Sufficient
Sustainable Livelihood for All
Striving for Justice in the Food System, a Lutheran
Perspective
Jon
Greenstone
In this essay I will introduce you
to a social statement on economic life known as
Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood for All (SSL),
which was approved as a policy statement by the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on
August 20, 1999. My comments and ideas regarding the
sustainable foods and farms movement have been
deeply influenced by this statement as well as the
words of numerous theologians, philosophers, and
advocates of rural renewal.
For the last two years I
have been working for Just Community Food Systems as
the ELCA Congregation Supported Farm program
Coordinator. I am also a third year Masters of
Divinity student at the Lutheran Theological
Seminary at Gettysburg, PA. Hope you enjoy this
essay and find the spiritual and altruistic values
of eating locally grown foods and supporting local
farmers.
Sufficient, Sustainable Livelihood
for All (SSL), begins by pointing out that "the
global market economy feels like a free-running
system that is reordering the world with few
external checks or little accountability to values
other than profit." This statement speaks
very specifically about the rising levels of power
being held by fewer and fewer economic entities
existent in the world today.
With respect to
agriculture and the world’s food production
systems it is the transnational corporations (TNCs)
that are increasingly exerting their power and
influence on the world’s food supplies with their
sole motivation being the attainment of profit. This
is of great concern to the Church due to the
seriousness of the economic impact on the world’s
farmers who are losing their ability to participate
in feeding their own neighbors due to the decreasing
number of farm commodity buyers.
An increasingly
centralized food system is coming into existence
that can pick and choose who will have access to
varying qualities of food. The discrimination of the
TNCs is clearly motivated by profits. There are now
pockets of hunger (or food insecurity) that can be
readily identified in cities and towns throughout
the U.S. and we can observe that there could come a
day when corporate mandates and policies would
dictate who would eat and who would go hungry on an
international basis. In a song entitled, "A
Place at the Table," land theologian, John
Pitney, rhetorically asks, "Who has a place at
the table? Who gets a space at the board? When
communion is spread with that daily bread, will some
be welcomed and others ignored?"
There is also the concern about
earth’s resources being depleted or abused by
industrial agriculture’s tendency to mine the soil
of its biological and mineral wealth. Pitney’s
song continues . . ."Whose child will taste God’s
abundance? The table grows smaller for sure. Will
the oceans and aquifers, lands, and soil sustain the
multitudes keep us secure? Who has a place at the
table now?" "We are embedded in a
global food system structured around a market
economy that is geared to the proliferation of
commodities and the destruction of [localized food
production].
We are faced with transnational
agribusinesses whose desire to extend and
consolidate their global reach implies the
homogenization of our food, our communities, and our
landscapes." The policies of the TNCs are
presently geared toward catering to the wealthy
nations of the world. If their strength is not soon
challenged, they may exercise their grasp of world
food supplies in such ways that would inevitably
lead to additional risks of hunger or starvation for
the world’s poor.
As it is right now, "the
global food system operates according to allegedly
‘natural’ rules of efficiency, utility
maximization, competitiveness and calculated self
interest. . . . Food production today is organized
largely with the objective of producing a profit
rather than with the purpose of feeding
people."[4] For this reason, some hunger
advocates have suggested a dismantling of the TNCs
and in their place create an entity that would
possess their equivalency in terms of distribution
capabilities and economic strength, but have this
entity under the control of the United Nations.
Such
an entity would hold anthropological and
environmental values above stockholders’ dividends
and bottom line profits, thus assuring that food
would not be used as a coercive device and that
people who have been reduced to poverty and hunger
would not be further exploited.
The consolidation of the global food
system has resulted in a narrowing down the number
of firms who buy and then act as providers of the
world’s food commodities. This has been
accomplished by a few TNCs who have merged with or
absorbed many of the smaller buyers of food stocks.
Five of the top companies that actively participate
in the consolidation of global food production are:
Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Monsanto,
ConAgra, and Novartis.
I would be in remiss if I
were to leave out the Phillip Morris Company who
receives ten cents of every dollar Americans spend
at the local supermarket—so make that six
consolidated and integrated food giants. These firms
further their control of the food supply by forming
partnerships and cooperative ventures amongst
themselves. This type of consolidation and
subsequent international monetary control goes
directly against the spirit of the SSL statement
where it says: "While economic growth is
considered an unconditional good, we insist that
such growth must be evaluated by its direct,
indirect, short-term, and long term effects on the
well being of all creation and people, especially
those who are poor."
Dr. William Heffernan has been
documenting the rise to power of the TNCs since the
mid-1980's. He says "the major concern about
concentration in the food system focuses on the
control exercised by a handful of firms over
decision-making throughout the food system." The net result of the TNCs’ consolidation and
integration of world food supplies and channels is
that individual farmers find themselves caught in a
system wherein they no longer have choices about who
will buy their farm products.
