Jake Week 2

 As a preface to my post I want to say this: I disagree with neoliberalism in the sense that strongly deregulating free market will, especially when money is able to find its way into politics such as with Citizens United vs FEC, erode democracies into plutocracies and oligarchies. When you change the system from responding to the people to responding to profit, it's not surprising that the economic model will prioritize increased market cap over quality of life. As a person who wants a better life and not a line graph who wants a higher number plotted onto me, I would prefer an economic model that pays the average person more attention.

I also want to say that I noticed a nod in both the Ted-talk and the article from Alkon, in the article she specifically mentioned "the massive (and incredibly problematic) media coverage of the so-called obesity epidemic.". While I obviously do not condone bullying over physical appearances, there is difference between "fat-phobia" and the fact that obesity is a massive health risk and will not only lower your life expectancy, but lower your quality of life during the shortened lifespan you do have. I think obesity is a critical topic to cover in food justice as heavily processed food is an inequity in our food system and promotes obesity. I believe if you are going to talk about obesity in a food justice sense, it should almost entirely be about mitigating obesity and not body positivity. This is a narrative Alkon has pushed twice now and one I not only disagree with, but one I think is actively detrimental to push.

The part that talked about how misunderstanding the root problem and getting caught up in a specific symptom can distract people from better solutions was something that needed to be mentioned. The example given was that "too much emphasis on the presence or absence of supermarkets results in the offering of incentives to chain supermarkets rather than addressing root causes such as racism and poverty". The issue goes as deep as modern western agricultural practices being just ecologically unsustainable, so band-aid fixes will not work. Addressing the fact that we simply need to be able to look at certain problems at a system-wide level instead of a "Oh, just give a tax cut to supermarkets that set up in low-income areas", is something that is better brought up earlier than later.

The brief touch on farmers markets being too white as a barrier to minorities accessing organic did not resonant with me. Farmer's markets do have a connotation of being white, the article brought it up for a reason. That being said, labeling it as a "barrier" to people of color is, in my opinion, stupid. The idea is that the language around organic food distribution, especially in places like farmers markets, appeals to white communities more than non-white communities. I do not believe it is the food industry's fault if non-whites *themselves* do not choose to go to farmer's markets specifically because they are too white-coded, and I am glad this was not necessarily pushed forward by the article. Call me ignorant if I am, but I do not believe racists go around talking about farmers markets through symbolism that appeals to whites more than non-whites specifically to passive-aggressively gatekeep organic food from minorities. This isn't just something I believe is a moot point, it is something actively detrimental. I grew up around a plethora of different kinds of people. I can tell you there is a large segment of the population that look at this sort of point as anti-white, woke mind virus propaganda, and it completely alienates them from the genuinely important messages than ought to be conveyed. I believe good activism is practical activism, so bringing up points like these that in all likelihood have the effect of only pissing off certain groups of people is just self-hindering rhetoric. Save these thoughts for later, including them in your big push taints the more palatable ideas in the eyes of many conservatives.

The "vote with your wallet" ideology is something that I strongly disagree. Not to be too cringy, but as a gamer I have seen the incredible encroachment of micro-transactions and "lootbox" gambling into the video game industry, and it is almost universally hated by the general population of people who plays games as a hobby. It is nonetheless disgustingly profitable and will be continuously implemented in the future, with many multi-million and billion dollar game companies relying on predatory pricing policies as a primary revenue source, rather than selling the actual software itself. I bring this up as a sort of case study that just saying "Nah man, the free market will respond to the desires of the people" is NOT universally true, and can be manipulated by corporations. It might not be completely ineffective, but I would rather it be viewed as a helpful boon rather than the primary vehicle for change.

To add onto this, the rise of the internet has been a decentralizing one, in contrast to radio and television being a centralizing force (I took this idea from John Green). The result is that when you embrace neoliberalism and minimize corporate regulation, they do what they do best and dominate the market. Sure you have more agency yourself, but there are billions of dollars spend on targeted advertising because it WORKS and those billions aren't being spent on the people Alkon wants to see helped. In the modern era, social media algorithms control the average person's thoughts more than they're comfortable with. I say this to further the idea that voting with your wallet is a shoddy idea, your local worker cooperative is much less likely to have a strong ad campaign than their traditional competitors.

Bringing that up, I don't believe worker cooperatives aren't necessarily a bad idea, but they're too fickle to try and use as a solution going forward especially when focusing in on America. I believe realistically unionization is more realistic alternative, especially considering the recent successes of Teamsters, the UAW, SAG-AFTRA guild(kind of), and other unions. We still have a noticeable anti-socialist presence in this country, and what might work in California might not work in Arkansas, which in turn might further fuel the inequities Alkon wants to fight.

Finally, I disagree with the anti-GMO sentiment at the end. I feel as though the main problems they have could be solved if we focused not on turning away from GMOs, but instead trying to stop corporations from copyrighting and legally owning certain cultivars. Certain GMO's are just more nutritious and beneficial than their "natural" counterparts, and to give up seemingly so easy on this potentially huge advantage modern science has given us seems so short-sighted.

Hopefully next week I'll be able to write a normal-sized blog post instead of another chapter, thanks to anyone who went through and read the entire post.