Food Rights and Food Fights

ISSUE 5, 2/2014

Editorial board:

Stephen Bell, Natia Chkhetiani, Piper Donlin, Jonathan Fraenkel-Eidse,

Despina Gleitsmann, Charlotte Lilleby Kildal and Marcela Oliveira.

Design: Magnus Wittersø

Front page photo: Martin Haagensen - www.martinhaagensen.no

Printer: Grøset Trykkeri

Circulation: 800

Editorial review finished: 29th of September 2014

Date of publication: 29th of October 2014

ISSN number (online): ISSN 1893-5834

ISSN number (print): ISSN 1893-5605

Tvergastein has two annual issues and is distributed for free at UiO, NMBU and several other locations.

A digital version can be found at our webpage: www.tvergastein.com

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude and thanks to Martin Haagensen and Kooperativet for lending us their

photographs as well as to our sponsors: Kulturstyret, Arne Næss Chair, LEVE and The Centre for Development and the

Environment (SUM).

Address: Tvergastein, co/SUM, Postboks 1116 Blindern 0317 OSLO

E-mail: tvergastein@sum.uio.no

Web: www.tvergastein.com

Facebook: facebook.com/tvergastein

Twitter: @tvergastein

The article submission deadline and theme for the next issue will be announced on our web page and our Facebook page.

Tvergastein accepts submissions in two categories: Shorter op-ed pieces (2,000 - 5,000 characters) and longer articles

(10,000 - 20,000 characters), in either English or Norwegian.

4

Editorial Statement

Food and global warming, a starting point for food

sustainability

William Nicholson

Spisformulering, Intervju med Gunnhild Stordalen

Kristian Bjørkdahl

Når maten ikke når magen

Anna Birgitte Milford

The Story and Impacts of Industrial Corn in the

American Food System

Piper Donlin

McPhÔ: Fast slow food and slow fast food in Vietnam

Arve Hansen

Common Ground

Eric Sannerud

Green Summer Chat, Interview with Annikken Rustad

Jøssund

Natia Chkhetiani

Klima for mat

Borgar Aamaas

Kva gjer matvanane våre med jorda vår?

Solveig Lyngre

A Thirty Year Fight for Healthier Food

Arthur (Tex) Hawkins

Money Can’t Be Eaten

Dr. Meredith Gartin

5

7

12

20

22

28

30

34

44

50

54

58

Tvergastein 5th Issue

5

60

66

68

74

78

82

90

94

98

100

104

110

Struggles for Food Sovereignty in Latin America

Cecilie Hirsch

Matkunnskap - billig løsning på dyrt problem

Andreas Viestad

Smallholder Agricultural Production Regimes

Kjell Havnevik

Is more nutrition information really going to help us eat

healthier? The issue with health claims and food labeling

Marije Oostindjer

Laksen - tar vi den for god fisk?

Charlotte Andersen

Oslo Food Coop – local, organic and sustainable

Andreas Færøvig Olsen

Between mining and food security: The Case of Colombia

Paloma Leon Campos

Beef of Burden?

Siri Karlsen Bellika

The trouble with Sushi: the environmental cost of fish

farming practices

Christina Campo

Permakultur i din miljøhverdag

Thale Lindstad og Jørgen Rafn

The protection gap in the palm oil sector in Indonesia

Aksel Tømte

About the Contributors

6

7

“I think it could be plausibly argued that changes of diet

are more important than changes of dynasty or even of

religion....Yet it is curious how seldom the all-importance

of food is recognized. You see statues everywhere to

politicians, poets, bishops, but none to cooks or bacon-

curers or market gardeners.”

- George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

In our daily lives, many of us take the food we eat for

granted, yet what we eat has tremendous consequences.

Food is unique in that it is something everyone on earth

can relate to. It is what sustains us all, irrespective of

heritage, background and geographical location. Food is

a part of cultural identity and has social, environmental,

economic and political implications. In this issue of

Tvergastein, we address food as one of this century’s most

pressing global issues.

The food strikes that occurred in many parts of the world

in 2007 were brought on by significant increases in food

prices, economic instability, and social unrest within the

food system. These strikes served as a stark reminder,

not only of our interconnectedness in food supply and

production, but also of the great injustices that the

globalized food system has created. It is also clear that

food, health, and economic factors are heavily interlinked.

According to the World Health Organisation, with the

Food Rights and Food Fights

TVERGASTEINBOARD OF EDITORS

exception of Africa, the leading cause of death in low and

middle income countries is non-communicable diseases,

such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, which are

often linked to poor diet and lack of access to healthy

foods. Accessing healthy food is a serious economic

challenge for many, not only in developing nations, but

in supermarkets and households worldwide, as they are

often more expensive than cheaper, heavily-processed

alternatives.

From addressing climate change through growing one’s

own vegetables, to managing the global struggle against

obesity and diabetes, food has become a means of

addressing some of the serious problems environmental,

social and economic problems we face. While some

contributors to “Food Rights and Food Fights” unveil the

most pressing issues and consequences of the modern food

system, others, such as Andreas Viestad and the interview

with Annikken Rustad Jøssund provide innovative

solutions and case studies of Oslo-based initiatives. From

Cecilie Hirsch’s piece on food rights in Bolivia to Kristian

Bjørkdahl’s interview with Gunhild Stordalen at the EAT

Forum in Stockholm, “Food Rights and Food Fights” spans

the globe in an effort to critique the current food system,

provide alternatives, and inspiration for a healthy and

sustainable future.