This is a loss of
marketplace-democracy and it follows that the
exercise of a vocation in farming is no longer based
on independently derived values, but is instead
driven by the constitutions and economic policies of
the TNCs whose will is legally asserted via world
trade negotiations and subsequent international
trade laws. Under TNC contracts absolute decisions
are made that make careless assumptions about
conditions on the farm and in the farm fields, e.g.,
soil conditions, water bodies, risk of runoff, and
environmentally sensitive areas. Farm plans that are
conceived of in executive suites then handed down to
independent farm owner/managers (under contract)
show little concern for the land, the animals, or
the human families who will be directly affected by
corporate mandates that may make recommendations
without local knowledge.
The economic forces are no longer a
fair playing field. They are international in scope.
A man with a quarter million dollar combine may be
pitted against a villager in India who uses oxen to
cultivate the land. Neither farmer is winning in the
global market. The ones who are benefitting seldom
smell the freshly turned earth, but are more
accustomed to the din of ringing phones and the whir
of internal disk drives that crunch the numbers of
grain futures, foreign trade markets, and cattle
prices in Brazil. The family farmer is a pawn amidst
the TNCs.
An additional negative outcome of
today’s consolidated food system is the
possibility for community food insecurity. Larger
and fewer food source conglomerates may represent an
increasing vulnerability in the food system. Larger
systems cannot readily cope with unforeseen
shortages, e.g., caused by GMO contamination. This
was the case with the GM corn that was mistakenly
allowed to mix with food grade corn, causing a huge
recall of food products and subsequent lawsuits.
Organizational largeness can result in an inability
to change or adapt to a new situation with limited
response time. This leaves the world’s centers of
highest population at risk for food shortages.
Roman Stoltzfoos is a successful
organic grass-dairy farmer in Kinzers, Pennsylvania.
Roman has found that the transition of his dairy
from conventional practices to organic/sustainable
has proven to be profitable and beneficial to the
land and the cows, not to mention the consumer who
buys his dairy products. Roman believes there are
"dismal days . . . ahead for the American
farmer. ‘When we cannot save our own seeds and
genetics, find our own markets, and think on our own
without being labeled as ‘emotional.’ there is
something seriously wrong with farming."
In an article entitled "Caring
and Working: An Agrarian Perspective," Norman
Wirzba illustrates the paradox between an agrarian
ideal (a state in which the vocation of the farmer
is honored and valued) and the agribusiness ethos.
Wirzba says that agrarianism represents a
fundamental challenge to the
technological/industrial/capitalist worldview or
ethos. Whereas techne is about making and
controlling a world in our own image, agrarianism is
about tending to and taking care of a world already
given.Obviously this contrast is stark and perhaps
too simply drawn, since agrarians would not want to
dispense with technology altogether. The contrast
turns on the overriding ethos that governs thought
and action. Is our main objective to care for the
earth or to care for ourselves? The Biblical view
clearly mandates the first alternative (because when
it is correctly carried out, the second is
understood in its proper light), and repeatedly
describes the second as the temptation that needs to
be overcome.
The SSL statement makes several
points that relate further the importance of seeing
our vocations as contributing to a greater good. As
people of faith we should strive toward an ethic
whatever our vocation, an ethic that views work as
"the means through which basic needs might be
met . . .. Work is seen not as an end in itself, but
as a means for sustaining humans and the rest of
creation."
This is expressed in God’s
charge to the first humans, i.e., when God charges
them to be about ‘tending and keeping the garden’
(Gen. 2:15). This charge can serve as an
illustrative guide when considering the intrinsic
value of a vocation that is born out of stewardship
and responsibility to both human and natural beings;
this would be a more accurate understanding of a
true agrarian culture. I am always intrigued by
Grandma Moses art prints that portray idealized farm
scenes where humans appear to have a harmonious
relationship with the particular piece of God’s
creation where they dwell.
However, western
technology, capitalism, and shortsightedness (today’s
industrialized agriculture) is not rooted in a
Grandma Moses idealism nor does industrialized
agriculture necessarily embrace a long term
stewardship outlook, nor is there provision for a
just wage to be provided to the agrarian people
themselves. Instead today’s agriculture is
organized in ways that foster the greed of the few
while diminishing the quality of life and land for
those persons who live in our rural places. This is
a food system without a conscience, a representation
of an economic and legal construction without a
heart or soul.
In light of the injustice done in
today’s globalized agriculture, we may do well to
examine the experience of the peasant farmers in
ancient Israel as recorded by Nehemiah: There were
also those who said, "We are having to pledge
our fields, our vineyards, and our houses in order
to get grain during the famine." And there were
those who said, "We are having to borrow money
on our fields and vineyards to pay the king’s tax.
Now our flesh is the same as that of our kindred;
our children are the same as their children; yet we
are forcing our sons and daughters to be slaves, and
some of our daughters have been ravished; we are
powerless, and our fields and vineyards now belong
to others." (Neh. 5:3-5a). With regard to
this passage Walter Brueggemann explains that during
Israel’s time of prosperity there were
"disparities between the small landed citizens
and the elite who ordered the bureaucracy. One might
have thought a community (Israel) with such a
self-conscious vision would have acted differently.
But the realities of economic manipulation and
political leverage came even here. And it happened
that the power class taxed the citizens into
debt."
