Food politics is the government policy, legislation, but public discourse around all aspects of the food system, including production, control, regulation, inspection, distribution and consumption of commercially and home grown food.
All aspects of the food system are affected by economic, ethical, cultural and health concerns. Food production has environmental impacts such as water usage and climate change. Many technologies used for food production, such as pesticides or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) crops, have been subject to regulation and public debate. For food supply chains, trade, and retail, food politics also encompasses the international food market, food aid, food security, food sovereignty, labor practices and the regulation of all of these things. More broadly, discourse around the role of food systems in social and economic inequality, public health issues such as obesity, and cultural heritage are all part of food politics.
Policy
Government policies around food production, distribution, and consumption influence the cost, availability, and safety of the food supply domestically and internationally. On a national scale, food policy work affects farmers, food processors, wholesalers, retailers and consumers. Commodity crops, such as corn, rice, wheat, and soy are most often at the heart of agricultural policy-making.
Historian Xaq Frohlich in 2017 observed an 'informational turn' in food politics in recent decades, as governments respond to food-related issues by mandating transparency (e.g. detailed information labels, such as Nutrition Facts labels) rather than direct bans or mandates. This approach positions consumer choice – guided by labels – as a primary way to govern food markets.
While most food policy is initiated domestically, there are international ramifications. Globally, protectionist trade policies, international trade agreements, famine, political instability, and development aid are among the primary influences on food policy. Increasingly, climate change concerns are gaining the attention of those most concern with ensuring an adequate worldwide food supply.
Gastronationalism
Sociologist Michaela DeSoucey in 2010 described gastronationalism as the use of food and its history, production, control, and consumption as a way of promoting nationalism. It may involve arguments between two or more regions or countries about whether a particular dish or preparation is claimed by one of those regions or countries and has been appropriated or co-opted by the others.
Atsuko Ichijo and Ronald Ranta have called food "fundamentally political" and "one of the essential commodities with which political powers at various levels are concerned". Food historian Michelle T. King suggests that cuisine is a natural focus for studies of nationalism, pointing out dozens of such treatments over the first decades of the 21st century. Examples of gastronationalism include efforts by state bodies, nongovernmental bodies, businesses and business groups, and individuals.
New York University professor Fabio Parasecoli has defined food as an expression of identity. Conflict between two or more regions or countries about whether a particular dish or preparation is claimed by one of those regions or countries and has been appropriated or co-opted by the others is not uncommon, especially in areas where there has been violent conflict. Dishes affected by these culinary wars tend to be those with "a clearly symbolic ethnic significance". They also tend to be dishes that "represent territorial aspirations" and can be developed and prepared only by settled – and therefore indigenous – peoples.
Mary Douglas said "national food cultures become a blinding fetish which, if disregarded, may be as dangerous as an explosion".
In 2006 researcher Liora Gvion argued that cuisines of poverty – typically, traditional foods – "reveal the inter-connection between the culinary discourse and the political one" and that the issue was tied up with those of access to land and national identity.
According to DeSoucey, gastronationalism uses food to promote a sense of national identity and affects how members of the national community develop "national sentiments and taste preferences for certain foods."
Kingston University's Ranta in 2018 said a group's claims to a particular food become important when a "cause or agenda is behind the claim", citing the politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict as an example.
Technology As with many industries, the food industry has experienced growth in the capacity to produce food with the use of improved technologies. In developed countries, there are a number of important trends at play. Yields, or the amount of food harvested per acre of cropland, have increased less than one percent per year in since at least the 1960s and the amount of land devoted to crop use is in decline due to development pressures for housing and other economic concerns. In the U.S. alone, about 3000 acres of productive farmland are lost each day.Alexandratos, N, Bruinsma, J. "World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision." FSA Working paper No. 12-03. Rome, FAO.
This places a premium on quality yields from existing acres of farmland. In addition, the demand for meat products worldwide, expected to double by 2020, has accelerated a trend toward raising more animals on fewer acres of land.