8

Photo: CHARLOTTE LILLEBY KILDAL

9

Food and global warming, a starting point for food sustainability?

Farmageddon?

There are 7 billion of us. Soon we will be 9 billion. More

and more people in the world are able to live western-like

consumer lifestyles. We are sleep-walking (or perhaps sleep-

running?) into global warming. We are destroying the very

land we depend upon to feed ourselves. Many have food-

related health problems, many suffer from food poverty.

Heard some of this before? Good, because research suggests

it is not just a scary story, not just one of Æsop’s fables

about greed and short-termism leading to self-destruction.

It is a situation of our own making and, to me, a situation

we can solve.

Problems within the food system are complex and

multidimensional, so sometimes it is useful to find a place

to start, a trigger for change that can lead to more change.

The contribution of our food system to global warming

is an often misunderstood part of the puzzle, but it could

be the catalyst for real change. The change needs to come

from us.

Global warming & food

The food industry alone has a significant contribution to

greenhouse gas emissions; up to 30% of global emissions

are attributed to food production, food transport, food

WILL NICHOLSON

consumption and related land-use change.1 Whilst

there are emissions attributed to all stages of the food

system, including transport, storage and preparation,

the largest single impact comes from food production

itself – agriculture. Whilst there is obviously an argument

for reducing emissions at all stages, the emission

levels in catering, retail, home cooking, transport and

manufacturing are largely due to fossil fuel use (either from

energy or transport fuel) and as such depend on the energy

and fuel mix.4 Overall, the main impact is outside of

energy-mix considerations.

Proportional greenhouse gas emissions within

the food system

10

By far the biggest global warming contribution comes

from food production, and the impact of different food

products is far from equal. Research consistently shows

meat and dairy products to have higher carbon footprints

than grains and vegetables, with especially high footprints

for products deriving from ruminating livestock (cattle

and sheep)5 6. High emissions from ruminators are due to

methane production from enteric fermentation within

the animals’ stomachs, rather than any specific input into

production. Indeed, this impact is so high it has been

proposed that a reduction in beef and dairy products

might be essential if global warming is to be kept within

acceptable limits.5

Not quite Animal Farm…

As George Orwell suggested, all animals are not equal.

Neither are their carbon footprints. Beef is consistently

found to have a carbon footprint 3 times higher than pork,

4 times higher than chicken, and 40 times higher than

most vegetables. Dairy products come from cows, so also

have a high carbon footprint, although to a lesser extent

than beef.

Up to 30% of global emissions are attributed to food production, food transport, food

consumption and related land-use change

This is approximately how the carbon

footprint scale for food looks on a graph:

Food and global warming, a starting point for food

11

To put it into perspective, the global warming

contribution of livestock has been estimated to be the same

as the global warming contribution of driving all the cars

on the planet.8 As with any research this must be seen as

an estimate, but you can see how this might be realistic

when you consider the following scenario. When you eat

a cheeseburger you have, indirectly, made the same global

warming contribution as driving over 20km in a family

car. A chicken burger is the same as about 6km, and a

vegetarian burger about 2km. And now think how many

burger restaurants are there in the average western city.

The important thing to remember here is that

solutions to the global warming contribution of driving

a car are both technical (think electric cars, hydrogen

fuel cells and the like) and behavioural (use more public

transport, use a bike more often, share car journeys and

such). The technological solutions to the global warming

contribution of food are more limited. Yes, green fuels

can reduce the impact in terms of farm equipment, and

different farming techniques can reduce the global warming

contribution of fertilisers, and research does suggest that

agricultural efficiencies can be achieved. But fundamentally

the decision is ours as consumers. Meat will always have

a higher impact than vegetables (unless we start eating

biotech fake meat, but probably not any time soon).

And this is the key point with consumer behaviour,

food, and global warming. The potential benefits of

eating a “low carbon footprint” diet are many. If people

in wealthy countries eat lower on the carbon footprint

scale (less meat, less processed food, more vegetables, more

protein from food like beans), we will significantly reduce

human contribution to greenhouse gas levels, and at the

same time be healthier. Meat is also problematic from a

land-use perspective, so a reduction in meat consumption

can free more suitable land for crops to feed a growing

population. According to WWF, over 30 “football fields”

of forest are removed every day, and much of that land

is then used to grow crops to feed livestock. This has a

double-whammy impact on global warming: fewer trees to

suck up carbon dioxide, and more GHG emitting animals

being produced.

Will organic food save the world?

We can eat less meat, and make a big difference, that much

is clear. Are there any other things we can do to reduce the

global warming contribution of the food we eat? Many

people believe organic, or økologisk, food is the direction

we should be going. In terms of soil health, energy inputs

and animal welfare, yes, organic food production has many

benefits that should be part of our way of producing food

– it is simply more sustainable in the long-term, even if

current yield levels may not always be as high as industrial

farming. From the perspective of global warming however,

it is not so straight-forward. Comparison of the carbon

footprint of organic food versus conventional food is

inconsistent, varying from one product to another. For

example, different research has found organic beef to have

both a lower overall carbon footprint and a higher carbon

footprint than conventional beef[i]. The same has been

found for vegetables and other food products. You should

still buy organic food when you can, because it has many

benefits for the environment, but you should not assume

that this is a better thing to do from a global warming

perspective.

