1

Understanding Links Between Food and Social Justice as Expressed Through Food Sovereignty

Introduction
Up till the advent of capitalism and the industrialization of food production and agrarian processes,
the right to access food was essentially "imbedded in social relations within each society through a
variety of redistributive mechanisms" (Spitz 1985). However, the 20th century and beyond has been
witness to direct attacks on the sovereignty of communities to manage their food systems from a
cartel of transnational corporations, international financial institutions, think-tanks, philanthropic
organizations and geopolitical entities. Consequently, food sovereignty has arisen as a concerted
international grassroots movement to challenge a global food regime, and reclaim the power to
produce food for a future defined by human dignity and prosperity.
This essay critically evaluates the various facets of the reigning paradigm linking food and social
justice in a broader scheme of things rather than within the scope of specific case studies. The
undercurrent of food sovereignty is explored in an ontologically constructive manner, which
demanded more philosophical insight and reflection into the subject matter. However, varied
examples taken from journals, reports, books and news articles have been used throughout to
illustrate the analytical thought process.

Social Justice and Food

Rawls (1999) weighs in the principles of social justice as the rights and duties assigned through social
institutions for an equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.
Therefore, social justice demands a form of a social contract, as advanced in the philosophical
treatises of social thinkers such as Kant, Rousseau and Locke, and thus becomes a case of "rational
prudence applied to an aggregative conception of the welfare of the group" (Rawls 1999, pg. 21).
Hence, when the welfare of communities is at stake, such as due to increasing food insecurity and
malnutrition (Greenberg 2010), inequality in addressing basic human needs becomes more acute
(Basok et al. 2006) and freedom from want and oppression as well as "access to equal opportunity"
are compromised (Allen 2008, pg. 158), the indicators of social justice worsen. The state's failure as a
guarantor further disenfranchises traditional food producers, creating space for alternative food
movements to coalesce and challenge the dominant neoliberal food regime (Patel 2009).

The Struggle to Define Food Sovereignty

La Via Campesina defined food sovereignty as the right of each nation to maintain and develop its
own capacity to produce its basic foods respecting cultural and productive diversity during its
second international conference in April 1996, in Mexico (Claeys 2013, pg. 3). Via Campesina is the
world's leading peasant farmer-led grassroots organization and grew out of Latin American social
movements such as those in Brazil, Mexico and Ecuador during the 1980s and 1990s that confronted
the neoliberal and oligarchic policies of globalist entities such as the World Trade Organization

2
(WTO) as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). After bearing the brunt of the
conditionality measures and structural adjustment programs of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), it finally emerged as a social "movement, not just a mere
coordination" at the turn of the century (Torres and Rosset 2010, pg. 159). Henceforth, new human
rights, referred to as the "rights master frame," would shape the "cosmopolitan, multicultural, and
anti-hegemonic" assertions of a transnational agrarian movement (Claeys 2012).
It was in the setting of the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) World Food Summit of 1996
that food sovereignty was formally expressed by Via Campesina as being integral for ensuring social
justice on a global scale (Hickey and Mitta 2003). The statement by the NGO Forum, representing
1,200 such organizations, stressed upon the de jure recognition of food sovereignty as a basic human
right and not as an "international political weapon" (FAO 1996).

The Green "Mean" Revolution

Where the Marxist revolutions in Russia and China were acts of imposing an ideological and political
framework on "value systems and ways of life of entire populations" (Fukuyama 1992), the 'Green
Revolution' of the 1960s and 1970s was an assault on the ecological systems supporting human life
itself (Shiva, 1991). In an apparent response to the food shortage crisis prevailing in Mexico in the
early 1940s, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) initiated an agriculture research program to improve
the yields of the basic food crops, (Kohler 2009, pg. 52). However, the program failed to adapt the
hybrid seeds to the Mexican agricultural milieu and was modified to carry forward those elements
that had already been Americanized (Fitzgerald 1968), whereby leading to the establishment of the
International Centre for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) in 1966. Its wheat lines were
credited with enabling Pakistan and India to avert mass starvation, eventually becoming selfsufficient in having their food production surpass the rate of population growth (CIMMYT 2015,
Kohler 2009). But this was to come at the cost of a heavy dependence on chemical fertilizer inputs,
which in addition to decreasing soil fertility, incurred price hikes during gas shortages in 2010-11,
with the burden passing on to the farmers and consumers, leading to food inflation, poverty and
worsening socioeconomic indicators (Omar 2011).

