Food and more: a campaign to expand the trump era

0
159

Food and more: a campaign to expand the trump era

It’s time to use the energy of food movement to preserve our democracy.

If there is one benefit to recent elections, it is that the food movement is real. Boulder, Oakland, San Francisco and Albany (California) have four jurisdictions that tax soda, which is good for public health and public finances. (two days later, lawmakers in cook county, Illinois, approved the soda tax as the largest jurisdiction.) In Oklahoma, a move to protect animal factory farms from regulation was defeated. Voters in Massachusetts have passed a measure to ban the sale of non-human animal products. Four states voted to raise their minimum wage to a federal standard above $7.25 an hour.

At the same time, the reality of a country has been transformed into Orwell: within a few days, we will have a hostile to the civil rights attorney general, a don’t believe in climate change or environmental protection bureau chief, a rival to the people’s health and human services secretary public support for health care, a worker labor bureau chief and a democratic congress, the Supreme Court will be more and more against individual rights. What’s more, a President who shows a little respect for democracy has been seen to be unique.

So far, the President has not yet been nominated secretary of agriculture, but the food to the transformation of agriculture movement group is right, they pledged to “defend American agriculture against critics, especially those who have never grow or produce anything critics of a backyard” tomato plants. This nonsense is premised on the assumption that American agriculture is limited to large industrial varieties, and that public investment in the public interest is a bad thing. However, most farmers are clearly not serving the current system, and the only sector in the growing food industry today is the sector that produces good food.

How can food movements best navigate this new environment of paradoxical new? Two years ago, we outlined the need for a national grain policy, a key measure of whether legislation would help farmers, diners, land, animals, and so on. This is still an important long-term goal, but the most urgent task now is to join forces with other progressive groups to take a more immediate approach: protecting vulnerable groups and defending democracy. So the recent minimum wage victory is inspired by $15 combat – workers union, the union union employees (especially the international Labour union), immigrant workers and women’s rights advocates and food chain – it should be pointed out that the way forward.

Some people say that food is a nonpartisan issue. But like all campaigns aimed at securing “ordinary” (ie, non-wealthy) people and improving their lives, this is a struggle for the value of progress. Health care, education, a strong safety net, to climate change and environmental concerns, income inequality and everyone should enjoy equal rights is a partisan issue, because of various aspects have made progress, improved the whole community. Not everyone agrees with these aspirations, which is the fight for good food for all the high risk people.

The defenders of these battles, despite their flaws and contradictions, are trying to broaden the vision of animalism in our republic. (after all, the country is made up of white men landowners and founded by slave owners, is almost entirely for the sake of their own interests, although some gorgeous language other Suggestions are put forward.) A national election, however, the most important is the result of the strike will be dealing with rich the progress of the new President and his Allies, because they show that their main interest is reserves the right at all costs. The scale and intensity of extraction and extraction economies will be doubled.

As not only care about the issues of food and care about people, our task should be united, positive resist we made public protection efforts, for we will continue to fight for social justice issues. This means that important but narrow food issues, such as gmo labeling or the formulation of national nutrition standards, are bound to be masked as the larger social justice struggle becomes more urgent.

Of course, we want real food to be available to everyone. That means challenging the wrong government subsidies, monoculture farming, and everything that comes from it. The farm bill will be updated during the next administration. We must strive to ensure that they meet all the interests of the peasants (is not only a big farmers), but also for workers, and customers, especially from compensatory nutrition assistance program (SNAP), women, infants and children (WIC) and school lunches. (the latter two are under the child nutrition act, which is being re-empowered and deeply cut by republican leadership.)

But for the real food is against inequality and part of a larger struggle of racism, because of the bad diet excessively affect economic marginalization and political disenfranchised population. Also, we hope we can regenerate agriculture, but the need to participate in climate, which in turn means to fight with the authorization of the corn ethanol, which USES our most rich farmland to produce fuel and food raw materials of official policy, public health, especially to the poor.

Climate campaign, on the other hand, should realize that food is the main generator of heat-trapping gases, and a growing number of edible plants and sustainable farming food can significantly reduce the production of the gas, and renewable agricultural carbon sinks, soil can be converted to a possible to remove them from the atmosphere.

Natural Allies are everywhere. The most important work we can do now is aggression against democracy autocracy, to prevent a global catastrophe, cultivating civil society (including emerging alternative food economy), even if we redouble our efforts to make the federal government to be responsible for all people, rather than just wealthy and influential.

If you don’t solve the problem of immigration and labor, or not to think about energy policy, in the case of not reduce income inequality does not improve eating habits, this requires the unqualified equal rights of women and minorities; You can’t just encourage people to cook more at home, don’t question gender roles, or encourage poor parents to have to accept two or three shifts in order to make a living; If we don’t solve future work, childcare and education problems, we can’t fully change the role of women. If you don’t challenge the power of your business and control of your country, you won’t be able to deal with climate change, not without challenging big food. The struggle for a healthy diet is an important part of these struggles, and they will be won or lost together.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here