Locavores in the global village

Another area that has become somewhat misunderstood

is the benefit of local food. The local food movement,

similar to the organic food movement, has many

advantages. The original premise concerning “food miles”

was an assumption that eating local food equates to

lower global warming. This however been shown to be

too simplistic. Much has been made about the impact

of transporting food within a global system and 12%2 is

not an inconsiderable contribution. However, the issue of

“food miles” is more complex than simply equating carbon

footprint with the distance food has travelled.3 Life cycle

analysis has shown that some products do indeed have a

significantly higher carbon footprint when transported

long distances, and by carbon intensive transport; however

When you eat a cheeseburger you have, indirectly, made the same global warming contribution as

driving over 20km in a family car.

Will Nicholson

12

Research consistently shows meat and dairy products to have higher carbon footprints than grains and vegetables, with especially high footprints for products deriving from

ruminating livestock (cattle and sheep)

other products can have lower carbon footprints when not

sourced locally, depending on the production method and

seasonality. A clear example of this has been comparing the

carbon footprint of English tomatoes in winter (grown in

a carbon intensive way using greenhouses) with tomatoes

grown in more climatically appropriate conditions in Spain

and transported to England.4 Perhaps this should be viewed

through the lens of seasonal food rather than local food,

and perhaps we need to be practical about this. As someone

with years of experience in the restaurant industry, I know

how unrealistic it is to have a large-scale local food supply

in a Norwegian winter. The sensible approach is just to eat

food that is appropriate to the season, but do not assume

that this is going to save the planet on its own.

We need to start somewhere

So where does this leave us? From a global warming

perspective we have to consider that economic

development in other countries is leading to rapid global

increases in meat consumption. It is estimated that demand

for meat will increase by 50% in the next decades5, and

who are we to say that other populations should not have

the same opportunities as us? We can’t say this, but we can

change our behaviour and, within reason, expect others

to do the same. A responsible diet where we eat less meat

and more vegetables is “climate smart”, healthier and more

cost-effective. If organic food is more expensive, then the

money we save from eating less meat could be used to buy

more organic food. I know this can work, I do it myself. So

we start to get into win-win situations – we are reducing

global warming contributions, increasing agricultural

sustainability, and living more healthy sustainable lives.

This matters because the problems within the food system

are wider than just global warming; fish stocks have been

pushed to critical limits6 and valuable water resources

are being depleted.7 Environmental degradation (such as

biodiversity loss, nitrogen pollution of water systems, and

reduced soil health) has increased through negative effects

of industrial agriculture.8 All the while, developed countries

suffer from over-consumption, whilst the poorest countries

continue to suffer from malnutrition.9

If we start to eat smarter in terms of the global

warming contribution of our diets, then we start to create

the space within the food system for more sustainable

farming to flourish, for more efficient land-use, for

agricultural land to be used to sustainably maximise

productivity, not to feed cattle so we can eat more burgers.

Meat has a place within our diets, but not to the extent

where its production acts as a barrier to positive changes in

our food system. A “climate smart” diet can be a catalyst to

moving towards what I see as the 3 key things we need to

do: eat more responsibly, farm more sustainably, and waste

less food. But more of that another time.

Food and global warming, a starting point for food

13

NOTES:

All material is copyrighted to IntoLife / Will Nicholson.

1 Garnett, T. (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing

greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food

chain)? Food Policy 36 23-32.

2 Garnett, T. (2011)

3 Garnett, T. (2011)

4 Hille, J. et al. (2012) Environmental and climate analysis for the

Norwegian agriculture and food sector and assessment of actions.

Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute (NILF).

Working Paper

5 Hille, J. et al. (2012)

6 Nijdam, D. et al. (2012) The price of protein: Review of land use

and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food

products and their substitutes. Food Policy 37, 760-770

7 Hedenus, F. et al. (2014) The importance of reduced meat and

dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets.

Climatic Change. In Press, 28 March 2014

8 FAO (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow – environmental issues

and options

9 Hille, J. et al. (2012)

10 Garnett, T. (2011)

11 Edwards-Jones, G. et al. (2008) Testing the assertion that ‘local

food is best’: the challenges of an evidence-based approach. Trends

in Food Science & Technology 19 265-274

12 Smith, A., et al. (2005) The validity of food miles as an

indicator of sustainable development. Oxon,

UK: Defra. ED50254, -103

13 Pretty, J. (2008) Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles

and evidence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 447-465.

14 Pauly, D. (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries.

Nature. 418, 689-695

15 Mekonnen, M., M., Hoekstra, A., Y. (2011) The green, blue and

grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol.

Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 1577–1600

16 Pretty, J. (2008)

17 Pretty, J. (2008)

Will Nicholson

14

Alle vet at det er viktigere å drikke enn å spise. Et

menneske kan overleve 2-3 uker uten mat, men dør

etter bare noen få døgn uten væske. Det var ikke denne

barnelærdommen som begrunnet min timeplan mot

slutten av mai 2014. Likevel, da jeg en het morgen stabbet

meg mot togstasjonen i Trastevere i Roma for å komme

til verdenshistoriens første EAT Stockholm Food Forum

– en konferanse om mat, helse og bærekraft – hadde

jeg akkurat lagt bak meg fire dager med, vel, drikking.

Du lurer kanskje på hvorfor jeg prioriterte på denne

måten? En ren tilfeldighet, I can assure you. En av mine

tidligere arbeidsplasser hadde noen midler til overs på et

budsjett og hadde invitert alle sine alumni til et fire dagers

symposium ved Det norske instituttet i Roma. Gjensynet

av gamle kolleger var så gledelig at det respektable faglige

programmet ble supplert med et minst like fyldig sosialt

program.