Ideological Invasion of Food Sovereignty

Malthus (1798) had voiced fears that geometrically increasing human populations would outpace
the arithmetically governed food supply, whereby burdening the planet's natural resources. Even
though Malthus overtly asserted, rather than demonstrated, the causal link between population and
natural resource scarcity (Barnett and Morse 2011), his views formed the basis of a Hegelian
dialectic surrounding the links between human population, social justice and food sovereignty. The
thesis thus is that increasing populations will not be able to feed and support themselves and thus
industrial means have to be employed under a technological elite to deliver the required volumes
(Ross 2003). The antithesis dictates that social inequalities, conflicts and famines, purportedly having
resulted from a runaway population explosion, caused environmental degradation and natural

3
resource depletion. The synthesis that emerges is that unabated human existence itself is the root of
the problem.

Public Enemy: Humanity

The founding of the Club of Rome in 1968 brought together prominent and influential statesmen,
businessmen, scientists, economists to deliberate upon "The Predicament of Mankind" (Roebuck
2012). The Club's publication The Limits to Growth asserted rising population levels as directly
responsible for ecological disruption through the demand for food, labelling it as the "world
problematique" and laying the onus of responsibility on developing countries (Meadows et al. 1972).
However, the second publication Mankind at the Turning Point conveyed the antithesis to the
problematique; looming environmental and economic disasters were dependent on factors within
human control, and were thus preventable (Mesarovic and Pestel 1974). The synthesis or final
solution to the problematique was presented as the "world resolutique" in The First Global
Revolution. Calamities such as resource scarcity, famines and global warming are merely symptoms
and not causes of the problem and thus do not suffice as a common enemy against whom the world
can unite. What emerges is that the "real enemy is humanity itself" and so constitutes "a common
threat that must be confronted by everyone together" (King and Schneider 1991, pg. 75).

WTO's Attack on Food Sovereignty

Properly managed local, national as well as regional food and grain reserves are key for enhancing
food security and price stability (ActionAid 2011). In a sort of a catch-22 situation, the volatility of
agricultural prices intensifies the climate of uncertainty surrounding farmers' decisions, delaying
investment and related revenue streams (UNEP 2009), whereby adversely affecting the
replenishment of local food reserves. WTO's 'one-size-fits-all' approach towards global agriculture,
especially in developing countries, erodes food sovereignty and weakens social justice (Watkins and
Mahmood 2005).
This situation becomes all the more acute when initially an influx of cheap foodstuffs drives the
prices below the cost of production, consequently putting family farmers and peasants out of a
livelihood (Rosset 2006). Such practices are overtly facilitated by the WTO's Uruguay Round progeny,
the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which essentially enables cartels of transnational
agribusinesses, such as Monsanto, Cargill and Dupont to benefit from taxpayer funded government
subsidies to exploit economies of scale in food production (NFFC 2003). The AoA enables global food
corporations, amongst others, to bypass domestic market protection mechanisms, such as price
control policies, and "dump" surplus food (Murphy 2005). AoA's Article 4 mandates that member
nations have to do away with any border control measures that "restrict the volume or distort the
price of imports of agricultural products" and be replaced by regular customs duties that are more
geared towards unfettered market access (WTO 1994).

Intellectual Property Abhors Biodiversity and Breeds Inequality

4
Plant and agricultural biodiversity is both the backbone and the safety net of the food security and
sovereignty of communities across the world. However, hybrid seeds developed under the
Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) consortium of research centres
have served as mini Trojan horses in hijacking access to indigenous seed varieties and agrarian
knowledge. The magnanimously dubbed 'Miracle' rice seeds developed by the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) destroyed around 4,000 traditional rice cultivars alone (GRAIN and PEAC
2010), thus earning the former the reprehensible moniker of 'Seeds of Imperialism' (Shiva 1992, pg.
44). Such seeds were the veritable harbingers of the invasion of industrial agricultural technologies
such as petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides and farming machinery that subjected not just the local
growers but also the consumers to a form of corporate colonialism.

