Food justice and municipal government in the USA

 This article talks about the role of municipal governments in shaping urban food systems. It addresses how local governments are pivotal in influencing food accessibility through zoning regulations, urban planning and food prices. Federal governments have placed some guidelines, but local governments are in a better position to directly affect food access. Horst talks about how municipal governments can promote local governments by providing policies that encourage the growth of local food economies by supporting farmers. 

Horst also provides case studies to show how municipalities are addressing food justice. She talked about how Portland, Oregon is an example of a city that embraced urban agriculture and community involvement in the food system. They encourage community gardens, urban farms and more farmers markets throughout the city.

 Horst also talks about the challenges they face to integrating food justice into urban planning. She talks about how local governments may face opposition from business interests. Like big grocery store chains and big agriculture. They resist these ideas like farmers markets because that would cause them to lose some business. They also face funding issues because the municipal governments have limited budgets and resources, so this makes it difficult to sustain food justice programs over the long term.

I agree with some parts of this article but disagree with other parts. I agree we need to try to incorporate more farming and gardens into the urban lifestyle. I think everyone should try to have their own little garden. Even if its small we can still grow some of our own food. Gardens are pretty cheap if you have the room and then this could help fix some of the food security issue. I also think just because people live in the city doesn't mean we can't make room for farms and community gardens. I think it should be required for there to be farms in and around cities to help people get access to fresher and healthier foods. I don't necessarily disagree with some parts of the article I just think it's unrealistic. I think everything has become monopolized and big ag and big grocery chains don't want people to have their own gardens and grow their own food. This would mean they would lose a lot of business and with a loss of business is a loss of power. 

Sorrel - Food Justice and Municipal Governments

    Megan Horst's article, "Food Justice and Municipal Government in the USA," offers a valuable exploration of how municipal food systems planning can promote food justice. By analyzing the Puget Sound Regional Food Policy Council (PSRFPC) and the City of Seattle’s initiatives, Horst effectively highlights both the opportunities and limitations of government-led food justice efforts.

    One of the article's strengths lies in its comprehensive framework, which evaluates food justice through five key dimensions: trauma and inequity, exchange, land, labor, and democratic process. This holistic perspective allows Horst to uncover the deeper systemic barriers embedded in municipal planning processes. Her critique of how governments often favor market-based solutions over transformative, community-led approaches is interesting.

    However, I feel like the article could benefit from a more explicit analysis of how power dynamics influence decision-making within these councils. While the PSRFPC and Seattle initiatives aim to incorporate diverse voices, Horst notes the challenges marginalized communities face in gaining equitable representation. A closer examination of how these councils mitigate (or fail to mitigate) the reproduction of structural inequities would be good.

    Horst's research also underscores the importance of sustained community engagement. While the City of Seattle's Food Equity Fund is a promising example of redistributive funding, its long-term effectiveness in shifting power to marginalized communities remains uncertain. The reliance on tax revenue from a sweetened beverage tax may also reinforce extractive financial models that disproportionately impact low-income communities. Policymakers should consider alternative, more equitable funding mechanisms.

    A key takeaway from Horst's analysis is the necessity for municipal governments to move beyond symbolic gestures of inclusion. True food justice requires dismantling systemic inequities and centering the voices of those most impacted by food insecurity. Municipalities should invest in long-term partnerships with community-led organizations, provide accessible pathways for public participation, and address the root causes of food injustice through transformative policy changes.

    Ultimately, Horst's work serves as an important reminder that while municipal governments can play a role in advancing food justice, the most effective solutions emerge when power is shifted to the communities that have historically been excluded from decision-making. Policymakers and advocates must remain committed to fostering equitable, community-driven food systems that prioritize justice over convenience or profit.

Jake - Food Justice in Municipal Government

Here are my ideas from the short introduction section: I think the vote with your dollar mentality comes from a sheer distrust and lack of faith in the government actually being able to do anything. People would expect the US government to side with business over citizen's quality of life every time, and they have historical reasons to feel that way. Before going into the municipal government bit, the only relatively new idea I saw was the idea that one cannot separate food justice from wider social justice. I agree that social injustices and their solutions are rarely if ever isolated.

Going into the "meat" of the article, it says food systems planning is used by municipal governments as a revenue generating operation or to further financial goals instead of food justice goals (such as using urban gardens to drive up property price to benefit existing land-owning residents while further pushing those less influential out). I don't see this as shocking especially if you consider how many rural municipal governments will use prison contracts to stimulate rural economies off the back of imprisoned people (which becomes a greater problem when you question why the USA has 20% of the world's prisoners with only ~4% of the global population).

