The Economist has an excellent article this week about food politics. What I liked about it was that it brings the technical legal issues from the GMOs and other similar cases into a real world context. Much of the debate in trade law circles involves government regulation, as well as international regulation of government regulation. But people can also express their views with their pocketbooks, and many of them are doing so.
The article describes the movement towards buying foods that support a particular political agenda, in particular the following three: organic, Fairtrade and local. People buy organic because they perceive it to be healthier and/or better for the environment; they buy Fairtrade because they believe it will provide low-skilled agricultural workers a better wage; and they buy local because of opposition to Big Business generally, a desire to promote reduced transportation in the food industry ("food miles") and thus a cleaner environment, with a bit of anti-globalization sentiment thrown in.
The Economist examines the assumptions behind all of three of these food "agendas," and cites research that questions some of them. They conclude:
What should a shopper do? All food choices involve trade-offs. Even if organic farming does consume a little less energy and produce a little less pollution, that must be offset against lower yields and greater land use. Fairtrade food may help some poor farmers, but may also harm others; and even if local food reduces transport emissions, it also reduces potential for conomic development. Buying all three types of food can be seen as an anti-corporate protest, yet big companies already sell organic and Fairtrade food, and local sourcing coupled with supermarkets' efficient logistics may yet prove to be the greenest way to move food around.
Food is central to the debates on the environment, development, trade and globalisation—but the potential for food choices to change the world should not be overestimated. The idea of saving the world by shopping is appealing; but tackling climate change, boosting development and reforming the global trade system will require difficult political choices. “We have to vote with our votes as well as our food dollars,” says Mr Pollan. Conventional political activity may not be as enjoyable as shopping, but it is far more likely to make a difference.
Personally, the only one of these agendas that I follow is buying organic -- sometimes -- and that's really for health reasons only. I don't know for sure that there's any health benefit from organic foods, but, at least on a personal level, I favor the precautionary principle. As to the other agendas, I am somewhat convinced by the points the article makes. Others, of course, feel differently. But it's interesting to see how politics plays a role in the market in this way, outside the context of what governments and international organizations are doing.