Terminating the Right to Food Sovereignty

In recent years, not only have the trusses of social justice around food been weakened, but have also
been made a mockery of. It is quite inexplicable that by modifying or inserting a single gene in a
plant, especially an edible one such as wheat, soy bean or corn, one can file a patent for ownership
of the entire organism as if it had been created anew (Shiva 2013). In a bid to safeguard the
intellectual property (IP) rights of its genetically modified seedsMonsanto Company was on the
verge of acquiring a "Technology Protection System" in 1998 that would essentially "terminate" a
seed in the successive generation of the original parent GMO seed. Monsanto reportedly refrained
from commercializing the "terminator technology" amidst a flurry of worldwide protests from
farmers that rely on saving seed each season to sustain their livelihood (Ohlgart 2002, pg. 477).
Even though Monsanto claims to have upheld its commitment since 1999 of not having
commercialized sterile seed technology (Monsanto 2015), it could still be prompted to resort to
employing it if patent control begins to fail (Ledford 2013). Moreover, Tiruvadi Jagadisan, the former
director of Monsanto India revealed in 2010 that the company has a history of falsifying scientific
data in order to get approval, casting further doubt on Monsanto's claims and credibility (Sharma
2010).

Codex Alimentarius
The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the United Nations is one body that can be credited with
ushering in a 'New Food Order' for the world at large. Under the pretext of food safety standards,
the Codex is going to serve as the ultimate challenge to food sovereignty and social justice. Having
been elevated from a voluntary agency since its creation in 1963 to a global regulatory agency by the
WTO Appellate Body in the last two decades, the Codex is "part of a more general trend of
transferring power from national governments to international organizations" in a legal and binding
framework (Livermore 2006, pg. 769). The Codex is creating a precarious slope for future food
sovereignty to tread on, where "technocratic rationality and universal claims of science" trump
consumer food choice and personal freedom (Winickoff and Bushey 2010, pg. 360).
The indefatigability of the human will is indeed admirable and would be our only hope if we are to
avert a future portrayed in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where humans are grown from

5
embryos in a giant incubator facility and fed food through tubes. As one of the characters after
witnessing it remarks, "even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even
science" (Huxley 1932). Certainly not Humanity.

References
1. ActionAid. 2011. Food for thought: How the G20 can help prevent a new food crisis.
Available at http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/food_for_thought_to_print.pdf
[Accessed 20 May 2015]
2. Allen, P. 2008. Mining for justice in the food system: perceptions, practices, and possibilities.
Agriculture and Human Values 25(2) pp. 157-161
3. Barnett, H. J. and Morse, C. 2011. Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource
Availability. New York: Earthscan
4. Basok, T. et al. 2006. Citizenship, Human Rights, and Social Justice. Citizenship Studies 10(3),
pp. 267-273
5. CIMMYT. 2015. Our History. Available at http://www.cimmyt.org/en/who-we-are/ourhistory [Accessed 17 May 2015]
6. Claeys, P. 2012. The Creation of New Rights by the Food Sovereignty Movement: The
Challenge of Institutionalizing Subversion. Sociology 46 (5), pp. 844-860
7. Claeys, P. 2013. From Food Sovereignty to Peasants Rights: an Overview of La Via
Campesinas Rights-Based Claims over the Last 20 Years. In Food Sovereignty: A Critical
Dialogue. International Conference Yale University, September 14-15, 2013. New Haven:
Program in Agrarian Studies, Yale University
8. FAO. 1996. Statement by the NGO Forum to the World Food Summit. Available at
http://www.fao.org/wfs/begin/paral/cngo-e.htm [Accessed 16 May 2015]
9. Fitzgerald, D. 1968. Exporting American Agriculture: The Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico,
1943-53. Social Studies of Science 16(3), pp. 457-483
10. Fukuyama, F. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Macmillan, The Free
Press
11. Grain and PEAC. 2010. From green to gene revolution: How farmers lost control of the seeds
from agricultural modernisation. Available at http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4151from-green-to-gene-revolution-how-farmers-lost-control-of-the-seeds-from-agriculturalmodernisation.pdf [Accessed 19 April 2015]
12. Greenberg, M. 2010. Food Pantries, Poverty and Social Justice. American Journal of Public
Health 100(11), pp. 2021-2022