They bring up the inclusion of American Indians and go into how many of them are much more interested in gaining greater access to traditional food sources rather than gaining greater blanket food security. I will say that this topic has been brought up several times over the article's we've looked into and it does once again show a west-coast bias. It certainly is a topic that should be looked into and good things can come out of it, but you can easily see why it's a bigger deal on the west coast than the east coast (Here's a map showing % American Indian by county - https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Indian2017.jpg).

When the article looks into the discussion of how they would use county owned farmland, the over-arching narrative was that of "we don't tell farmers what to do". While it sounds nice, I think it's a classic case of "fool me once, shame on me. Fool me over and over again systematically, and now we have a nation-wide corporate agriculture monstrosity." Farmers doing what they want to do often leads to government subsidies for large corporations out-competing them, John Deere's lack of "right to repair" harming small farmers disproportionately, and a smaller scale means less bargaining power and influence with distributors. Farmers have some of the highest suicide rates in this country for a reason, so carrying on letting things play out the same way they have time and time again just doesn't sit right with me.

Labor got brought up, and unless Americans are willing to pay more for food (You know they won't anytime soon) farming will remain an industry will low wages. My best hope is that AI and robotics advances to the point we can reasonably start subsidizing important but unprofitable sectors like agriculture as a sort of step-down from UBI (Universal Basic Income). I like unions but my belief on the matter is that the changes unions would have to make for worker compensation to be adequate would result in higher food prices and America is not prepared for that, at least not now.

With making the decision-making process more democratic and inclusive, I think a big issues is trying to prioritize this first. It's not good to try and make food justice system for everyone and then proceed to not have the people who needed a new system the most not participate, but there is an underlying issue of trust in any system. Here is a graph show casing voter turnout in US election by race: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/10/voting-race.jpg . What I take away from this graph is that those underrepresented by a given system will be less likely to participate in that system. There is a sense of nihilism that comes along with being underrepresented and this is part of how it shows up. I believe it's more worthwhile in trying to make an honest showing of improving a system to restore people's trust in the system than trying to push through that nihilism without starting the change already.

When talking about Seattle's very non-committal and limited funding for food programs, one interviewee said “it is normalized that we can provide an extra subsidy” to support local farming and food access. I think this is very important, as just establishing that culture of supporting these programs is something that will pay dividends in the future. Settings precedents is unbelievably important and just being able to try and plant these seeds of "this is just what we do" is one of the most valuable things I believe anyone can do for food justice.

Overall I would say my thoughts leaving this article is that municipal governments certainly have the power to start change on a local scale. They are capable of doing something. I worry that too many people who are concerned are aiming for perfect, disappointed in good, and then always pushing up instead of out. If we want to really change food justice in this country we need to alter the common culture that we have. Between Seattle or Oakland getting notably better food security or their wider region seeing mild changes as organizations push out of an area rather than growing further within it, I believe the 2nd option will see a quicker change in the average person's relationship with food and therefore change the system more effectively. It's sort of a form of collective bargaining. A few cities here and there having growing food justice movements is annoying for those currently in control of the food system (like Monsanto), but if everywhere sees a mild change it might just rock the boat enough to cause some change.

Week 6

  Here we go again...

4th article attacking white people instead of looking for real solutions...

Alkon and McCullen’s Whiteness and Farmers Markets represents yet another example of over analyzing race in everyday life. Farmers' markets are simply places where people buy local food... That's it. yet the authors attempt to point fingers and bring in "identity politics" into something as innocent as grocery shopping. Their argument is that these markets reinforce racial, and class inequalities seems like another unnecessary attempt to create division where no division exists. If certain groups do not frequently go to farmers markets, it is likely due to personal choice rather than systemic exclusion. The idea that these markets should be changed to cater to perceived racial inequalities is just another example of progressives pushing unnecessary social engineering and racism. Yes racism, because if you say that any community run event, or store is too "Hispanic" or too much "Blackness", you would be called a racist and rightfully so. White people for some reason, enjoy putting them self's down and hating their own culture and traditions. Maybe it makes them think that will be accepted by society as a "good white person" in a culture where being white is becoming increasingly unpopular.

The authors overlook the real value of farmers' markets which is supporting hardworking small-scale farmers and promoting self-sufficiency. It really upsets me when they use the word "privileged", you have no idea what someone's struggle is like, so assuming that their life is easy based on skin alone is racist and increases division. 

