food security and food sovereignty seem to be two sides of the same coin to me. They both have the goal of working to provide food for more people. Food security seems to be more focused solely on the act of giving people food, while food sovereignty has a wider range of focus that also acknowledges the people themselves and what variables are creating their situation. Food security is not a bad thing, but it often does not change issues, but simply amends them. We have talked a lot about the communities that need food, and especially last week we wrote about the circumstances that lead to lack of access to food. Not addressing the root of the problem with food security will help people in the short term, but food sovereignty gives them the ability to sustain their needs in their communities, cities, etc...

            Noll and Murdock break food sovereignty into multiple parts, with all of them being intertwined. Indigenous and environmental justice often are aligned because for many indigenous people to regain access to food, culture, etc..., there needs to be more done solution than giving them food and water. Like the case study in the article, the cause of the issue(s) must be addressed for there to be real change. 

            Food sovereignty may be the better option in theory, but as we have discussed, it is hard to make substantial change by focusing on small communities. Food security is a blanket project that is a more convenient plan, but it only accommodates while food sovereignty tries to change the system. I think that both systems have a role in food justice, but it is more about having an actual large-scale plan to replace the idea of food security on the global stage.