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.
No comments:
Post a Comment