Instead of blaming markets for being “too white,” people who feel excluded should take the initiative to participate rather than expect changes to be made for them. The push to racialize something as simple as food shopping distracts from real issues and fosters division. Rather than viewing farmers markets as spaces of privilege, that slam the doors on minorities, they should be recognized as examples of community engagement, not another battleground for racist politics. "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Week 6 - Lailah ElBouazzaoui

 The article written by Alkon talks about the “whiteness” embedded within positive food movements more specifically, farmers markets.  She emphasizes that the term “whiteness” doesn’t necessarily embody just skin color it also represents the cultural practices typically found in white families, as well as social norms. When people imagine an American farm the first thing that normally comes to people’s mind is a stereotypical small scale farm run by a white family. When in reality there is diversity in agricultural labor that goes unnoticed. In these farmer’s markets the idea of the white farmers are praised overlooking the accurate production. 

            Another important topic Alkon discussed was how farmers markets are shaped by political liberalism. Unbeknownst to most the higher prices restrict availability to low-income people and normally minorities. Farmer’s markets are looked at as promoting sustainable agricultural practices and improving inclusion, but in reality, the universal approach is not as it seems. It promotes their products based on the societal norm directed towards white customers.  

            What Alkon proposed to help this divide in farmers markets is an intersectional approach to address white privilege. In my opinion the first step to improving this issue is recognizing that there is an issue in the first place. Alkon believes that farmers markets will not improve on it’s own but for the producers it is important to consider a more inclusive product in order to create a just environment. 

Jake Whiteness in Farmer's Markets

I want to quick start this off by saying my own view of farmer's markets is skewed since I associated them with the Amish and Mennonites. This is a regional niche and an exception to the rule, so my perception of what a "farmer's market" is was already noticeably different that the average person.

Onto the article itself, I fully support the "defetishing" of food, although there has got to be a better term for it. Farmers at farmer's markets are separate from the corporate agriculture and people are being misled by the demographic differences present at farmers markets. I'm not as concerned as people thinking their food all comes from white people, but that they believe that these farm workers are able to support themselves off their work. We've talked about how these farm workers are often those most affected by poverty, so having people think the agriculture industry is taking good care of it's workers only helps sustain a system in need of change. I really think our national education system should work on trying to educate kids on what the wider world looks like. When you wear clothing, how did it get into your hands? If you bought it, where? How did they get the clothing? Who made the clothing? How was the material to get it sourced? I loved watching Mike Rowe's "Dirty Jobs" growing up and seeing the work we need to do that society doesn't glamorize. We all recognize that Christmas gifts don't really come from Santa, but many people's understanding of where basic life goods come from is about as deep as "Santa delivers them", and I can't personally fault them. They just weren't taught, although ideally they would've been more curious about it.

I see how farmers markets being so white can make minorities not want to partake in them and therefore continue inequality. I also believe that the traits that make up affluent, liberal whiteness are big drivers of farmers markets, and instead of altering the system to amen it, effort should be spent trying to promote whatever would appeal to these people. "Community gardens" or something like that. I don't think it's fair to criticize well-meaning whites for "whitewashing" everything just by being so enthusiastic about it.

Similarly, I don't like forwarding the narrative of white "privilege" out of a sense of practical change. Telling someone they got special treatment they did not earn makes them defensive. Many people take that to belittle the genuine struggle they have faced. Instead I believe we should try to help those who have been born outside of opportunities. People won't get nearly as defensive if you tell them many people were born into greater struggles then them, since it doesn't invalidate *their own* personal struggles. The yeoman picture, which is more or less what I've been talking about as the "American Gothic" perception of American agriculture, is certainly something that historically would've only been possible for whites in this country. Instead of saying that whites ought to carry a sort of burden to recognize and try and offset their own privilege, if that effort were instead spent on uplifting the discriminated, I believe we'd see less tension in this discourse.

Finally, I think the part about long-term residents saying the farmers market is more about the residents than it is the students is to say it is about whites is a stretch. There is a disconnect between the people who live in a city versus those who are only there for the college. Planning on being on an area for only ~4 years and leaving, versus having raised a family in an area are entirely different levels of connection.

Side note: The lack of non-white holidays celebrated at the two farmers markets the paper talked about did strike me as odd, as the "affluent, liberal white culture" I've come to know absolutely LOVES celebrating "ethnic holidays". No Dia de los Muertos celebration in a California farmer's market was genuinely surprising.

Week 6

  In this article it brings the topic up again about how farmers markets are more for white people and predominately attract affluent white individuals. The authors talk about the concept of "white farm imagery" where participants uphold ideals of farming and community that aligns with "white norms". They argue that farmers markets put emphasis on specific aesthetics that cater to white individuals. 