6
13. Hickey, E. and Mittal, A. 2003. Voices from the South: The Third World Debunks Corporate
Myths on Genetically Engineered Crops. Food First/Institute for Food and Development
Policy and Pesticide Action Network North America
14. Huxley, A. 1932. Brave New World. London: Chatto and Windus
15. King, A. and Schneider, B. 1991. The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the
Club of Rome. Orient Longman
16. Kohler, J. S. 2009. The Green Revolution: Rockefeller Foundation, 1943. In: Fleishman, J et al.
Casebook for The Foundation: A Great American Secret. 1st ed. New York: Perseus Books
Group, pp. 51-57
17. Ledford, H. 2013. Seed-patent case in Supreme Court: Loss of patent control could rekindle
terminator technology [Online]. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/seed-patentcase-in-supreme-court-1.12445 [Accessed 17 May 2015]
18. Livermore, M. A. 2006. Authority and legitimacy in global governance: Deliberation,
institutional differentiation, and the codex alimentarius. New York University Law Review,
881, pp. 766-801
19. Malthus, T. R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population.
20. Meadows, D. H. et al. 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report for The Club Of Rome's Project on
the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books
21. Mesarovic, M. and Pestel, E. 1974. Mankind at the Turning Point. New York: New American
Library
22. Monsanto. 2015. Myth: Monsanto Sells Terminator Seeds [Online]. Available at
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/terminator-seeds.aspx [Accessed 17 May
2015]
23. Murphy, S. et al. 2005. WTO Agreement on Agriculture: A Decade of Dumping. Minneapolis:
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
24. NFCC (National Family Farm Coalition). 2003. Towards Food Sovereignty: Constructing an
Alternative to the World Trade Organizations Agreement on Agriculture [Online]. Available
at http://nffc.net/Farmers%20Worldwide/FoodSovereignty_anAlternative.pdf [Accessed 15
May 2015]
25. Ohlgart, S. M. 2002. The Terminator Gene: Intellectual Property Rights Vs. The Farmers'
Common Law Right to Save Seed. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 7, pp. 473-492
26. Omar, A. 2011. Do we have an alternative? Excessive use of chemical fertilizers has badly
damaged
agricultural
land.
The
News
24
July
2011.
Available
at
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2011-weekly/nos-24-07-2011/pol1.htm#5 [Accessed 17 May
2015]

7
27. Oxfam 2005. Food aid or hidden dumping? Separating wheat from chaff. Oxfam Briefing
Paper 71. Available at http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp71_food_aid.pdf
[Accessed 15 May 2015]
28. Patel, R. 2009. Food Sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36(3), pp. 663-706
29. Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised Ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
30. Roebuck, K. 2012. Business Impact Analysis (BIA): High-impact Strategies - What You Need to
Know: Definitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benefits, Maturity, Vendors. Online: Emereo
Publishing E-Book
31. Ross, E. B. 2003. Malthusianism, Capitalist Agriculture, and the Fate of Peasants in the
Making of the Modern World Food System. Review of Radical Political Economics 35(4), pp.
437-461
32. Rosset, P. M. 2006. Food is different: why we must get the WTO out of agriculture. London:
Zed Books
33. Sharma, D. C. 2010. Monsanto 'faked' data for approvals claims its ex-chief [Online].
Available
at
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Monsanto+%27faked%27+data+for+approvals+claims+its
+ex-chief/1/83093.html [Accessed 17 May 2015]
34. Shiva, V. 1991. The Violence of Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and
Politics. London: Zed Books
35. Shiva, V. 2013. Seeds of suicide and slavery versus seeds of life and freedom [Online].
Available
at
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332813553729250.html [Accessed
17 May 2015]
36. Spitz, P. 1985. The right to food in historical perspective. Food Policy 10(4), pp. 306-316
37. Torres, M. E. M. and Rosset, P. M. 2010. La Va Campesina: the birth and evolution of a
transnational social movement. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1), pp. 149 175
38. UNEP. 2009. The environmental food crisis The environments role in averting future food
crises. Norway: United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal
39. Watkins, K and Mahmood, A. 2005. WTO Negotiations on Agriculture: What Can Be
Achieved. In: Lines, T. Ed. Agricultural Commodities, Trade and Sustainable Development.
Hertfordshire: Earthprint, pp. 41-66
40. Winickoff, D. E. and Bushey, D. M. 2010. Science and power in global food regulation: the
rise of the codex alimentarius. Science, Technology & Human Values 35(3), pp. 356-381.
41. WTO (World Trade Organization) 1994. Agreement on Agriculture [Online]. Available at
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/agriculture_01_e.htm#articl
e4A [Accessed 14 May 2015]