Towards food (in)security?
Troy Stozek
Photo by David Lipnowski.
National deficit and inefficiencies in the public sector are often used as a trump card by industry to justify further privatization, deregulation and market liberalization. In doing so, we tend to sacrifice more civil liberties than we end up securing. Many of these losses revolve around our most basic human needs, like food.
A major outcome of corporate monopolization and economic and political clout is food insecurity. This is a serious public issue as close to you and me as our next meal, even here on campus.
“Food security” is a concept almost as simple as our need for food for survival. It is about making healthy food accessible to all — food that promotes diverse cultures, supports local economies, facilitates sustainable production techniques and builds community.
However, as health and safety are being compromised by both industry and the government, food security does not exist.
Though many will contest until they’re blue in the face that the market ultimately dictates what consumers want and need most, this is a falsity, especially in an unchecked, deregulated, privatized, “free market” economy, where monopolies and oligopolies roam free.
Monopolies are illustrative of what economists refer to as market failures — conditions in which the market fails to accurately reflect supply and demand. Ultimately, monopolies are bad for markets, and thus consumers. If they exist, competition and choice do not. Market failures illustrated by the existence of monopolies are at the heart of why we are progressing away from food security.
In Canada, nearly complete market control over the food industry is held by and within a small gamut of transnational corporations. The likes of Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and General Mills own and control almost the entire meat packing and shipping industry, the grain processing and shipping industry and the retailing industry together and respectively. As a result, they can effectively prescribe prices the market will bear and swallow up smaller competitors through mergers and acquisitions.
The government has even handed off the authority to the likes of the aforementioned companies to conduct their own research into the health and safety of their products. It may be efficient, but how safe does it make you feel?
So, while perusing through most large grocery or retail stores, it is not uncommon to see entire aisles of food with different brands and identities all owned by the same company. There are fewer actual choices than you think. All the while, the safety of consuming these products has been determined by the same folks who are trying to sell them to you.
Closer to home, Aramark, an international food distributing firm, is the wielder of a monopoly contract over the food services being supplied at the U of M. Supplying cheap, generic food to the masses, Aramark is commonly known for its presence on university campuses, among other sectors, such as health care institutions. Their contract with the U of M prevents others who might want to provide similar (or even superior) food service from accessing the market on campus. What’s the big deal?
It isn’t a big deal, I guess, if one is only concerned with efficiency, low prices and limited choices, all of which Aramark surely provides to the university. But is that all that food is, efficiency and low prices?
Food is the essence of life, the facilitator of learning, sharing, community, spirituality, religion and culture. For anyone who has ever grown their own food from seed to fruit to fork and spoon, the lessons learned in responsibility, patience, creativity, generosity and even humility all lead to a divine respect and appreciation for that food. But, within the present monopoly-dominated framework, food has been reduced to something people can only relate to through brand names.
If not taking part in the growing of fruit and vegetables or the raising of cows, chickens or pigs, striving towards food security is about reclaiming our civil right in the food chain, taking responsibility and pride in preserving or enhancing the way food is produced, distributed and consumed in a way that best serves the public interest.
It’s easy to point the finger when faced with problems, passing off responsibility to someone other than oneself. Consumers are the problem too! We need to know and understand that we’re heading in a direction farther and farther from even the vaguest definition of food security, a trend that is not favourable to people or the environment — or the economy for that matter, at least not in the long run. But trend is not destiny.
If you don’t like something, take a role in trying to change it. If you think Aramark is limiting your choices and ability to interact with food the way that you need and desire, do something about it. Aramark’s contract with the university expires next summer, so it might even be a feasible goal. The real bottom line is about people deciding for themselves what their own needs are and what their community needs are. Neither of these can or should be determined by some CEO in a distant city.
Troy Stozek is awaiting acceptance into graduate studies, to begin in January. He is a member of icePIRG, a campus based public interest and research group.