I disagree with the argument the authors are trying to make. I don't think farmers markets are "white spaces". The farmers market near me is the Allentown farmers market and I always go there and from what I have seen there are so many different stands with many different kinds of cultural foods. They have a bunch of different foods that can align with many different kinds of people. I think calling farmers markets racially discriminating is just adding to the problem of racism. Allentown is a very diverse city with many different kinds of ethnicity, so I think the Allentown farmers market is a good mix of all different kinds of cultures. It's a place where everyone can go and get fresh healthy food. Theres no entry fee and everyone is welcome and instead of making an argument on how farmers markets are racist, I think we should all just try to appreciate one another and appreciate the access we can get to fresh food right in the middle of the city.

However, I do want to state that I know farmers and farm workers do get racially discriminated. I do agree we need to do a better job getting farmers fair pay and fair rights. They work very hard to get us our food, so they deserve fair wages for their work especially since they make the world run. 

"Whiteness in Farmer's Markets.." - Week 6 Blog Post

In food justice, sustainable agriculture, and environmental science, it’s imperative to see the bigger picture. As we know, market systems drive industry in our economy. Alkon, this time with McCullen, does a great job of highlighting the disparities between neoliberal practices within the scope of U.S. food systems while ignoring the building blocks that ultimately hold up these structures. They also touch on something very interesting, which is the contradiction of these two figures.  

We see this in many forms of the capital machine. As Marxist theory states, these contradictions and their solutions are what create societal and political histories. Ultimately, it is driven by our need for material objects. We have fundamental needs that differentiate us from other species, and that is food/water and shelter. We must produce these material items to sustain our existence. 

 

As a result, how we produce and attain these means is what determines society. In the U.S. and much of the world, these are market-driven systems. At both of the farmer's markets discussed in their research, you can see how the affluent and wealthy are seemingly the only deserving of our basic needs. Berkeley of course has been a hub of wealth and affluence since the 60s, carrying with it inherited wealth from predominantly white people in that area. 

With neoliberal policies, class is very apparent. I think McCullen and Alkon are looking to explain how class divisions, what is very visible in some of these locations, are even more seen when flooded with Caucasians and Europeans as the “haves” and anyone else as the “have-nots”. Something the text also describes as “liberal habitus of whiteness.” Truly speaking to systematic racism, something that inherently exists within the system due to historical policies-- they mentioned how they didn’t seek to find these objectives. The whiteness observed was their separate, individual research in agriculture and farmers' markets.  

Not only is the process of the environmentally destructive side of agriculture hidden, but so are the racial inequalities. A notable contradiction is that the food that is the essence of these communities is mostly seeded, grown, and produced by Latin Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Mexicans, and other non-European peoples. These workers generally have less access to healthy foods and those with access to the foods that these workers are growing, are then using them to create dishes made exclusively for the privileged.  

Alkon and McCullen continue explaining the de-fetishizing that is currently part of new-wave agriculture does not disrupt this narrative but enforces it. The idea, “know where your food comes from” is a popular trend among Americans overall. However, preaching this narrative but not exemplifying the truths of the entire food process from "seed to sale", renders the narrative invalid. You do not know where your food comes from at most farmers' markets, as it is not sold by the people who are growing or cultivating the food they are selling.  

Although there is resistance and some attempts to draw light on these marginalizations, it’s vital to know that market-exchange relations to address social change will not bring about the necessary structural changes. However, it does speak to collective power among farm workers and laborers. And even educating consumers on the truths of the food they are consuming may not necessarily lead them to become supportive of better environmental and sustainable agriculture.  

3/12/25 Jack

 I think after spending a lot of time reading articles from this class, we can all agree that race and racism has always been a factor in agriculture any way you look at. While I agree that there could be farmers markets that may reflect a level of whiteness that is off putting, I'm still not sure if we can apply this idea of whiteness to all farmers markets. With most of the research we’ve seen being done in California it’s difficult to grasp the full scope of an idea like this. If I’m being honest this idea seems like it was more prevalent in the past and large majorities of the Western world no longer live that way or thing that way. The idea of whiteness is a much deeper hole I don’t feel we really need to get into. The study done in Davis and North Berkeley showed that large numbers of vendors and customers were white. As well as what they called, social/cultural norms being a majority white. I think farmers markets in different areas can portray different images, in this case these areas were focused on the “small scale white farmer” most white people would think of. This leads to the true workforce, a large majority being Hispanic. Once an area has a set up of “cultural norms” it's very hard to change that. This change at smaller scales is easier and could be possible in places that need to be more “welcoming” for all. 

