Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Food Studies: Deconstructing Big Food

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org, OWL-OldWaysLiving@yahoogroups.com
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Food Studies: Deconstructing Big Food
  • Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:00:15 -0700


Food Studies: Deconstructing Big Food
http://www.grist.org/food/2011-10-27-food-studies-food-monopoly

grocery aislePhoto: Krystian OlszanskiFood Studies features the voices of
volunteer student bloggers from a variety of different food- and
agriculture-related programs at universities around the world. You can
explore the full series here.

I'm in a food systems class this semester that is focused on the complex way
that food moves from farm to plate (which in reality looks something more
like from patented seed, to dirt treated with patented fertilizer, to
harvesting by undocumented laborers, to processor, to manufacturer, to
wholesaler, to a grocery store shelf with a paid stocking fee, to consumer,
to plate). So far, our focus has been on consumer behavior, from the impact
of food deserts to the ways that psychology and the economics of behavior
effects food choice. (Did you know that putting out a bowl of multi-colored
candy can increase consumption by well over 50 percent, compared to candy
that's a single color, for instance?) As we move on, economist and professor,
Carolyn Dimitri, is helping us to understand the way that intermediaries like
wholesalers and distributors factor in to the food chain.

There is a general resistance to analyzing food businesses the way we analyze
other businesses, not only because food is our most primal need, but it's
also is fraught with cultural, nutritional, environmental, and political
debate. At the base of it, though, large food businesses exist for the same
reason large power companies do: to provide fuel and to make money. Like
power companies, there are a few large food companies controlling the vast
majority of the market. Take Coke and Pepsi. Tyson and Cargill. General Mills
and Kellogg. Monsanto and Monsanto.

The idea of food monopolies isn't new. In 1873, the Supreme Court heard the
Slaughterhouse Cases, in which a monopoly had been given to Crescent City
Livestock, a New Orleans slaughterhouse chain. Even then, food safety and
environmental safety were concerns, as tons of animal waste from the
slaughter process contaminated local drinking water.

Today, many of these same concerns remain, as huge companies like Smithfield
dominate the slaughter and meat-packing market. The number of food producers
(farmers) has been declining in the United States for decades, but it's the
production and wholesale sector, which turns raw food products into processed
food, that has been most consolidated.

Here are some reasons that the current food environment makes large food
monopolies possible, and how we can challenge them.

Same old, same old. In the United States, federal and state laws make it
nearly impossible for new, medium-sized meat processing companies to enter
the market. Everything from the building of the physical space to food
handling certification needs to be done in accordance with the federal and
local authorities. In most cases, farmers are forced to have their meat
processed at large, tech-savvy plants -- even if they are miles away from
their farm. Mobile meat processing, which was only recently approved by the
USDA, is one way to connect certified processors with smaller scale farmers
for convenient, safe meat production.

Keep the technological playing field uneven. Corporations like Monsanto
and Nabisco fund huge research projects at universities, which help them gain
and maintain the most up-to-date science. By better funding sustainable food
research at universities worldwide, we can ensure that science that promotes
sustainability takes priority over science that promotes profits for
processors and input suppliers.

Let processors pay to play. There is no scarcer resource in a supermarket
than shelf space. New products essentially can't access shelf space unless an
old product falls off. Thus the "slotting fee" which wealthy processors pay
to supermarkets to gain or maintain access to premium shelf space. This
system actually encourages mergers between organic and conventional farms, so
that organic farms can rely on wide distribution channels to gain access to
shelf space. By putting an end to paid real estate for processed foods, we
can open space from produce bought directly from farmers.

Keep the middle men around. While intermediaries add value to raw food
products by storing them, transporting them efficiently, labeling them, and
distributing them, they also seek out the lowest prices possible for goods.
By buying directly from farmers, and going to restaurants that do the same,
we put money in the pockets of farmers and not in those of huge wholesalers
and processors.






  • [Livingontheland] Food Studies: Deconstructing Big Food, Tradingpost, 12/06/2011

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page