Rebalancing power in the food system: some ideas

What kind of food system do we want? Via Campesina, the international movement of small farmer and peasant organisations, proposes that we replace neoliberal economic policies with a more democratic approach to agriculture and food supply - the concept of food sovereignty, or possibly a better term for use in the UK, food democracy.[192] This approach begins from the principle that people, communities and countries have the right to control their own agriculture and food systems. Unlike food security, which suggests only that people should have enough to eat, but fails to address who produces it or how, food sovereignty emphasizes the right of communities to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade to achieve sustainability, guarantee a livelihood for farmers, and ensure the members of that community are fed.

Food sovereignty promotes sustainable, small scale family farm based food production with adequate prices for all farmers, supply management, abolition of export support and the regulation of imports to protect local food production. It emphasises equitable access to land, seeds, water and other productive resources, and the development of local markets and economies rather than export economies. Food sovereignty puts people, access to healthy food and protecting livelihoods above trade and corporate profits. It is not anti-trade, but promotes trade policies and practices that serve people and their right to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable food production. Food sovereignty is a concept that should make sense to farmers and consumers in both the developing and industrialised world.

All are facing rural crises and are feeling the effects of free trade policies and the control that the big food corporations are exerting over the food system.

How are we going to make these changes to the food system? Below are some ideas for starting the process.

There is a growing global lobby, which includes Via Campesina and many other farmer organisations and NGOs, which argues that neoliberal international trade agreements like the GATT should not regulate the trade in agricultural produce and food. They say that there is a clash of economic models and that the dominant model based on liberalisation of agricultural markets and the move towards export-oriented industrial agriculture runs counter to the principle of food sovereignty and the creation of participatory, sustainable and locally controlled food systems.

The cracks are showing in the WTO trade negotiation process, which is currently at a standstill on agriculture issues after the failed talks in Cancun. Direct action by farmers and activists from the environmental and social justice movement at recent WTO meetings has not only been effective in raising public awareness of the injustices of the international trade rules but has effectively confronted those in power and delegitimised the WTO process. The presence of thousands of farmers and activists protesting at WTO meetings has opened a political space and strengthened the resolve of the developing countries to hold out against the demands of the US and Europe for everincreasing trade liberalisation. While the G20+ group of developing countries is focused on reform of the trade rules, grassroots farmers' organisations, academics and NGOs are filling the vacuum in the negotiation process with proposals for alternative ways forward for the global food supply which embody the ideals of food democracy.

Corporations have acquired a tremendous amount of power without society even noticing. They have acquired legal rights, for example the same legal standing as human beings - 'corporate personhood' - yet have very few responsibilities. The big food corporations have successfully used their power to privatise decision making about who controls the food system and how it operates.

Corporations are required by law to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Ultimately, this means the only interest corporations are supposed to consider is that of maximising profits in order to pay dividends to shareholders. Since corporate lobbying also follows this rule - attempting to promote policies which permit higher profits - at present corporations function as an independent interest group in political decision-making, whose interests over-ride those of farmers, workers, consumers etc..

Legal reform transferring ultimate control over a corporation's actions from the shareholders to the people affected by its actions - workers, local communities, customers etc. - would remove this idea of profit as a separate interest group and open the way to the development of a more sustainable and democratic food system. Coupled with the removal of corporate personhood rights and the imposition of full legal responsibility for corporations' actions, such restructuring could throw into question the very need for multinational corporations and lead to their replacement with human-scale organisations. While dismantling corporations may seem like the most difficult solution to the corporate domination which is causing the farming crisis, it is the only solution in our view that will realistically make space needed for creating a truly democratic food system.

There is very little practical chance of corporations regulating themselves, given that they are in business solely to make a profit and are under constant pressure from shareholders to increase their profitability. Whatever spin their PR departments choose to put out, corporations cannot consider the interests of workers, suppliers, local communities or the environment where these might be detrimental to profits. This makes a mockery of the idea that voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility could in any sense be an effective way to control corporate power.

