Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform
Food security, health, decent livelihoods, gender equity, safe working conditions, cultural identity and participation in cultural life are basic human rights that can be achieved at least in part through the food system. But current trends in the US prevent full realization of these economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) for residents, farmers, and wageworkers in the food system. Supply chains that strive to meet the goals of social justice, economic equity, and environmental quality better than the dominant globalized food value networks are gaining popularity in the US. However, achieving important human rights has become conflated with other goals of food system reform over the past decade, such as being “community-based,” local, and sustainable. This conflation confuses means, ends, and complementary goals; and it may lead activists trying to help communities to regain control of their food system choices into less productive strategies. This paper introduces a new concept, rights-based food systems (RBFS), and explores its connection with localization and sustainability. The core criteria of RBFS are democratic participation in food system choices affecting more than one sector; fair, transparent access by producers to all necessary resources for food production and marketing; multiple independent buyers; absence of human exploitation; absence of resource exploitation; and no impingement on the ability of people in other locales to meet this set of criteria. Localization and a community base can help achieve RBFS by facilitating food democracy and reducing environmental exploitation, primarily by lowering environmental costs due to long-distance transportation. Sustainability per se is an empty goal for food system reform, unless what will be sustained and for whom are specified. The RBFS concept helps to clarify what is worth sustaining and who is most susceptible to neglect in attempts to reform food systems. Localization can be a means toward sustainability if local food systems are also RBFS. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Volume (Year): 25 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: https://afhvs.wildapricot.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10460|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Pretty, J.N. & Ball, A.S. & Lang, T. & Morison, J.I.L., 2005. "Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-19, February.
- Chambers, R. & Conway, G. R., 1991. "Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century," IWMI Books, Reports H032821, International Water Management Institute.
- Timothy A. Wise, "undated". "05-07 "Identifying the Real Winners from U.S. Agricultural Policies"," GDAE Working Papers 05-07, GDAE, Tufts University.
- Huang, Sophia Wu & Gale, H. Frederick, Jr., 2006. "China's Rising Profile in the Global Market for Fruits and Vegetables," Amber Waves, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pages -, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:25:y:2008:i:4:p:593-608. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.