Over the past two years our complex world economic order has developed a disease. Its food distribution system is not able to feed the population of the planet. That is not, however, because of a lack of food; it has been known for years that world food production is greater than what is actually eaten or rather what would be eaten if the food could make it to the mouths it ought to reach. Instead the reason is the psychopathic behaviour of the food corporations. The documentary "La Corporación", which can be downloaded from the Internet, draws a parallel between the behaviour of the corporations and the diagnosis of a psychopathic patient, and the fit between the two is perfect. These giant companies take decisions which have major worldwide consequences and generate astronomic revenue both for themselves and for their shareholders, yet at the same time they have side effects for which the corporations will not accept any responsibility.

The food crisis of recent years has been made possible by the progressive loss of people’s food sovereignty (definition in figure 1). As the Xarxa de Consum Solidari points out, food sovereignty is a basic human right even though it is being called into question every day: it is under threat not only from the chronic famine being experienced by 852 million people around the world but also from the economic mechanisms and social consequences of globalisation which are endangering the food independence of the majority of countries around the world.

An article by La Via Campesina, an organisation which brings together peasant and farmer groups as part of a worldwide struggle, sets out quite clearly why the poorest countries have been losing their ability to feed their people with their own harvests: "Some analysts have only been blaming biofuels, growing world demand and global warming for the current food crisis. Yet in reality this crisis is also the outcome of many years of destructive policies which have undermined national food production and forced peasants and farmers to produce only cash crops for transnational companies (TNCs) and to buy their food from the self-same multinationals (or from others, of course) on the world market.

“Over the last 20 to 30 years the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and subsequently the World Trade Organisation (WTO), have forced countries to cut back on their investment in food production and their support for peasants and small farmers who are the keys to food production. Nonetheless small producers are the world’s key food producers." [3]

It might be thought that this food crisis only affects poor countries. However, not everyone would agree. Here in Catalonia hypermarkets have been set up and small and medium-sized food stores have disappeared. These hypermarkets are increasingly powerful and are gradually eliminating all their competitors. In his "Informe Sanuy, defensa del petit comerç i crítica de la Caixa" (La Campana 2005), Fransesc Sanuy sets out in detail how these companies manage to move into a given area, including by arranging very favourable terms with the banks and getting local councils to agree that they should pay very little tax on their business activities, and also the dangers that they may bring with them. This model is very similar to the French supermarket model of retailing. French economist Christian Jacquiau has studied the impact of the establishment of these hypermarkets, and tells us about his findings in an interview with Illacrua; a link to the item can be found on the blog http://supermercatsnogracies.wordpress.com

The Supermercats no gràcies (Supermarkets? No thanks) campaign, which is supported by Xarxa de Consum Solidari, Veterinaris Sense Fronteres, Entrepobles, EdPac, Enginyers Sense Fronteres, Observatori del Deute en la Globalització, Campanya Roba Neta and other groups and individuals both in Catalonia and around the rest of Spain, has grown out of the observation and analysis of this state of affairs. It presents a well-structured critique of the situation and puts forward solutions to counter the effects of the monopolisation of the food sector in the North by these corporations. It is also committed to the recovery of food sovereignty by the peoples of the world in both the North and the South. The two figures give an idea of the power of these companies.

If we look at the rise in prices over recent months, the first thing we need to do is to make clear what sort of rise we are actually talking about. We need to make a distinction between a rise in the price of end-product foodstuffs (the price paid by the consumer); a rise in the price of food at the beginning of its production process (what is called food commodities); a rise in prices in a specific region; and a rise in prices on the international markets. In this case we are referring to the worldwide rise in prices of some food commodities which ends up impacting on the final price paid by consumers. [1] These price increases, however, do not have any effect on the salaries and wages of agricultural workers who are left behind by the wayside.

There are a number of reasons behind this rise in prices: deregulation of the world market for basic foodstuffs, the use of some of these commodities to produce biodiesel, and the agriculture model itself.

The upward trend is also a long-term reaction to the downward spiral that ran from 1974 to 2001. Yet such steep rises in only a very few months also reflect a financial commitment. Between March 2007 and March 2008, the price of corn rose by 130%, soya by 87%, rice by 74% and sweet corn by 53% as a result of an increase in the capital invested in agricultural markets. Investment volume rose five-fold in the EU and seven-fold in the United States. The investment funds which are escaping the dollar and the real estate crisis are now laying siege to the basic food of the Third World. [2]

An example of this situation occurred in Mexico in January 2007. The country is the cradle of maize and has hundreds of varieties of this vegetable species which have been a basic part of the diet of its people for many generations. In 2007 there were price rises due an increase in the demand for American maize to make ethanol and biodiesel. At that time Mexico was importing 30% of the maize that it consumed from the USA, and specifically genetically modified maize. Maize used for making ethanol started to compete with the maize exported to Mexico. How on earth can it be that Mexico is importing maize from the US?