For example, the UK's biggest supermarkets have failed miserably to comply with the government's voluntary Supermarket Code of Practice, aimed at stamping out unfair practices in relation to suppliers.[201] The recent refusal of the leading UK supermarkets to disclose information has scuppered a government funded project, 'Race to the Top', which aimed to compare and publish the social, health, ethical and environmental track records of the supermarkets as a way of providing incentives for better working practices.[202]

What about legislative reform of the activities of the corporations within the food system? There are certainly plenty of ideas around for the development of new legal rules to curb corporate power.[203] But changing attitudes and policy in government involves overcoming not only the entrenched policymaker mindset that says that free trade and globalisation are inevitable but also the powerful vested interests of the multinational corporations.

So let's not get too excited at the prospect of actually getting any of these new rules onto the statute book in the near future. Obstacles include the present climate of support for neoliberal trade policies, the power of corporate lobbying and the 'revolving door' corruption between corporate management and policymaking bodies at both the national and global level on agriculture and food policy.

For example, according to Oxfam America, US agribusiness mainly lobbies on three policy areas: domestic farm policies that encourage oversupply and low prices; competition policy that does not threaten levels of corporate concentration; and policies that protect private property and investment and give equal treatment to domestic and foreign firms.[204] Which are of course exactly the policy issues that food activists think need the most urgent attention.

While we do not believe that tinkering at the edges with regulation will lead to democratisation of the food system without the nature and structure of the corporation also being directly addressed, some strong regulation could help to loosen the grip of the corporations on the food chain and mitigate their worst excesses, while we continue to work on dismantling them. Two ways forward that to some extent address the systemic change needed are supply management and competition regulation.

Many agricultural economists and analysts believe that a system of supply management is the only way to ensure fair allocation of resources based on providing for people's food needs and giving a fair price for farmers. Supply management involves the control of imports, production, and pricing.

In Canada, where supply management has been in place in certain sectors since the 1970s, it has evolved into a comprehensive system involving agricultural production quotas, producer marketing boards and import controls which regulate and stabilise both the supply level and the prices farmers receive for their poultry, turkey, eggs, and milk products. A comparison of the chicken sectors in Canada where supply management is in place and the US where farmers are at the mercy of the free market shows that Canadian chicken farmers receive significantly higher farm prices.[205]

Daryll Ray of the University of Tennessee has proposed a new agriculture policy for the US which aims to increase market prices globally through the use of supply management tools; paying farmers to take land out of production (set-aside), inventory reserves (when prices fall below a threshold level farmers would be paid to store crops and when prices rose above the threshold they would be paid to sell their reserve stocks) and price supports activated when crop prices fall below a threshold level. Although the policy is specifically designed to control US agricultural production, according to Ray it would have immediate effects on world prices because the US is such an important crop exporter, though it could only be sustained in the long term if other major exporters such as Europe implemented supply management as well.[206]

But let's not be under any illusion about the difficulties of getting proposals to manage the food supply and raise farmgate prices onto the national or global agenda. According to free trade rhetoric supply management tools are a barrier to trade and therefore to be phased out under the AoA. Supply management proposals will also face the full force of the lobbying power of the big food corporations whose interests are best served by an oversupply of commodities at low prices. Canada has been under constant pressure, as a signatory to NAFTA and the AoA, to lower or eliminate the quotas that protect Canadian farm prices. US agribusiness in particular has lobbied effectively to scupper all attempts at supply management in the US.

The International Coffee Agreement, which set global production levels and prices for coffee, was effectively sabotaged by the US when it pulled out of the agreement; the International Grains Agreement which was set up to maintain minimum world prices for wheat and other grains was undermined by the big grain traders; and the Harkin- Gephardt Save the Family Farm bill which aimed to limit US crop production and raise farm prices was defeated before it got onto the statute book by a consortium of agribusiness corporations.[207]

The focus of neoliberal policies on international competitivity at all costs has allowed corporations free access to all markets, enabling them to wipe out or buy out competing businesses. The resulting mergers and acquisitions in the food sector have reduced competition and increased the market power (and profits) of the small number of surviving multinational corporations. But these profits (made at the expense of suppliers, including farmers) are not being passed on to consumers, suggesting that competition policy is not working.

Currently UK competition policy is intended to maximise the efficient use of resources and to transfer the benefits of these efficiencies to consumers. It focuses solely on the seller's relationship with consumers and the provision of value for money to consumers. Competition law defines a monopoly as a business that has greater than 25% of national market share.