Pricing has always been an issue to deter people away, while everywhere around the world in all cultures people struggle with money, we see patterns here. With food being labeled “organic” or “gourmet” this statistically pushes away those of low income, and in the studied area this was people of color. While areas may seem inclusive and may even promote diversity there are unspoken barriers keeping people away. Ways we have seen change or could see change come with simple education and inclusion of those who want it. In Berkeley the Farm Fresh Choice program is a way people of color have been getting assistance in this area as well. While being brought fresh and organic produce they can also be educated on where it comes from and a new interest could be sparked. In Davis they started a little campus market which again is another step in the right direction in terms of education and publicity. These are so many options to help fight back against this idea and completely eliminate it. To me “Whiteness” was a new term that I hadn’t heard before and I believe it’s because no one around me has ever thought like this. It’s so simple to be accepting and want the best for others when they want the best for you. I think the harsh reality of whiteness is that there are shitty people out there who won’t change their minds, and racism will always plague the way they think. 

Referring to the historical context of whiteness, this concept has been formed through a dark history in which a lot of our country was built on. While it’s a terrible thing to say, this idea of whiteness went from the control over slaves, to the legal control over immigrants in the US. We spoke last week about the effects of policies and laws that have made it a struggle for many Hispanic people and in essence we see the idea of whiteness, and the power or control that comes with it. I don’t know if the word whiteness is any different than the word racism to me, over time as Europeans (British, Irish, Baltic region) became known as white the concept just shifted adding to the number of people who could be called out for “whiteness”. I’m not saying this isn’t a real problem but to be it’s racism and no racism should be tolerated from anyone from any race towards anyone else. 

Whiteness and Farmers Markets

This article focuses on two main farmers markets in Northern California, Berkley and Davis. One author was at the farmers market in Berkley the other author at Davis, they took on roles of volunteers, vendors, and observers. A central theme in this article talked about "The White Farm Imaginary". The authors talk about the romanticizing idea of "knowing where your food comes from" and "support your local farmer", yet these slogans show a white farm imaginary. A point that they write about is how these small farm ideas don't show the side of under paid Asian immigrants, the enslavement of African Americans, and Mexican farm workers who harvest our food produced in the US today. White farm owners are viewed as the ones who do most of the hard labor when that is not really the case. Most farms rely on non-family labor. 

Another central idea is "The Community Imaginary". There is an idea that farmers markets are a good way to bring community's closer together. It is a place where people can meet their neighbors and create a sense of togetherness. There was a point when one author reveled the towns populations of diversity and people were shocked at how diverse the city actually was. The farmer's market is so white based that people were shocked, and some did not even believe the census when it was revealed. In one of the markets there is a lot of gourmet food targeted towards white population. This also increases prices on the food making it harder to people of lower income to purchase. Food should be cheaper and healthier; we all need the nutrients in healthy foods no matter ethnicity or wealth. 

Finally, the authors do talk about some of the ways that can contest the whiteness in farmers markets. From inclusions of farmers of color selling their products and actually discussing the ways of ethnic struggles within the community, changes can be made. In Davis they have started small weekly markets on campus for students using coupons and promotions to help diversify the community. In Berkley they are educating people about food insecurity and supports a Black and Latino run program called Farm Fresh Choice. This article was incredibly interesting to me and had many key ideas which were talked about very well. There does need to be a collective action to address the inequalities of our food justice systems. 

Alkon and McCullen - Whiteness and Farmers Markets: Sorrel

     Alkon and McCullen’s article "Whiteness and Farmers Markets: Performances, Perpetuations . . . Contestations?" explores how farmers markets, often seen as progressive and community-oriented, can reinforce racial privilege by centering whiteness in their culture, participation, and accessibility. The authors argue that structural barriers, such as land ownership and economic disparities, limit farmers of color from participating, while aesthetic and behavioral norms make these markets feel exclusionary to non-white and working-class individuals. Despite these challenges, the article highlights efforts to contest whiteness in farmers markets by promoting inclusivity through diverse vendors, accepting food assistance programs, and fostering cultural representation. Ultimately, the authors call for a more intentional approach to equity in food movements.

    One of the article’s key ideas is that environmentalism in the United States often focuses on preventing human interference in nature, rather than fostering a healthy relationship between humans and the environment. A more effective approach, I believe, would emphasize ways for humans and nature to coexist and support one another. Since it is unrealistic to eliminate human impact entirely, efforts should focus on creating sustainable, mutually beneficial interactions. Agrifood movements, in some ways, are attempting to establish this connection by promoting local and sustainable food systems.

