Sowing Justice

There has never been a more appropriate time for the United States to shift away from approaching hunger with a food security agenda and instead embrace change through the framework of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty refers to large-scale, state-mediated redistribution of land, power, and wealth from the corporate food regime to individuals and communities. As climate change threatens food systems and economic and racial inequality intensify, more people will be left without adequate access to food.  

In 2019, the number of people experiencing food insecurity in the United States was 135 million. Then, due to lockdowns related to COVID-19, this number grew to an estimated 265 million in 2020, proving just how many individuals are able to eat only if they are consistently working. The focus of federal governments for the last decade has been meeting food security, but this agenda neglects to address essential causes, leaving people hungry. Hunger is not a food security issue; it’s an income issue. People with adequate means do not go hungry. If the United States wants to tackle growing rates of food insecurity, they are going about it the wrong way.  

The current food security agenda implemented in the United States has three focuses: food availability, food utilization, and food access. Well-known programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) have grown out of pressure to meet food security.  Much of the decrease in food insecurity since the Great Recession in 2008 is due to federal nutrition programs such as these. While these programs have undoubtedly provided a critical defense, the decrease in food insecurity has been highly disproportionate. The rate of food insecurity for people of color is (at minimum) twice, and in some cases up to six times, that of whites. Part of the disparity is because the programs are still operating within racially-biased public policies, structures, institutions, practices, and cultural beliefs that systematically discriminate against people of color. These programs work to meet families’ immediate needs but fail to disrupt the cycle that traps communities living paycheck to paycheck.  

The issues of food security have so far been addressed by programs that fail to challenge the structures and inequalities which perpetuate hunger. This is the gap food sovereignty attempts to close. Food sovereignty seeks to alter the unequal power relations and structures inherent in the current global food security agenda.  It advocates for a systems change that puts people, rather than markets and corporations, at the heart of policy-making. Food sovereignty seeks to build a food system that is based on social justice and ecological foundations. This is done by limiting corporate power in the food regime and expanding the decision-making capacity of the people, and it requires economic and political restructuring through redistributive policies.  

The priorities of agricultural policies have been to meet the interests of industrial companies rather than to feed people well. This can be seen in the proliferation of corn, soy, and wheat subsidies. Farm subsidies are not inherently negative, but the way they are distributed and prioritized is not conducive to a healthy population. This, coupled with the free reign of corporations to market cheap, nutrient-poor foods, upholds the kind of agenda that leaves people hungry and without access to proper nutrition. To combat these effects would mean terminating farm subsidies and redirecting investments to individuals.  

It is often incorrectly assumed that subsidies are necessary to make food more plentiful and affordable. In many cases, this does not happen. Most subsidy money comes from taxes. If the rich were to bear most of the tax burden, then subsidies could make food more affordable for those in poverty. However, this is hardly the intent of most subsidies. Disarming industrial food systems is one thing, but it is essential to align agricultural investments with practices that benefit people directly. For example, agricultural spending should not support monocultures, but instead should prioritize the public by incentivizing and leveraging local production of food, environmental stewardship, and farmer innovation.  

Vast monocrops, pesticides, GMOs, toxic waste, and global warming are the hallmarks of land managed by industrial agriculture. The concentration of land and other resources within corporations leads to a concentration of wealth and power. Corporate farms and landowners focus their efforts on high production and low investment—practices that rarely end up actually yielding more crops and that are in fact harmful to the environment. In contrast, policies promoting indigenous reparations in the form of land ownership can return power to communities to produce their own food, using less destructive methods of production.  

Still, access to land is not enough. Individuals need the power to participate in the system. To tackle this, a progressive tax could be implemented and redistributed through direct payments to food insecure individuals without conditions on spending.  

Contrary to popular belief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) does not cover the cost of a meal in 99% of all counties in the United States. The average monthly benefit is $127, leaving less than $1.50 per meal. Moreover, this bill only reaches about 55% of all food insecure individuals, due to strict eligibility criteria. Instead of expanding eligibility or altering stipulations, appropriate amounts of money should be given directly to food insecure individuals and families.  

It likely costs more to run programs such as SNAP, which are ineffective at reducing poverty and other vulnerability factors, than to distribute cash directly, which would offer a more substantial impact. Doing so would return autonomy to people to make their own choices while offering greater support to escape the patterns of poverty. By shifting money and attention directly to consumers, they may become empowered by the ultimate tenant of food sovereignty: choice.  

Since its creation, this country has relied on the labor of an underclass to generate and hoard wealth. While the methods are less explicit in the 21st century, they are no less damaging. The current food system is unjust and inequitable. The United States can return power to its people through the implementation of policies that work towards increasing food sovereignty. By restricting the power of corporate food regimes, the United States can lay the foundation for a more collective approach to food politics, eventually transforming the system into one built on the foundations of ecological production, community control, and justice.