But there are a number of failings with the current policy. It fails to take account of the biggest factor affecting consumers, that a small number of big supermarkets essentially control the food retail market, creating what is technically known as an oligopoly, a situation which diminishes competition. For example, while Tesco has a massive 26.8% of the market, it is even more worrying that between them the four largest supermarkets control over 75% of food retail.

When they lobby government on policy issues supermarkets frequently speak with one voice, through lobby organisations such as the British Retail Consortium.

While UK competition policy protects the consumer, at least to some extent, it does nothing to protect farmers, who are faced with a marketplace in which there are a very small number of buyers for their produce, technically called an oligopsony. While there is fierce competition between farmers for markets for their produce, the relatively much smaller number of big food processors and supermarkets can shop around the world, forcing down the price paid for agricultural produce and imposing onerous conditions on farmers.

The dismantling of these food corporation oligopolies/oligopsonies through tough competition regulations at both the national and global level and the prevention of further concentration in the food sector through limits on mergers and acquisitions are key steps toward reducing corporate power while ensuring that farmers worldwide can earn a living and that consumers have access to affordable food.

It's likely to take considerable time for the rules to change so that the power balance in the food system shifts away from corporations in favour of a more democratic food system, but the creation of new food networks which operate outside the corporate controlled food system and embody the ideals of food democracy has already started.

What is localisation? According to Colin Hines, localisation reverses the trend of globalisation by discriminating in favour of the local, 'what can sensibly be produced within a nation or a region should be. Long distance trade should supply only what cannot be produced within the local economy'. [211] Its proponents say localisation of the food supply would give farmers a bigger share of the money spent on food, provide communities with affordable healthy food, increase environmental protection, improve livelihoods and help revitalise local communities.[212] Colin Hines, together with Green MEP Caroline Lucas and small farmer Michael Hart, has developed proposals which aim to keep food production closer to the point of consumption, help protect small farmers and rebuild local economies.

They have redrafted both EU policy (replacing the Treaty of Rome with the Treaty of Localisation) and the rules of the WTO (replacing the GATT with the General Agreement on Sustainable Trade (GAST)) to change the current emphasis on the prioritisation of international competitiveness and free trade to policies that promote a more sustainable and equitable economic system by prioritising the rebuilding of local economies.[213]

To increase their bargaining power farmers have for many years formed co-operatives and producer groups - the idea is that with more to sell they can demand a better price and fairer terms of trade.

The NFU has suggested that UK farmers should join forces with farmers from other countries to form farmer-controlled global businesses or 'trans-national co-ops' to challenge the global power of the corporations. [214]

However, it is hard to see how these farmer-owned businesses operating in the global food system will be able to gain enough power to guarantee farmers a fair price, unless the power of the big food corporations is significantly curbed.

Co-operative ways of working do however have many benefits for farmers, retailers and consumers working to create a more participatory and democratic communitybased food system.

They provide businesses with organising structures that are democratically controlled, putting into practice the principles of social justice and equal opportunity. They are locally owned, creating and retaining profits and jobs within their communities. They operate in the competitive market, while combining commercial and social objectives (see also 'Creating new models for the food system').

New community-based food networks are being developed that take power away from the corporate-controlled food system. They support locally adapted, environmentally friendly, socially responsible farming and celebrate the diversity of alternatives to current farming practice. They provide healthy, affordable, nutritious food and increase co-operation and build more direct links between producers and consumers. There are a myriad of possible ways to embody these principles of community food systems, including farmers markets, producer groups, growers co-operatives, food co-operatives and community supported agriculture.[215]

Supermarkets have come to dominate our food buying habits. They provide the illusion of convenience, choice and value for money making it difficult for many consumers to see how they can make the switch to more socially and ecologically sound buying habits.[216]

Supermarkets are of course responsive to consumer demands, for example banning GM food and stocking organic, fair trade and to some extent 'local' foods.

In fact any area they can see a profitable market niche. These incorporating tendencies of the supermarkets however tend to take business away from those who were the innovators in these niche markets, the small producers and suppliers who are the backbone of community food networks.