Men slike utskeielser har en kostnad – og nå betalte

jeg prisen. Det begynte å ane meg at beslutningen om å dra

rett fra de fire dagene i Roma til tre nye i Stockholm ikke

hadde vært spesielt klok. Jeg er for gammel for sånt. Oppå

det hele måtte jeg drasse på en bag full av dressjakker; det

er ikke like tøft som en neve full av dollars, men ikke desto

mindre nødvendig når man farter fra den ene konferansen

til den neste. Jeg følte meg uansett ikke spesielt tøff da jeg

ankom Skandinavias hovedstad. Med stor møye karret jeg

meg de få metrene til konferansehotellet. Jeg hadde sett ut

som et lik da jeg så meg i speilet den morgenen, og antok at

to togturer, en flytur, samt diverse motstridig gange under

blytung blazerbag neppe hadde hatt en forskjønnende

effekt på meg. Jeg var i en slik tilstand der man aller helst

bare vil være for seg selv, og ikke bli sett av noen.

Skjebnen ville det – akk! – ikke slik. Den første jeg

møtte da jeg steg inn i hotellobbyen var hotellets eier, og

dermed vertskap for EAT, nemlig Petter Stordalen. Jeg

kjenner noen som kjenner ham, og derfor hadde jeg møtt

ham noen ganger før. Nå registrerte jeg at han var like

opplagt og velantrukket som alltid. «Jøss, er du her!?»,

utbrøt han, tydelig overrasket. «Hvorfor må alle alltid være

så tydelig overrasket over at jeg dukker opp på steder!?»,

tenkte jeg. «Jo, jeg er her. Skal på EAT, vettu», svarte jeg,

slagkraftig og inspirert. Jeg hadde en snikende følelse av at

jeg hadde på meg samme skjorte som mannen en gang lot

falle en smått sarkastisk kommentar om, og jeg begynte å

lure på om spesielt velkledde folk også legger bedre merke

til andres klær. «Ja, det er jo helt sinnsykt opplegg, vettu!

Gunhild har jobba dag og natt, så nå er det bare å måke

på!» Nei, ingen tegn til skjortespøk denne gangen; naturlig

SpisformuleringIntervju med Gunnhild Stordalen

KRISTIAN BJØRKDAHL

15

nok var han mer opptatt av hva kona hans var i ferd med å

få i stand. «Ja, det kan jeg tenke meg», svarte jeg, og håpet

at tanngarden som stakk fram gjennom det skjeve gliset jeg

presterte ikke avslørte at jeg hadde glemt å pakke tannkrem

til Roma-turen. «Ja, men bra, vi ses!», sa han, og forsvant

inn i noen indre gemakker.

Etter at jeg hadde gjort et så formidabelt inntrykk på

Norges rikeste mann, ventet altså EAT Stockholm Food

Forum. For min del skulle det vise seg å bli en lang rekke

nye møter – som heldigvis ikke var like pinlige som dette

første – med en rekke nye folk. Dette var forresten helt som

det skal være.

Ordet «konferanse» betyr jo nettopp «møte», og alle som

har vært på noen konferanser vet at det interessante skjer

mellom sesjonene.

En sjelden gang er man kanskje heldig og hører et

minneverdig foredrag, eller man deltar tilfeldigvis på

en workshop hvor det faktisk jobbes. Likevel, den mest

nærliggende nytten av en konferanse er kontaktene man

kan knytte i «mellomtiden». Dette var også den største

nytten jeg hadde av EAT. Samtidig må jeg legge til at EAT

på dette området var noe utenom normalen; klientellet her

var nemlig langt mer variert enn vanlig.

På disse siste dagene i mai møtte jeg ikke bare den

nevnte hotellmilliardæren; jeg møtte også en norsk

organisasjonspsykolog som jobber med atferdsendring;

en tidligere kokk som reiser rundt i verden for å etablere

et verdensomspennende nettverk av kokker; en WHO-

direktør; en representant for et firma som dyrker planter

for farmasøytisk industri (nei, ikke den planten…); en

veterinærstudent med gründerambisjoner; en dame fra

National Geographics Sverige-kontor; en representant for

det norske kongelige hoff; en mangeårig FN-byråkrat

(og visstnok, vokalist i et rockeband) som nå jobbet med

IPCC-prosessen; en kjent indisk miljøaktivist; vinneren av

de såkalte Local EAT Awards (fra et firma som drev med

produksjon av tang); en National Geographic-fotograf; en

vilt morsom komiker; en CR-ansvarlig fra hotellbransjen;

en gruppe fra Accenture (som jeg riktignok aldri fikk helt

Photo: BAARD HENRIKSEN, PER SOLLERMAN

16

taket på hva jobbet med); for ikke å nevne en hel gjeng

med forskere på feltet mat, helse, og bærekraft.