Farming of animals More intensive forms of animal farming have largely replaced traditional methods of raising pigs, cattle, poultry and fish for human consumption in the U.S. The increased development of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations have been associated with increased risk of foodborne illnesses from E.coli, environmental degradation, and increased emissions of ammonia, carbon dioxide, and methane into the air. In addition to food safety and environmental concerns, organizations such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have drawn attention to a range of practices that allow for the more efficient raising of animals for meat consumption, but these practices stress the animals, the land on which they are raised and the supply of food for human consumption. In a recent report on industrialized animal agriculture, HSUS called on people in Western countries to shift to a plant-based diet because half the world's grain crop is used to raise animals for meat, eggs, and milk. Fish farming has also come under scrutiny due to high concentrations of fish in smaller spaces than is experienced in the wild. For both land and water animals, the prophylactic use of antibiotics to promote growth and stem the spread of infection among the animals has also been questioned due to concerns that this practice may contribute to strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Genetically modified foods The use of genetically modified organism seeds to grow commodity and other crops in the U.S. has drawn criticism from organizations such as Greenpeace, The Non-GMO Project, and the Organic Consumers Association among others. Concerns center on both food safety and the erosion of agricultural biodiversity. While the European Union regulates genetically engineered foods as they would any other new product requiring extensive testing to provide it is safe for human consumption, the U.S. does not. The Food and Drug Administration generally considers a food with origins from genetically modified organisms (GMO) to be as safe as its conventional counterpart.
Numerous studies have backed industry claims that GMO foods appear to be safe for human consumption, including an examination of more than 130 research projects conducted in the European Union prior to 2010 and work published by the American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public Health.Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Union 2010. "A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010)." doj: 10.2777/97784.
In the U.S., the political debate has centered primarily on whether or not to label products with GMO origins to better inform the public about the content of the foods they purchase. A statewide ballot question that would have mandated labeling of GMO products in California was defeated in 2012. The measure, known as Proposition 37 was leading by a wide margin in early polling but was defeated after an advertising blitz bankrolled by Monsanto, the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds, as well as Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and other large food business interests. The ballot question's results were closely watched across the country as advocates for the measure hoped that it would pass and spur the federal government to mandate labeling of GMO foods as well.
In the wake of the labeling law proposal's defeat, an organization called March Against Monsanto was formed to continue to keep alive the public debate about labeling GMO food products. In 2013, a ballot initiative that would have required labels on GMO foods sold in the state of Washington was defeated by voters, again after a campaign against the initiative was led by major food companies.
Pesticide use Among the much-heralded impacts of the Green Revolution was the spread of technological advances in the development of pesticides to ensure higher crop yields. Health effects of pesticides have led to a number of regulatory and non-regulatory efforts to control potential harm to human health from these chemicals in the food supply. The US Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction of the use of pesticides in crop management and sets tolerances for trace amounts of pesticides that may be found in the food supply. About 12,000 samples of fruits and vegetables available to U.S. consumers are collected each year and tested for residue from pesticides and the results are published in an annual Pesticide Data Program (PDP) hosted by the USDA.
Big food Food manufacturing and processing is a heavily concentrated industry. The 10 largest food companies in the United States control more than half of all food sales domestically and a growing percentage of packaged food and beverage products on store shelves worldwide. Ranked by food sales, PepsiCo, Inc. is the largest food manufacturer in the U.S., followed by Tyson Foods, Nestlé, JBS USA, and Anheuser-Busch, according to a 2013 list published by Food Processing magazine. Big food influence is evident in Washington, D.C. where companies spend millions on lobbying each year, many of whom are members of the Consumer Goods Forum. Lobbying benefits large corporations whose deep pockets and connections get them special access to lawmakers, regulators and other influential officials.
According to figures from the United States Census Bureau from 2007, the most highly concentrated food industries in the country included cane sugar refining, breakfast cereals, bottled water, and cookie/cracker manufacturing using the 4-firm concentration ratio. Consolidation of this industry took place in the 1970s and 1980s through a series of mergers and acquisitions.
"Big food" has come under fire not only because a small number of players are responsible for a large percentage of the food supply chain, but because of concerns about the links between the highly processed foods they produce and the obesity epidemic both in the U.S. and worldwide. A report from Global Health Advocacy Incubator documents the food industry's strategies to defeat warning labels on ultra-processed food products (UPP).
The director general of the World Health Organization, in a speech given at the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion in Helsinki, Finland in June 2013, noted that the public health community's efforts to combat chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease are pitted against the economic interests of the powerful food industry.