    The Allentown Farmers Market serves as an interesting case study in examining the demographics of both customers and vendors. Based on my own observations, I would not say that white people make up the overwhelming majority of attendees. Instead, the customer base appears to be roughly a 50/50 split between white individuals and people of color. The vendors, however, skew slightly more white, at approximately a 70/30 ratio. It’s important to consider the demographics of the surrounding area—Allentown is a large, diverse city with a significant non-white population. While this is only one example, the article suggests that in many other parts of the country, farmers markets are primarily frequented by white customers. This raises the question of whether the age of a farmers market influences the demographics of both sellers and buyers.

    A significant issue with the performance of whiteness in farmers markets is the general public’s lack of awareness about who actually grows their food. The article provides examples of people who believe they are purchasing directly from farmers, assuming that those selling produce at farmers markets are the ones who grew it. While this may be true in some cases, the reality—especially in large-scale agriculture—is that much of the labor is done by minority farmworkers, primarily people of color. Many consumers are unaware that the person selling them food at a farmers market is often not the person who grew or harvested it. Regional differences play a role in this issue. Based on my experience, this is somewhat less pronounced in our area but remains a major concern, particularly on the West Coast, where farm labor is overwhelmingly done by migrant and minority workers.

Week 5 Liam

 Global food programs are led by organizations like the UN and WTO they claim to fight hunger but often do more harm than good. Instead of encouraging nations to develop their own agriculture, they push policies that make countries dependent on foreign aid and mass food imports. Local farmers struggle to compete with cheap, imported goods, and entire communities lose control over their food supply. While these programs talk about food access, they do little to promote real self-sufficiency, leaving people at risk to the government, political climate at the time, and outside control.

we should approach it is by puting food production back in the hands of local communities. Food sovereignty focuses on self-sufficiency, traditional farming, and sustainable practices that strengthen local economies. When people control their own food, they aren’t at the mercy of global markets or international policies. Locally grown food is fresher and more reliable. By "prioritizing" community driven Ag, food sovereignty creates long term stability and makes sure that food remains a strength not a dependence.

Farmworker Food Insecurity and the Production of Hunger in California - Week 5 Blog Post

    While reading this piece, I reflected on a tremendous amount of parallels within our current political situation in the U. S. However, learning about how California agricultural industries from the very beginning were driven by capital accumulation and competition and how this created decades of inequal food “security” was the real treat of the article. I was surprised, but also somewhat not surprised, to learn that the continued influx of immigrant workers during this time was a result of big agricultural businesses “sourcing labor through third-party farm labor contractors… and direct retaliation against workers who attempted to organize, as well as other forms of union-busting.” (Brown et al, 2011) And of course, as administration shifts between “left” and “right”, progress on these fronts fell by the wayside. 

    With this then came an influx of campesinos that have been pulled into the U.S. agricultural jobs but then have been pushed off of the very lands they farm due to shifting priorities in immigration and domestic policy. The Campesinos are Mexican laborers who migrate to the U.S. as a direct result of the ongoing oscillation of social, political, and financial challenges between the U.S. and Mexico. The enactment of NAFTA put several nails in the metaphorical Mexican agricultural coffin. Once again, these reforms were implemented over several years before they were officially enacted, and backed by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the United States. 

    Mexico then shifted its focus to the production of cash crops for agro-export (McMichael 2000). Additionally, the import of U.S. corn to Mexico now had no restrictions and was 30% below the average cost of Mexican production companies (Polaski 2004; Ulrich 2006). By 2002, over 1.3 million jobs had been lost in the agricultural sector (Polaski 2004). Thus; ensuring a very uncertain future for Mexican agriculture. 

    The hundreds of thousands of exploited Mexican farmworkers are intrinsically linked to more local and national struggles for food sovereignty. One struggle does not supersede another, merely they are all links in a chain that is constructed on the trajectory of exasperated capital gain. And once again, we are faced with the harsh reality of the racist anti-immigration beliefs that are generally being spun from a nationalist perspective. It’s truly saddening to think that it was actually difficult to even conduct a thorough study of this population of people due to their housing insecurity while they are working in the U.S.

    It's vital to consider that this is only a sample of the agricultural industries and landscapes of the world. For true food sovereignty, all imports/exports and dependent national trade relations should be considered. This article specifically points to the lack of consideration for the farmworkers regarding their monetary wages. As it is a widely understudied and uninvestigated portion of food justice, we must remember these important aspects. 

Week 5 - Food Insecurity

         The article by Brown and Getz, Farmworker Food Insecurity…, talks about some of the reasons why farmworkers themselves suffer from food insecurity. The authors discuss some of the potential reasons behind the issue and come to a conclusion that it is more of a political and economic exploitation of labor. In my opinion it is tragic how the people supporting our nation with agricultural practices and ensuring food security to families struggle for food themselves. Factors that help contribute to farmers food insecurity are seasonal employment, wages that are only seeming to decrease, and lack of protection when it comes to legal issues. The authors discuss how low wages are barely enough to support daily needs not to mention access to food. For example, as stated in the text, in California the average farmworker earns as little as $8,500 annually. 