The deregulation of the basic foodstuffs market gave the green light to speculation in food commodities. Another example can be found in Indonesia, when during the rise in the price of soya in January 2008, PT Cargill Indonesia still held onto 13,000 tonnes of soya in its warehouses in Surabaya as it waited for prices to hit their historic high. [1]

The prevailing agriculture model, what we shall call agro-industry from now on, is presented as a model for efficient production; another step forward in the evolution of agriculture along the lines of the green revolution. This precedent has now gone as far as it can and has brought with it major dependence on oil. But what happens when oil is no longer a cheap resource? Is this type of agriculture equally efficient then? The fertilisers and part of the agro-chemicals used with crops, the machinery and the vehicles used to sow, harvest, process, store and transport all require oil by-products. Part of the electricity required to extract water and irrigate the crops is generated from oil by-products. Plastic sheeting used to cover greenhouses and the hoses used to irrigate the fields, packaging materials and transport to market need oil by-products. They are all increasingly expensive. Plastics such as polypropylene cost up to 70% more than in 2003, according to figures compiled from articles by the Grain group (www.grain.org)

This model hides more injustices than just price rises, as years ago it transformed the food model to be found in industrialised countries. It has turned production into industrialised agriculture and livestock breeding that use extremely productive hybrid varieties which are nevertheless of very low nutritional quality. Moreover, farms are much bigger than in the traditional model and they use a lot of machinery that is dependent on fossil fuels while employing few workers.

The animal fodder used on European livestock farms deserves special attention. It is a combination of foodstuffs including genetically modified soya, much of which is imported from Argentina. This is featured in the documentary Hambre de soja which depicts the consequences of 10 years of growing genetically modified soya (with seeds from US multinational Montsanto) in Argentina: its impact on the quality of the soil, the condition of agricultural workers, the ownership of the land and exports, and also the loss of food sovereignty on the part of the people of Argentina.

Another foodstuff which is commonly used to make animal fodder is sweet corn or maize, which is also genetically modified. Some of it is imported, although it also grown in Europe; the area with the highest concentration of genetically modified corn crops is Aragon and Catalonia, which have been the proving ground or pilot scheme for the whole of Europe. Did you know that? At present the traditional and ecological growing of corn has been virtually wiped out by constant contamination. The documentary Traxgenia, el cuc i el panís paints a very accurate picture of this situation here in Catalonia; contamination of crops and the promotion of the seeds by the seed-marketing companies. The dossier entitled "la coexistència impossible”, published by the Plataforma Transgènics Fora and Greenpeace, also provides a very thorough explanation and analysis of this conflict.

Farmers and civil society organisations which examine issues connected with food are fully aware that the interests of the big food corporations are very different to the interests of ordinary people. The interests of the people in terms of food can be summarised thus: healthy food at an affordable and regular price, decent working conditions for agricultural labourers, and keeping farming land in good condition for the use of future generations. What are the interests of the big corporations? Making money in the short term, saving their own hides as the bottom falls out of another market, and controlling these resources so that they can exert pressure on national governments.

It is for this reason that in one way or another, these organisations try to distance themselves from the actions of these corporations. What does distancing yourself mean in this context? It means not selling your harvests to these transnational companies, trying to meet the food needs of your community and having minimal dependence on the products which are distributed by these corporations. These organisations are pledged to a type of agriculture which is environmentally friendly (to water, air, soil, and agricultural and animal biodiversity), an agriculture which dignifies farm workers. In short, distancing yourself from the agro-industrial model means distancing yourself from ‘bread today, hunger tomorrow’.

For organisations in Catalan civil society, distancing themselves means building a well-founded critique of this industrial agriculture and putting in place alternatives. Here in Catalonia there are many initiatives along these lines. There are farmers who are committed to agriculture and livestock breeding which is right for them, the land, the animals and consumers alike. Then there are the producers of these products, together with cooperatives, associations and groups that are committed to local, ecological and fair consumption and who distribute these products. Little by little these initiatives are creating an agroecological network which includes advocacy groups that work to foster this type of agriculture and family or cooperative stores which are also pledged to this alternative model.

In the light of the above, we believe that the solution is not to be found in a few handouts to the countries in the deepest trouble. That is because these countries grow more food for export in order to keep their balance of trade out of the red. We believe that the solution involves taking the bull by the horns before it charges into us. It means starting to produce in a different way, to distribute in a different way and to buy in a different way. We are all to an extent part of the problem and we can also be part of the solution. We can also believe in the ability of our politicians, even though they have managed to make something of a mess of it so far. Perhaps we should keep a closer eye on them, to see who benefits in the long-term from the laws that they pass. Right now we need to monitor what they do with the draft bill put forward by Som lo que sembrem, La Iniciativa Legislativa Popular per una Catalunya Lliure de Transgènics. Stay alert.

[1] Precios en aumento. Cuando los árboles no dejan ver el bosque. By Ferran Garcia, Marta G. Ribera and Miquel Ortega.
[2] La oportunidad del hambre. Claudio Katz. Rebelión (www.rebelion.org)
[3] Via Campesina (www.viacampesina.org) May 2008