På rene forskerkonferanser møter man stort sett bare

andre forskere, og disse holder bare unntaksvis på med ting

som angår andre enn en snever krets med fagfeller. EAT

var utypisk på begge punkter; det var mindre lukket og

mer praktisk orientert enn de fleste andre konferanser jeg

har vært på. Derfor var det til min store overraskelse at jeg

oppdaget reaksjonene på EAT i norske medier, hvor det

av mange ble beskrevet som et lukket arrangement med

et elitistisk siktemål. VGs kommentator Astrid Meland,

for eksempel, kalte EAT «et kostbart etterutdanningskurs

for de magre og mektige», en «nettverks-PR-jippo» og

«elitistisk … matjåleri». Marie Simonsen i Dagbladet

kalte det en «lekegrind for veltrente og småspiste rikinger

med dyre spesialbutikker i nabolaget». Mens Drude Beer

i Nationen skrev: «De tynne og rike skal slanke de feite».

Mange av disse beske utfallene var mer eller mindre

fordekte stikk til konferansens primus motor, Gunhild

Stordalen. Mediekommentatorene synes åpenbart at hun

var for tynn og rik til å kunne bry seg om mat og bærekraft.

Riktignok så ikke alle noen grunn til kritikk. For

eksempel ble initiativet forsvart heller inderlig av Aksel

Nærstad i Utviklingsfondet – i Klassekampen, av alle

steder – som skrev at Stordalen fortjente både takk og ros

for initiativet, og som la til at «EAT-forumene kan bli svært

viktige». Uansett, min reaksjon på mediereaksjonene fikk

meg til å ville vite mer om hva jeg egentlig hadde vært

med på. Hva er EAT? Hvilke mål har man med initiativet?

Hvordan skal de nås? Og er det noe i kritikken? Jeg har

selvfølgelig også en mer personlig interesse av dette; jeg

deltok på EAT som representant for Senter for utvikling

og miljø (SUM), som er en av EATs såkalte Research &

Development Partners. Og i min bransje, altså forskning,

har man typisk bare begrenset tålmodighet med, vel,

egentlig alt som ikke er forskning. Derfor hadde jeg også en

viss dragning mot å spille Djevelens Advokat med Gunhild

Stordalen.

Gunhild, dette nummeret av Tvergastein skal ta for seg

«food rights and food fights». Hva er din «food fight»?

Min food fight er Good Food for All. Jeg kjemper

for matproduksjon som er klimasmart og bærekraftig

i et globalt perspektiv, etisk akseptabelt for dyrene og

for menneskene som produserer den og, ikke minst,

helsefremmende for de som spiser den.

Oi, det var ikke rent lite. Kan ikke disse ambisjonene bli

noe, hva skal vi si, sprikende? Er det ikke litt sånn at når man

skal løse alt, så kan man fort ende opp med å løse ingenting?

Eller, la meg formulere det på en annen måte: Hvis EAT er

svaret, hva er spørsmålet?

Spørsmålet er: Hvordan fø 9 milliarder sunne

mennesker innenfor planetens grenser? Noen av vår

tids største utfordringer handler om helse og miljø,

som epidemien av kroniske livsstilssykdommer og

klimaendringer. Hittil har disse problemene stort sett

har vært ansett som separate. Det vi vil understreke med

Helse og bærekraft er ikke et kjærlighetsekteskap, men mer som et fornuftsekteskap – som må fungere sammen.

Spisformulering

17

EAT er at de faktisk henger tett sammen, og at veldig

mye av problemet skyldes mat – hva vi spiser og hvordan

det produseres. Med EAT vil vi fremme det vi kaller en

dobbel-trippel-helix – det vil si mat/helse/bærekraft sett

på tvers av forskning/politikk/næringsliv. Vi mener at å

forstå dette som en slik kompleks helhet kan bli en modell

for endring av det globale matsystemet. Samtidig trenger

vi mer tverrfaglig kunnskap om sammenhengene mellom

mat, helse og bærekraft. Hva er bra for alt, og hvor er det

trade offs? Og denne kunnskapen må omsettes i praksis:

Næringslivet må gå fra å være en del av problemet, til å bli

en sentral del av løsningen – ved å innovere og investere.

Det krever imidlertid forutsigbarhet og langsiktighet, og

det må politikerne legge til rette for.

Hmm... Du skal vite at jeg lider av en slags agorafobi

for saksfremstillinger som tar mål av seg å inkludere «alt».

Jeg higer liksom hele tiden etter noe mindre, noe vi kan ta på

og gjøre noe med. Det er mulig det er jeg som er provinsiell i

hodet, altså, men når man gaper så vidt, så ser man jo til slutt

ikke hva man holder på med. Eller?

Vel, ingen har sagt at dette vil bli lett, men alt starter

med mer kunnskap om sammenhengene mellom mat-

helse-bærekraft. For å lykkes har vi knyttet til oss noen av

verdens ledende universiteter og forskningsinstitusjoner

innen de ulike områdene som er involvert i mat,

matproduksjon, folkehelse, ernæring, miljø, klima,

veterinærmedisin, matsikkerhet og mattrygghet, samt

NGOs og næringslivsorganisasjoner som jobber med

relevante aspekter – inkludert økonomi, atferdsøkonomi,

forbrukerperspektiv, policymaking, etc. Men kunnskap

alene har aldri forandret verden; kunnskapen må omsettes

i praksis. Derfor er det viktig å ha med partnere som kan

ta kunnskapen ut, implementere og oppskalere. Ikke bare

matindustrien selv, men også kommunikasjonskanaler som

Google og National Geographic Magazine.

Jo, det er et godt poeng. Men gitt at EAT er så komplekst,

både tematisk og organisatorisk, hvordan skal dere samordne

alt sammen? Min erfaring fra universitetssektoren er at det er

vanskelig nok å få folk til å samarbeide på tvers av faggrenser.