And so the situation so dramatically
recorded for us by the prophet of old is now present
once again in our own day. Monopolization of the
farm economy is not only exploitative of small
farmers and their communities throughout the United
States, but the market strength of such enormous
trade enables the TNCs to exert control on
international economies. The "TNCs are pressing
for the Multilateral Agreement on Investments.
This
will guarantee that the laws of a nation cannot be
enforced on an outside corporate investor against
its will . . .. For the sake of free trade,
neocolonialism will become complete. TNCs will have
fully replaced imperial powers as the [new] colonial
controllers and exploiters."
The only
difference between the new and the old imperialism
is that instead of political and military
enforcement of colonialism it is the trade agreement
and monopolistic economic influence that extract
resources, both material and human, without just
compensation.
Martin Luther, the sixteenth century
reformer, addressed this type of exploitative, yet
lawful business arrangement in his Large Catechism
when he wrote, "these men are called gentlemen
swindlers or big operators. Far from being picklocks
and sneak thieves who loot a cash box, they sit in
office chairs and are called great lords and
honorable, good citizens, and yet with a great show
of legality they rob and steal."
In this
context Luther is describing the illicit actions of
the corrupted officials of old Rome, nevertheless an
analogy can be drawn in similar fashion with the
carefully crafted language of the World Trade
Organization talks that guarantee arrangements to be
more favorable to the TNCs than to national
governments and common people. Luther goes on to say
that " . . . [stealing] is not to be kept
confined to narrow limits but must extend to all our
relations with our neighbors . . ..
On the one hand,
we are forbidden to do our neighbor any injury or
wrong in any way imaginable, whether by damaging,
withholding, or interfering with his [or her]
possessions and property . . . .
On the other hand,
we are commanded to promote and further our neighbor’s
interests, and when he [or she] suffers want we are
to help, share, and lend to both friends and
foes."[15] Herein Luther takes lawful conduct
several notches above the "thou shalt nots"
of our Judeo-Christian tradition. Laws are not to be
merely obeyed so that one does not fall into
condemnation, but the spirit of the laws themselves
must be followed in such a fashion that a higher
precedence is set for the persons and entities for
whom the laws were written.
Instead of exploiting a
neighbor, even though a law might allow for this,
Luther suggests that we should bless a neighbor with
generosity. This is a gospel enlightened view of the
seventh commandment and one that would serve well at
this time, especially considering the plight of the
world’s farmers who are like innocent pawns caught
up in the gargantuan legal constructions and
economic alliances of the TNCs and their influence
on governments. And yet the shareholders demand
their profits . . ..
This then returns the burden of
guilt on many of us who participate to varying
degrees in this economic injustice. How shall we
respond? The SSL statement is very literal in its
recommendations regarding supporting family farms.
On page 15 under the section entitled
"Sustaining Agriculture" the point is made
that all human beings are dependent on farmers and
farms for grain and daily sustenance.
The article
calls on the church and its members to lend
"support to those who work the land; to pursue
new ways for consumers to partner with small farmers
in sharing the risks and yields of
farming."
If congregations were to take
these articles literally -- the principles of a Congregation
Supported Farming (CSF) initiative would
come into full fruition. This is the overarching
vision of the CSF program. Inner city and wealthy
suburban congregations would link up with regional
farms that would produce a wide diversity of
produce, meat, dairy, and poultry products. Some
micro-farms could exist within urban or suburban
neighborhoods, wherein they would provide inner city
job opportunities and serve as catalysts for urban
renewal.
Larger farms would be located in more
distant rural communities and would serve to
strengthen those economies. This would create a
steady stream of relationships between rural and
urban places. The two settings would develop empathy
for each other and mutual recognition of their
economic and social struggles. A fresh influx of
much needed commerce and tax base would strengthen
rural places. Urban communities would gain the
benefits of having healthy foods available and new
opportunities for creating microenterprise
zones with fresh farm products delivered daily,
which are then further processed into ready to eat
foods.
Agriculturally centered commerce and
development of community-based food processing would
have synergistic outcomes: Healthy food brought into
a community can enable opportunities for healthy
work, which in turn stimulates local economies, that
translate into healthy communities. Additional goals
of a Local Foods--Local Farms project would include
encouraging and training young people and
second-career persons to begin new farming
enterprises and offshoot businesses. There might be
a continuous cycle of new CSF upstarts and new
persons moving to and from suburban, urban, and
rural locals pursuing the agrarian ideal or
hybridizing that ideal into a technologically
advanced, sustainably based, and relational
agricultural community.
Through this paper I have sought to reveal how
the TNCs are becoming too powerful and exorbitant in
their business practices. The net result of their
increasing power is exploitation of earth’s
resources and the diminishment of the agrarian
ideal, which equates with the loss of independent
vocation and rural culture.
Of further concern is
the monopolization of the food system and the
subsequent loss of democratic principles in the
marketplace for producers and for consumers who wish
to maintain freedom of choice with regard to: where
food comes from, the manner in which it is produced,
and who profits from the sale of food. Supporting
local farmers and encouraging them to grow food
sustainably can counteract the dominance and power
of the food corporations and help to assure a safe,
reliable, democratic, and localized food system.
Read
more Articles by Jon Greenstone