Part of the problem with food insecurity is that people won’t look deep enough into the root of the issue. They think the solution is providing more food-to-food deserts, and although that can be helpful it won’t help the long-term issue. We need to implement policies that will protect our farmworkers to maintain a stable source of food and will that come fair pay. 

            I think this article does a great job critiquing the modern farmworker food insecurity issue. It is an attention-grabbing article because of how shocking and unjust the agricultural system is in the US. It makes me wonder how people earn so much more money for basically nothing when jobs like a being a farmer can cost people their lives and they don’t get compensated correctly for the amount of work they do. It will go a long way if consumers start to understand the reality of our food systems so that change can be made, and people can advocate for better wages. 

Farmworker Food Insecurity

 We live in a world where the people to produce and grow our food are also food insecure. This article dives into the inequality, politics, development and history about farmworkers. About 34 percent of farmworkers are considered food insecure and about 11 percent is food insecure and hungry. How is it acceptable that a job that is vital for everyone around the world is the least profitable and stable. Their annual incomes are around 5,000 to 8,500 dollars and many farmworkers are seasonal. This issue is hidden from the public's eye. There are not many movements that focus on the farmworkers struggles with food insecurity. 

In the article the author talks about how a vast majority of farmworkers in California come from Mexico. They tend to shift work sites often due to the changing of crops and seasons. Something that really stood out to me was the estimate of 800,000 to 900,000 individuals are filling an equivalent of 350,000 full time agriculture jobs. Since most of these farmworkers are undocumented, they are exploited and vulnerable. They do not qualify for food stamps or other government assistance to help with food insecurity either. About 53 percent of farmworkers are undocumented. 

Fresno, California is the most productive farm county in the United States, yet it is one of the poorest and most food insecure counties in California. About 20 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. It has one of the largest farmworker populations. It once again proves how farmworkers are treated wrong. They are not getting what they deserve.

Farmworker food insecruity

     This article talks about how many farmworkers are among the most food-insecure populations in the United States. Despite them working in one of the most productive and profitable agricultural regions in the world. Many of them struggle to access enough food for a healthy life. Many of them and their families experience chronic food insecurity and hunger. They say in the article that food insecurity among farmworkers is not a natural occurrence but is structurally produced within the political economy of agriculture. They are often paid very low wages and face seasonal employment, and many of them lack labor rights and workplace protections. Many farmworkers are also undocumented immigrants making them more susceptible to exploitation. 

     This is a systematic issue rooted in economic and social inequalities. The paradox of hunger among food producers highlights the failure of the current agricultural system to provide for those who sustain it. The authors call for policy interventions to improve farmworker wages, labor protections, and access to food assistance programs. 

    I find it interesting that the people who provide us with food and put so much hard work into growing the crops and harvesting them are the ones who are among most food-insecure populations. The authors do a good job at explaining how this is a deliberate outcome of economic and political systems that exploit agricultural labor. I find in every article that we have read so far that all the authors say food is a basic human right and I agree. Everyone should have access to fresh healthy food especially those who are growing it! 

Week 5 Jack

 At the very beginning of the article they do a great job at addressing the idea that people aren’t aware of the “livelihood” of farmers. I think it still is so difficult to determine what food security is, and just as difficult and wrong to put labels on people who are less fortunate. I agree with the idea that this is a “lens through which to consider the highly unequal, uneven dynamics of global agricultural production, trade, and consumption.” Through this idea we can create a better understanding of what led us to current food security issues. While they do admit to little research has been done in regards to hunger and nutrition in the agricultural workforce they do point out the results of recent studies. The FFFSA and California Institute for Rural Studies conducted a survey of 454 farmworkers and focus groups. At the conclusion of this we understand that it’s a bigger challenge than anticipated to study and “put a number” on food security as a national, let alone a global issue. 