Dere ser ut til å sikte mot noe enda mer ambisiøst; dere skal

få folk fra ulike fag (medisin/ernæring, naturforvaltning,

afterdsøkonomi og -psykologi, etc.) og ulike temaområder

(mat/helse/bærekraft) til å jobbe sammen, samtidig som disse

forskerne – sammen – skal samarbeide med business, politikk

og sivilsamfunn (!!!). Er det dette man kaller hybris?

Nei, man kaller det work-in-progress. Vi er selvfølgelig

hele tiden i dialog med våre partnere om hvordan dette

skal struktureres og konkretiseres, men mye har vi på plass

allerede: Det første er det årlige EAT Stockholm Food

Forum – en «annual gathering of the community» der

partnere fra ulike sektorer og fagdisipliner skal gi innspill

på konkrete tema og problemstillinger på området. Det kan

for eksempel dreie seg om konkrete forskningsagendaer,

hvordan EAT-tematikken kan integreres i Post 2015- og

SDG- prosessene, eller på litt lengre sikt, innspill til

praktiske guidelines for sunn og bærekraftig mat. Deretter

er planen at våre forskningspartnere skal samarbeide

på tvers av sine ulike fagdisipliner om små og store

forskningsprosjekter som springer ut av EAT, og der det

søkes om eksterne forskningsmidler. For næringslivet

settes det opp en egen business group, som skal møtes 3-4

ganger i året, og samarbeide med EAT Advisory Board.

Så vil det også bli lokale aktiviteter, som EATx-seminarer,

tverrfaglige og tverrsektorielle workshops om konkrete

problemstillinger. Her kan vi for eksempel ta opp spørsmål

som, Hvordan kan vi håndtere antibiotikaresistens i

Norge? eller, Kan Norge bli det første landet som reverserer

fedmeepidemien, og hvordan det i så fall gjøres bærekraftig?

I hvilken grad er EAT avhengig av konsensus mellom

disse sektorene for å få noe gjort?

Det viktigste er den generelle konsensusen rundt at

problemstillingene rundt mat, helse og bærekraft er tett

knyttet sammen, og at det er behov for å samordne og

finne integrerte løsninger. Ikke alle kommer til å være enige

om alt, og alle kommer til å ha sine hjertesaker og prioritere

ulikt. Men en av de viktigste målsetningene til EAT er å

utvikle integrerte måleverktøy – en indeks som tar opp i seg

både helse og bærekraft, og som kan danne et rammeverk

for videre arbeid, blant annet med å utvikle praktiske

guidelines for sunn og bærekraftig matproduksjon.

Kristian Bjørkdahl

18

OK, dette kan jeg gå med på, først og fremst fordi du sa ordet

«praktisk». Det er ett av mine favorittord! Men det som er

praktisk er jo som regel også konkret – så kan du si noe mer om

hva EAT setter seg fore å få gjort, rent konkret?

Ja, vi har fire hovedmålsetninger. Den første er flere

tverrfaglige forskningsprosjekter, som for eksempel kan

ta for seg integrerte måleverktøy, eller de økonomiske

aspektene rundt å handle eller ikke handle når det kommer

til omstillingen til sunn og bærekraftig matproduksjon

– altså en slags Stern Review for mat. Det første som

publiseres blir en call-for-action artikkel i The Lancet i

høst. Den andre målsetningen er å stimulere innovasjon

i næringslivet. Det gjør vi gjennom den nevnte business

group, videre med opprettelsen av 3 priser (Local EAT,

Global Culinary og Global Innovation Award), samt

med såkalte EAT Talks. Den tredje målsetningen er å

bidra til politikkutforming; vi vil påvirke og utfordre

lokalpolitikere til å tenke tverrfaglig og tverrsektorielt

gjennom EAT Forum, vi vil arrangere EATx-seminarer,

nasjonale workshops (for eksempel om hvordan politikere

kan tilrettelegge for og samarbeide med næringsliv og gjøre

det lettere for forbrukere å velge rett, eksempelvis gjennom

endret prising), og vi vil bidra med input og tilstedeværelse

i mellomstatlige prosesser. Den fjerde målsetningen er å

utforme strategier for atferdsendring hos konsumentene,

både kommunikasjonsmessig og atferdsøkonomisk (såkalt

nudging); her vil vi jobbe for praktiske guidelines for sunn

og bærekraftig mat. På sikt kanskje man kan se for seg en

integrert merkeordning?

Nå har du meg på gli. Jeg håper dere fortsetter å være

så konkrete som du akkurat var her. Men så lurer jeg på noe

annet. På konferansen fikk jeg inntrykk av at det faktisk råder

ganske utbredt enighet om deler av EATs agenda. For eksempel

mener de fleste at vi – for vår egen, dyrs, og naturens helse

og velferds skyld – bør spise mindre kjøtt og mer frukt, grønt,

nøtter, korn og belgvekster. Fra ditt og deres ståsted, hva er

man enige om og hva strides man om, på området mat/helse/

bærekraft?

At vi må spise mindre kjøtt og mer planter i vesten

er et eksempel på noe det generelt er stor enighet om, ja.

