Towards a different way of production, processing and distribution

For decades, peasant and cooperative movements have been calling for a profound reform of how we produce, process and distribute our food. Currently, food still comes from an industrial, mechanised, chemical model based on specialisations between countries, on huge commercial volumes, on gigantic infrastructure for imports and exports, on strong capitalist and economic concentration, etc.

• The race for low prices generates social inequality and poverty (precarious contracts, seasonal or migrant workers in a precarious situation, difficult working conditions in processing plants and supermarkets …);
• Current production conditions have profound environmental and climate impacts (30% of greenhouse gases, 60% of drinking water use, water pollution, soil pollution, air pollution, decline in biodiversity, etc.); and
• Current production conditions affect people’s health (abundance of high-calorie products, deficiencies in micronutrients, fibre, vitamins … contributing to very serious chronic diseases).

From a societal point of view, all these conditions lead to impoverishment and have largely made small scale agriculture that is based on cooperation with nature disappear. The countryside is being abandoned.

The cost of these externalities should not be underestimated. In November 2023, the FAO released a report estimating that $14 billion is used worldwide every year to offset the damage caused by the food system (equivalent to the European Union’s GDP: €15 billion!). For Belgium, that would be 37 billion!

With the Social Security for Food we’re no longer inching closer to the abyss

For a long time, we believed that food initiatives led by civilians would lead the way. That industrialised fields, factories and industrial shops would be replaced. Initiatives that inspire us, that experiment and that outline perspectives for the future. They exist! But we should note that they do not yet really threaten the industrial complex of food and that change is slow. Such initiatives are systematically stifled: there are hidden costs that are not factored into prices and the playing field is no longer fair due to government subsidies and investments.

It is unrealistic to think that these initiatives can have a strong political and economic impact without macroeconomic support. On the contrary. farmer initiatives often rely on the voluntary support of certain people, often the most educated, committed and privileged people in our society. But many consumers, despite being committed, often find it difficult not to have a significant and predominant part of their spending go towards industrial products.¹

By giving everyone a monthly amount to eat well, the Social Security for Food (SSF) can play a crucial role in reforming the food sector. The amount may go to consumers, but it can only be spent on products from companies and organisations that produce, process and distribute in a socially just, sustainable and local way. Over time, the SSF ensures that there is an market for them. This then results in greater participation of them in taxes and employment, creating a virtuous circle. Subsequently SSF boosts the prospects for businesses and organisations to consider switching operations.²

In short, it comes down to improving the existing supply in the long run. Everyone no longer has to eat what is available or economically viable, but can eat what they want.

1. The organic farming sector can be used as a benchmark. Less than 5% of food expenditure goes to organic products. Less than 2% of Flanders’ agricultural land is certified organic. We are still far from a general acceptance of organic products (that are often considered too expensive). Moreover, organic does not necessarily mean equitable or local. ↩︎
2. This can be done without touching the freedom of enterprise. Companies are not obliged to adapt to this new demand. ↩︎