There needs to be a shift in our relationship with the food system, from passive consumers to responsible citizens; ready to make informed choices, prepared to bypass brands in supermarkets and to enter into more ecologically and socially responsible direct buying arrangements with farmers and small suppliers, through farmers markets, farm shops, box schemes, local shops, food cooperatives etc. while we may have to nip into the supermarket occasionally for something we have forgotten; as food citizens and consumers of food we all have a part to play in creating and supporting community food networks so that they can become more than just niche markets but actually become the reality of our food system.

As we build these alternative food networks and create models of what a more democratic food system might look like, as Dave Henson says, 'we must be clear that the corporations can be and always are ruthless in buying out, making illegal, marginalising or destroying people's most successful efforts at getting off their treadmill.[217] In other words, while we develop these alternatives they will forever remain just 'alternatives' unless we at the same time dismantle the mechanisms of corporate rule that block these alternatives being the norm.

The National Farmer's Union does not represent the interests of the majority of the UK's small and family farmers. It is instead dancing to the tune of the biggest farmers and the food industry.[220] There are many organisations representing small and family farmers in the UK, including the Farmers' Union of Wales, Family Farmers Association, Small Farms Association, Small and Family Farms Alliance, Tenant Farmers Association, Farmers for Action and FARM, who are starting to develop a more radical analysis of the causes of the farming crisis, but no one organisation has yet gained the critical mass to take on the NFU.[221] Perhaps the best way forward is for these organisations to find their common ground and form an alliance that will create a powerful rallying point for disaffected farmers.

Farmers around the world are fighting back. Small farmers from the Philippines and Brazil to France and Canada are mobilising to fight for their survival and are at the forefront of the movement against economic globalisation and the liberalisation of trade.[222] A common analysis of the causes of the global crisis in farming is crystallising among farmers and farmworkers in both the developing and industrialised world. This is helping to increase farmers' power and create a focus for building a stronger movement.[223]

Whether from despair or anger farmers around the world also seem increasingly ready to take direct action to challenge governments, wealthy landowners and multinational corporations; including the landless workers movement (MST) in Brazil, the Zapatistas in Mexico, landless farmers in Zimbabwe, French farmers' union Confederation Paysanne and Farmers for Action in the UK.[224] Some farmer movements have used direct action not just to highlight their cause and confront those in power, but in some cases also to embody the alternative agriculture and food system they want to see. Direct action is an effective way to make change happen; the landless peasants of the MST in Brazil have brought about substantive land reform by squatting and farming unused land.

The possibility of farmers gaining sufficient power to overturn the might of the multinational food corporations on their own is slim, especially in industrialised countries where farmer numbers are shrinking. The future lies in building an alliance between farmers, farmworkers, activists in the environmental and social justice movement, food industry workers and consumers, who share a common analysis of the causes of the farming crisis and are ready to work together to create systemic change and take back control of our food and agriculture systems.

