In conjunction with preparing my ILC, continuing to curate a reading list and volunteer or community opportunities, this week I have delved head-first into the academic research required in understanding the complexities and interdisciplinary nature of food insecurity, higher education, and socioeconomic status.

I decided to start by reading Endless Appetites by Alan Bjerga, a text that explains the international hunger crisis in regard to the commodities system, and watching A Place at the Table, a documentary about food insecurity in America. In order to coherently synthesize what I learned, this week I am going to take a page from the ComAlt SOS book and put these two seemingly different resources in conversation with one another.

It’s only Week 1, and I have already encountered the notorious and villainous dynamic duo at the route cause of every major issue in the modern world, including food insecurity. Any liberal’s most hated love affair: Big Business and Government. Are you shocked? Me neither.

Who are the Deciders?

“I am the decider.” – George Bush

“The price of food – the cost of a loaf of bread in a supermarket, brought to you via a global system of farmers, purchasers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers… the system that in many ways decides who gets to eat and who doesn’t.” (Bjerga 2011: 4)

A Place at the Table Info-graphic: Government Spending

Regardless of a severe climate changes and an increasing population, there is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone. So the question of food insecurity and hunger, both nationally and globally, becomes, who decides who gets to eat?

In the United States, the legislation allocates funds toward addressing hunger faced by the elderly and impoverished families with the hopes of slightly correcting the severe inequality faced by Americans. Although one might then assume that government decides who eats, because legislation and government funding is often the most effective way to address these issues on a national scale, they are too often thwarted or muted due to special interest lobbyist. As depicted in A Place at the Table, the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 was initially a bill which allocated $10 billion over 10 years to create healthier meals in public schools and allow more children access to benefit programs. But by the time it got past the big agriculture lobbyists, the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act allotted a measly $4.5 billion, half of which were simply funds taken from the SNAP benefits program.

So it can be argued that both the (dysfunctional) legislature as well as big corporations ultimately decide who gets to eat in America.

This conclusion leads me, of course to more questions. What is our country’s history with food security legislation? What are all of the current federal programs in place? And of course, do any of these programs benefit students and children pursuing a higher education?

Corn v. Carrots, Soy v. Strawberries

“The United States, the world’s richest nation, is also the biggest exporter of low-cost, bulk staple crops, even as its organic foods consumption rises from a minuscule fragment of grocery sales in the mid-1990s to about 41% today… Who receives subsidies, as well as the subsidies themselves, can be poorly targeted. Subsidy recipients worldwide have included noted farmers… and at least a half dozen billionaires according to U.S. records.” (Bjerga 2011: 139, 152)

A Place at the Table Info-graphic: Staple Crops

As explained in A Place at the Table, farm subsidies were an emergency response policy in light of the Great Depression at which time the primary beneficiaries of these subsidies were small family farms. However, over time, the subsidies went to large, corporate agribusinesses that produce the staple crops: wheat, corn, soy, cotton, and rice, creating a trend of higher priced fruits and vegetables, and lower priced processed foods high in fat, sugar, and simple carbohydrates. So logically, making food less expensive, more accessible and healthier for those who can only afford nutritionally void food could mean shifting subsidy funding away from these big staple crop corporations, and towards smaller produce farms.

Simple, right? Well, no. Not only because of that pesky corporate money I mentioned earlier, but as I read Endless Appetites, I remembered how important healthy trade is for the United States economy. Subsidizing some of our most valuable exports must be, to some extent, beneficial to the overall economy and GDP growth in the United States.

So, does the overall economic stability outweigh the benefits of shifting funds to ensure lower produce prices? In this instance, does overall economic stability benefit impoverished, food insecure students, or is it just the rich who reap the rewards?
Next week I will be exploring these questions along with, and as part of my learning objectives through additional texts, films, legislation and field work. See you all then!