Men dette er noe vi forsøker å få oversikt over – hvor er det

kunnskapshuller, men også hvor er det konfliktområder og

trade-offs? Helse og bærekraft er ikke et kjærlighetsekteskap,

men mer som et fornuftsekteskap – som må fungere

sammen. Selv om vi mener dette er et område hvor man

ser såkalte multiple win-win, er det åpenbart noen klare

Spisformulering

Photo: BAARD HENRIKSEN, PER SOLLERMAN

19

trade-offs. Ett eksempel er helsemyndighetenes anbefalinger

om fet fisk minst 2 ganger i uken, et råd som er helt

urealistisk i et globalt bærekraftsperspektiv – det er rett og

slett ikke nok fet fisk i havet til at alle kan spise så mye. Et

annet eksempel er at vi av bærekraftshensyn må produsere

og spise mindre kjøtt globalt, men til gjengjeld utnytte hele

dyret – det vil si å spise nose-to-tail, Men dette går på tvers

av helseanbefalingene om å redusere inntaket av bearbeidet

kjøtt. Det finnes mange flere eksempler.

Sikkert. Men hvordan forholder EAT seg til tilfeller av

henholdsvis win-win og trade-off? Vil dere være i en posisjon til

å ta i de kontroversielle spørsmålene?

I tilfeller der det finnes en win-win, og hvor det

i tillegg er enighet om det, kan EAT koke enigheten

ned til noe som er praktisk relevant og lett forståelig

for næringslivet og for forbrukere. I dag er 70% av alle

nordmenn kostholdsforvirret; dette er det vår ambisjon

å gjøre noe med. Ved trade-offs, eller der hvor løsningene

er mer kontroversielle – for eksempel temaer som

genmodifisering, land grab, monokulturer, intensiv

produksjon av animalske produkter, og så videre – er det

vår oppgave å legge til rette for at kunnskap innhentes,

deles og diskuteres. Det vil være like viktig å diskutere de

kontroversielle løsningene, og alle disse temaene vil være

relevante for EAT å belyse.

La oss da snakke om noe som kanskje er mer

kontroversielt. Dette nummeret handler som sagt om «food

rights and food fights», og da får jeg personlig assosiasjoner

til fattige bønder i Afrika. I din og deres oppfatning, hva er

de største utfordringene man står overfor på dette området i

henholdsvis rike og fattige land? I hvilken grad og hvordan

henger våre respektive utfordringer sammen?

Det første jeg kan si er at EAT har et globalt fokus

– det vil si at vi vier like mye oppmerksomhet til Low

and Middle Income Countries-landene (LMIC) som til

industrilandene. Men det er viktig å gjøre dette relevant

for industrilandene, som sitter med kapital, kompetanse

og kapasitet til å investere og innovere, noe LMIC-landene

også kan nyte godt av dersom det eksporteres og deles. Det

er også viktig at dette ikke er et ovenfra-og-ned initiativ, der

rike land forteller de fattige hva de skal gjøre. Det handler

vel så mye om kapasitetsbygging og ressursmobilisering i

LMIC-land.

Med dagens trender i befolkningsvekst og endrede

kostholdsvaner må vi produsere 60% mer mat innen

2050; mesteparten av denne økningen må komme i

utviklingslandene, spesielt i Afrika. 70% av verdens

smallholder farmers er kvinner, og de produserer mindre

effektivt enn sine mannlige kollegaer – blant annet

fordi de ikke har samme rettigheter og samme tilgang

til informasjon. Samtidig som de produserer 80% av

alle basismatvarer – eier de bare 8% av jorden. I denne

anledning sa Charlie Chibonga (CEO Nat Smallholder

Farmers Alliance Malawi) på EAT at smallholder farming

må gå fra subsistence til farming business. Her ligger

kanskje noe av løsningen.

Samtidig må vi unngå at LMIC-landene begår de

samme feilene som vestlige land. Disse landene tar nå til

seg mer vestlig kosthold (og livsstil) – med mer bearbeidet

og energitett mat med mye SoFas (solid fats and added

sugar) – som ofte er den billigste og lettest tilgjengelige

maten. Samtidig ser vi at kroniske livsstilssykdommer nå

øker raskest i disse landene – 80% av premature dødsfall

skjer her – og at de fortsatt, samtidig, sliter med under-

og feilernæring. Det er dette man kaller «double burden

of disease», og det er en viktig barriere mot økonomisk

utvikling og utjevning av sosiale forskjeller.

Dette høres riktig og viktig ut, men jeg må forsøke å

kjenne min begrensning. Så la meg dreie oss over mot noe

Hans Rosling sa i sitt foredrag – i et slags fordekt kompliment

til seg selv – nemlig at det er mange sammenhenger på området

mat, helse og bærekraft som folk flest simpelthen ikke vet noe

om. Selv ikke mediene vet særlig mye, sa han, og dermed går

vi ofte rundt og forteller myter til hverandre. Slik jeg tolker

dette, bringer det EATs agenda i retning av kommunikasjon.

Vi må knuse myter! Er dette en del av deres prosjekt, i så fall,

på hvilken måte?

Ja. En viktig målsetning for oss er å bidra til å rydde

opp i kostholdsdebatten – med evidensbasert kunnskap.

Vi bombarderes av ulike og til dels motstridende

kostholdsråd og vidunderdietter; noen er bra for å gå ned

i vekt, andre for å gå opp i vekt, bedre hud, bedre sexliv,

Kristian Bjørkdahl

20

mer energi. Noen er bra for dyra, eller bra for klima, etc.