Looking into the root cause of food security amongst farmers, the Fresno area in California contributes heavily to this issue. The most productive farm in the US sitting there with a largely debatable amount of underpaid workers being the core is the main issue. With 20% of the population being at or below the federal poverty level it shows the drastic scale of wages we have. It mathematically shouldn’t be possible to make $3.7 billion and let it all get away from the people in that very county. While it may be hard to provide direct house to house data of food security we can see the struggle a majority of farmworkers have by looking at the numbers. The low wages of farmworkers go along with poverty and food insecurity. With the FFFSA finding factors like income, documentation, migratory status and food stamp use all being related to food security I think we need to notice a trend. Income being the largest factor in all this makes sense. I hate to talk about the money part but we can’t ignore it. When I see that homes classified as food insecure average anywhere from $542-$319 a month for income I really am confused. In 4 or 5 days of work, getting paid bi-weekly I can get paid more than this. So the wages are either incredibly, unbelievably, scandalously flawed, or something else is wrong. I know it’s wrong to compare myself and the privilege I’ve had in being able to find “high paying” jobs, but it helps me understand the situation more and this comparison is really difficult to me. I can’t imagine someone supporting a family, living their adult life, feeding kids, anything like that on these wages. When looking at it like this you can’t help but get upset at the people who get to take home even a small percent of that $3.7 billion in sales and be happy with themselves and boast that. It’s a sad system that we really can’t change, we can bring awareness and push as hard as we can until someone “up top” see’s the true issues at hand.

Jake - Farmworker Food Inecurity

Hired agricultural labor and small farmers often can't afford food, and in the US the "hired agricultural labor" is largely Mexicans. There has been a decline in real wages among these hired farm workers. Seasonal workers who often aren't even permanent residents of the U.S. - let alone citizens - have low bargaining power and do not see wage growth. A large part of this is that people are unaware of the existence and size of these people, so they once again have little room to negotiate for themselves. Even if they wouldn't be bargaining for more pay, just the fact that their employers know they can pay poorer wages without as much backlash leads to lower or no wage growth. What would the unacknowledged, undocumented Mexican who you could get deported from the country say if you said you wouldn't be increasing their pay? Nothing, they'd just have to deal with it.

Hunger, a term they specifically chose since they believe "food insecurity" can serve as a sort of euphemism that discredits the severity and humanity of the problem, is in fact very much present in these hired labor populations, with low income being the best predictor of food insecurity. Undocumented workers were also more likely to be hungry than those documented, although the exact data on documented vs undocumented is sketchy (asking people who could be deported if they answer yes makes many people lie and say no instead). Being undocumented also means you cannot receive social program benefits, so the people in most need of aid aren't able to get it here. I will say that extending food stamps to undocumented workers is not a solution, just a band-aid fix. I say this knowing it would very well be a politicized issue, and fighting over extending social welfare to non-Americans isn't as productive as trying to address the reason these people are starving in the first place.

Moving away from the situation of hired laborers, this article also says food sovereignty movements focused on small scale farmers over the hired labor and global peasant class. I believe a large part of this is that Americans, who make up a large part of the discussion we as Americans would see, picture farmers as being the "American Gothic" small farmers and not as the agricultural conglomerate or peasants. We don't view our own country as having peasants. Sure, America had slaves in the past, but peasants were in the medieval era in the Old World, not in Illinois. I'd wager more Americans know what "rizz" means that "Serfdom" does, and I bring this up to illustrate that the American public sphere has a poor understanding of what it means to be a peasant and how big of an issue it is even to this day. This all being said, I believe the idea of food sovereignty would change to focus on peasants when brought up in the context of a region that still has a large peasant class. My conclusion - the only advice I have from looking at the criticism about the small farmer food sovereignty narrative - is that if Americans with influence are looking to help the global situation, they should look into the presence of peasantry globally before trying to change the world assuming the social order in Bolivia mimics that of Montana.

The final topic I would bring up is just how much is going against these predominantly Mexican laborers. First, we have the politicization and othering of hired labor. The current administration has made undocumented and illegal migrants in this country one of the star political issues, to the point that people in the rural Northeastern United States who never would've given it thought now feel as though it is the most dire issue they are facing. I'm not going to discuss the politics behind this, but I bring this up to highlight that these workers have been brought into the public sphere not for the poor conditions they work in, but as a domestic security issue. That is not good news for them and only really serves to make their lives worse. Next, NAFTA let the American market, with its mass subsidies and overproduced crops lowering the price on goods like corn, dominate the Mexican market and run many Mexican farmers out of business. The same people now coming up to the United States to work as a seasonal farmer may well have been farmers in Mexico who lost their jobs because of post-NAFTA farmers rendering these Mexican farmers uncompetitive. Finally, Mexico has had a somewhat remittance reliant economy for a while. This means that the growth is not happening in Mexico, but rather the u United States. In simple terms, the region poor enough to have workers leave the country to go elsewhere to find jobs is seeing less growth since those workers are leaving.  I wouldn't call it a feedback loop, but it is a hindrance that slows Mexico's growth and continues the system leaving so many people hungry. All being said, the reality we are living in does not bode well for these seasonal, often undocumented, agricultural workers in the United States, and their problems of going hungry don't seem to be getting much better any time soon.