Decide collectively what’s on our plate

Today, food has become much more than just a necessity: it is a commodity and a leisure activity, subject to the rules of the internal market, mainly imposed by the European Union. These rules include various aspects such as consumer information, hygiene, food safety, trading standards and competition, as well as the European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD).

This perspective and its framework mainly promotes exports and the growth of large capitalist food companies, which operate globally with increasing profits at the expense of both consumers and producers. Price becomes a decisive factor, often distorted by political control over subsidies, standards and product quality. The redistribution of wealth and resources makes it so that a minority claims the benefits of the food system at the expense of the majority. The unfair distribution of natural, economic and political resources increases inequalities between different strata of society.

At the same time, food industry giants have considerable political influence. Under these pressures, the skills of national and regional players seem to decline. Plans, strategies and limited changes in European rules bring only marginal changes.

Bottom-up initiatives such as food belts, cooperatives and local sourcing remain largely ‘indecisive’ in this context and often limited to niche markets. They are not strong enough to compete with the big players and have limited impact on food policy beyond the very local levels.

These observations highlight the glaring lack of food democracy, where food choices are rarely discussed collectively. Because our food choices are often determined by our financial and social circumstances, it creates an illusion of choice in our eating habits. Indeed, in this context, access to healthy food is too often hindered. Junk food dominates and unfortunately remains more accessible and affordable for many of the population.

Food as a political issue

It is essential to recognise that nutrition must become a major political issue. We must question the economic and social structures that govern our food system and strive for an equitable redistribution of resources. By giving nutrition the political attention it deserves, we can build a more equitable and sustainable system where every individual has access to healthy and quality food, regardless of their socio-economic status.

Food can no longer be reduced to a simple economic commodity. Food has a fundamental cultural and biological dimension, which directly affects our physical and mental health. Food does not necessarily belong purely to the private sphere.

The Social Security for Food puts the population’s interests first when it comes to food choices. It is essential that everyone can have a say in what is produced, how it is produced and what ends up on their plates. Through an involvement of citizens in the food process, we can better address the needs and concerns of society as a whole.

In this respect, it is essential to regulate the price of food products according to different standards. Standards that take into account criteria of environmental sustainability, social justice and public health. In doing so, we promote the production and consumption of food that respects both the environment, farmers and the health of consumers.

Thanks to the third pillar that entails a contract (see our vision), it becomes possible to take positions on which agricultural sectors should be favoured and which production methods should be encouraged. This approach requires the active participation of various actors in society.

However, this need not impede consumer choice. Consumer choice can remain an important part of our food system. The point is not to impose a specific diet on the population, but rather to offer a variety of food choices. Such freedom of choice allows everyone to find food that suits their needs, values and individual and cultural preferences.

The Social Security for Food as a lever

To ensure the effectiveness of this process, it is essential to work with the government to establish a solid administrative framework for this contract, with the necessary transparency. That framing will help partially reorient the food market towards more sustainable and ethical practices in line with collectively defined values and objectives.

The political power of the Social Security for Food is linked to its budget. The available financial resources largely determine its ability to implement effective and fair policies for food. Here, it is important to recognise that politicising food in this way carries risks. Indeed, it could lead to a situation where existing power relations would influence the definition of criteria and priorities. To avoid this, it is crucial to draw lessons from the experience of social dialogue within the framework of current social security. Instead of reproducing the traditional confrontations between capital and labour, we should consider a more inclusive approach, where the whole of society participates in making food policy. It is about moving away from a simplistic opposition between economic interests to a broader dialogue that takes into account the needs and values of the entire population.