Fair say: accountability and food sovereignty

Do people outside boardrooms and government offices have enough influence over food and farming? Are ethical consumption and elections enough, or is direct participation the answer?

Fairtrade's Harriet Lamb, on the Inquiry committee says: “The continued growth of Fairtrade sales despite the recession is just one indicator of the strength of public concern about fairness in food". Fairtrade has built new connections between producers and consumers, but does it go far enough? Some campaigners say we need 'food sovereignty' and call new levels of public participation in policy-making.

Please tell us what you think by sending comments, including attachments, to Santiago Ripoll. You can read terms of reference for the Food and Fairness Inquiry here.

Comments:

Let's do the job ourselves
Submitted by Colin Tudge (not verified) on 12 August, 2009 - 17:02.

Your invitation to write on the future of world food has provoked a rant of the kind I had resolved to put aside, along with other childish things. Apologies. However:

In truth, there are some very good people in high places. Over the past 40 years I have sat at the feet of some truly excellent and compassionate professors of agriculture and other scientists, farmers, economists, industrialists, and even some politicians and bankers, and thought – if only their ideas were translated into policy!

But the good ideas that could feed the world – well and easily – are not translated. The true powers-that-be, the presidents and prime ministers and directors of corporates and global banks, do not listen to the people who are truly informed (just as governments at war commonly fail to listen to the people who are actually fighting it). Instead their heads are full of nonsense and prejudice, much of it racial: the belief that money can solve all – that the more of it we have the better; that technology can solve all – provided only that we have enough money to pay for it; that the west has got it right, and all the rest should be “helped” or forced to be more like us, with all possible speed; that this finite world can nonetheless provide infinite resource; that “reality” is the world of paper money – or nowadays of virtual, computer money – while the physical world and the creatures that live in it are some kind of hippie indulgence; that “poverty” is just a matter of cash; that it can be “cured” with more western-style employment (call centres, Coca-cola, etc); that agriculture is only about food; that people who work on the land (roughly half of humanity) would rather be in the city; that we are doing small farmers and their families a favour by putting them out of work; that only big industry and high tech (the latest extravagance is gmos. It used to be tvps, and before that it was DDT) can possibly solve the world’s food problems; that nothing can or should be done unless it can be done by the existing powers-that-be, whether it be Cargill or Tesco or New Labour.

Until we get shot of all that nonsense the world will continue to decline. Since the powers-that-be are not going to change their minds (and could not, without ceasing to be the powers-that-be) people who give a damn, of all kinds, just have to make common cause and do the job ourselves. We – ordinary Joes – have to acquire land, start farming properly, and set up an alternative chain of distribution. This is the point of the Campaign for Real Farming. (Please log in to its blogsite on http://campaignforrealfarming.blogspot.com.)

Business Accountability
Submitted by Haddleton (not verified) on 5 August, 2009 - 11:56.

The growth outside accreditation schemes and consumer interest in ethical consumption is great progress but currently there is still a long way to go. For a number of reasons (including commercial confidentiality) supply chains are less than transparent.
For greater accountability supply chains need to be be more transparent. What is the percentage of the total food basket that the consumer knows where it if from and the conditions in which it is produced both good and bad?
There can be limitations to outside accreditation schemes- there is only a certain space available for them on pack, it may not be possible to secure reliable long term contacts for the commodity as they only are present in certain markets, companies should be encouraged to publish a comprehensive up to date Code of Ethics for the business which includes the more hidden aspects as well the ones they want to shine the light on, in addition to outside accreditation schemes and awards.
This could include, policies on small producers, worker pay and conditions throughout the whole of the supply chain, payment terms, origination charges etc. Whilst activities in the local community are valuable, the way in which companies do business and their ethics in all spheres makes the real impacts.
Having a published comprehensive Code of Ethics would encourage employee buy in, outside scrutiny and recognition and more informed choices for consumers.