References
[192] Via Campesina and others (2001) Our World is Not for Sale: Priority to Peoples' Food Sovereignty. www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/agri/Statements /03.htm; Viewed 12/2/04
[193] Willis Peterson (1997) 'Are large farms more efficient?' Staff paper P97-2 University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl? paperid=130&ftype;=.pdf; Viewed 2/3/04; Brian Halweil (2000) Where have all the farmers gone? World Watch Institute www.worldwatch.org/ pubs/mag/2000/135/; Viewed 5/1/04; Small farms http://journeytoforever.org/farm.html Viewed 5/1/04
[194] Peter Rosset (1999) The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture, Food First www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html; Viewed 5/1/04
[195] Turning Point Project The Myth of Efficiency www.turnpoint.org/efficiency.doc; Viewed 2/3/04
[196] USDA (1998) A Time to Act: A report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms www.reeusda.gov/smallfarm/report.htm; Viewed 5/1/04
[197] Peter Rosset (1999) The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture', www.foodfirst. org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html; Viewed 5/1/04
[198] Peter Rosset (1999) The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture', www.foodfirst. org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html ; Viewed 5/1/04
[199] Brian Halweil (2000) Where Have All the Farmers Gone? World Watch Institute www.worldwatch. org/pubs/mag/2000/135/; Viewed 5/1/04
[200] Andrew Kimbrell (ed) (2002) Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, Washington : Island Press
[201] Friends of the Earth Media Briefing 'Alliance Calls for New Supermarket Code and Watchdog' January 22 2004
[202] 'Supermarkets fail to cooperate on green assessment project' The Food Magazine 64 p17 Jan/March 2004
[203] See for example The New Rules Project www.newrules.org
[204] Oxfam America (2003) Agriculture Inc: Small farmers plowed under by big business boom cited in Bill Vorley (2003) Food, Inc. Corporate concentration from farmer to consumer UK Food Group www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/243/ 1; Viewed 12/2/04
[205] Brian Levy (2000) When the Farmer Makes the Rules The New Rules Fall 2000 www.newrules. org/journal/nrfall00farmer.html; Viewed 12/2/04
[206] Daryll Ray et al (2003) Rethinking US Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer livelihoods worldwide, University of Tennessee http://agpolicy.org/blueprint/APAC%20Report%208- 20-03%20WITH%20COVER.pdf; Viewqed 12/2/04
[207] Bill Vorley (2003) Food Inc:Corporate concentration from farm to consumer UK Food Group www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/243/ 1; Viewed 12/2/04
[208] The New Rules Project 'Double price labelling' www.newrules.org/agri/double.html; Viewed 12/2/04
[209] Contact Grassroots Action on Food and Farming for more information (see 'Resources on food and farming' section)
[210] Friends of the Earth Press Briefing 'Alliance calls for new supermarket code and watchdog' January 22 2004
[211] Colin Hines (2000) Localization: A Global Manifesto, London : Earthscan
[212] Helena Norberg-Hodge, Todd Merrifield and Stephen Gorelick (2003) Bringing the Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global Agribusiness London : Zed Books
[213] Caroline Lucas, Michael Hart and Colin Hines (2002) Look to the Local: A better Agriculture is Possible! www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/publications/ indexCAPreport.htm; Viewed 12/2/04
[214] NFU press release 'Farmers must club together in face of globalisation' June 30 2003
[215] For more information see Foundation for Local Food Initiatives www.localfood.org.uk; Viewed 5/1/04: Food Circles Networking Project http://foodcircles. missouri.edu; Viewed 5/1/04
[216] Corporate Watch (2003) What's Wrong with Supermarkets? www.corporatewatch.org.uk/pages/whats_wro ng_suprmkts.htm; Viewed 12/2/04
[217] Andrew Kimbrell (ed) (2002) Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, Washington : Island Press
[218] See for example: Miguel A. Altieri, Agroecology: Principles and Strategies for designing Sustainable Farming Systems, University of California http://agroeco.org/fatalharvest/articles/principles_an d_strategies.htm; Viewed 12/2/04; Soil Association www.soilassociation.org ; Viewed 12/2/04 Permaculture Association www.permaculture .org.uk; Viewed 12/2/04 Biodynamic Agricultural Association www.biodynamic.org.uk; Viewed 12/2/04 Vegan Organic Trust www.veganorganic. supanet.com/trust.htm; Viewed 12/2/04
[219] Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine (2001) Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence, University of Essex http://www2.essex .ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/CESOccasionalPaper s/SAFErepSUBHEADS. Htm : Viewed 12/2/04
[220] Corporate Watch (2003) The National Farmers Union: Friend to Big Business, not to Small Farmers, Corporate Watch www.corporatewatch. org.uk/profiles/nfu/nfu.htm: Viewed 6/1/04
[221] For contact details of these organisations see 'Resources on food and farming' section
[222] See for example Via Campesina www.viacampesina. org/welcome_english.php3 ;Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) www.mstbrazil. org/; National Farmers Union of Canada www.nfu.ca/; Confederation Paysanne www.confederationpaysanne.fr/;
[223] Via Campesina and others (2001) Our World is Not for Sale: Priority to Peoples' Food Sovereignty. www.ourworldisnotforsale.org/agri/Statements /03.htm; Viewed 12/2/04
[224] For more information see the following websites www.mstbrazil.org/; www.zapatistas. org/; http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/05/01/ zimbabwe/index.html; www.confederation paysanne.fr/; www.farmersforaction.org/