Tabloidforsidene er et godt eksempel: den ene dagen er

det fettet som dreper deg, den neste er fett nøkkelen til

en slank midje. Helsemyndighetene har gjort for lite til

å rydde opp i dette, og de har ikke lykkes kommunisere

med en tydelig stemme hva som er et sunt kosthold. Nå er

det på tide at vi også integrerer bærekraftsaspektet i slike

anbefalinger. Jeg håper at flere og flere skal se ikke bare

at vi blir hva vi spiser, men at planeten også blir hva vi

spiser. Hva vi legger på tallerkenen, er ikke bare noe av det

viktigste vi gjør for vår egen helse, men også for planetens.

Kjøttforbruket vårt er for eksempel i ferd med å bli et større

klimaproblem enn bilkjøringen vår.

Fordi det er sånt jeg holder på med, har jeg tatt en titt på

medieomtalen om EAT. Der var det mange som hadde litt av

hvert å si… Fraser som «nettverks-PR-jippo», «elitistisk …

matjåleri», «lekegrind for veltrente og småspiste rikinger» ble

brukt. Har du, som de sier, en kommentar…?

Kritikken kom fra folk som ikke hadde vært på EAT,

og vitner om at de ikke har forstått eller satt seg inn i hva

det er. Men når det er sagt, vil det alltid være diskusjoner,

ulike meninger og kritiske røster om nye initiativ, uansett

hvor bra de er. Jeg tar det som et tegn på at vi har klart å

sette EAT-tematikken på agendaen.

Jo, men la meg igjen forsøke å være konkret: Slik jeg

ser det, går de negative tilbakemeldingene på to forhold,

spesielt. Det ene er at EAT er et lukket selskap, altså et

elitearrangement, og det andre er at det kun er nettopp, et

selskap, altså en fest – at EAT er et sted hvor fiffen møtes og

«henger ut» og nipper champagne, og spiser «laksekanapeer og

chevre-ristede grønnsaker» som Astrid Meland skrev.

Selve EAT-forumet i Stockholm er helt riktig et lukket

møte; der man må være partner eller spesielt invitert for

å komme. Målsetningen er å samle alle partnere og andre

relevante aktører –ikke minst for å samle input. Grunnen

til at vi ikke åpner opp for alle interesserte er først og

fremst et kapasitetsspørsmål. Men veldig mage andre av

våre arrangementer kommer til å være åpent for alle, for

eksempel EATx under Arendalsuka 13. august. Når det

gjelder antydningen om at EAT kun er en fest, stemmer det

overhodet ikke. Det betyr derimot ikke at møteplassen og

det sosiale ikke også er en viktig dimensjon, som vi ønsker

å tilrettelegge for.

Skal vi lykkes med EATs målsetning om å bryte

silotenkning og etablere samarbeid på tvers av faglige disipliner og sektorer, trengs det nettverksbygging i aller

høyeste grad.

«Nettverk» er i denne sammenhengen et veldig positivt

ladet ord – som for oss betyr å knytte kontakt, etablere

bilateral dialog og samarbeide om felles mål.

Mange av de kritiske innleggene om EAT dreide seg

rundt «vanlige folk». Har EAT som ambisjon å nå også disse?

Hvordan? Og med hva?

En viktig målsetting med EAT er nettopp at «Vanlige

folk» lettere skal kunne velge rett – både for seg selv men

ikke minst for planeten. Det krever imidlertid endring

på systemnivå, alt fra pris, tilgjengelighet, reklame, til

lettfattelig og konkrete evidensbaserte kostholdsråd,

som også tar inn bærekraftsaspektet. I dag råder det

utbredt kostholdsforvirring, og den sunneste og mest

bærekraftige maten er ofte den dyreste og vanskeligste å

få tak i. Skal vi få til storskala atferdsendring, må det bli

lett å velge rett – og det beste må bli det enkleste. EAT

fokuserer på hele verdikjeden, fra produsent til konsument.

Forbrukerperspektivet er ekstremt viktig.

Helt til slutt, til paradokset som flere av

mediekommentatorene la vekt på, nemlig at en med

tilsynelatende svært lite kroppsfett arrangerer en konferanse om

mat. Meland i VG skrev for eksempel at EAT var preget av

folk som «spiste sist gang i 1979». Men som enhver som fulgte

med på skolen vet, dør et menneske etter 2-3 uker uten mat, og

du, Gunhild, er jo høyst levende! Så, hva liker du selv å spise?

Spisformulering

21

Skal vi få til storskala atferdsendring, må det bli lett å velge rett – og det beste må

bli det enkleste.

Jeg er veldig glad i mat, men forsøker å leve som

jeg lærer – og spise sunt og bærekraftig. Derfor er jeg

fleksitarianer, det vil si en vegetarianer som spiser kjøtt –

men bare av og til. Jeg spiser i hovedsak vegetarisk, fisk og

sjømat (selv om jeg unngår scampi og utrydningstruede

arter som blue fin tuna), og kylling (økologisk og

frittgående så langt det er mulig). Men jeg er altfor glad i

kjøtt til at jeg klarer å kutte helt ut, men spiser det sjeldnere

og da mindre porsjoner men av bedre kvalitet, det vil si

frittgående/økologisk og lokalprodusert. Og når jeg er på

italiensk restaurant, unner jeg meg en osso buco.

Kristian Bjørkdahl

Photo: BAARD HENRIKSEN, PER SOLLERMAN

22

God mat skal ikke kastes. Likevel er det nettopp det vi

gjør, hele tiden. I et land som USA blir 40 % av maten

som produseres aldri spist. Om maten er produsert på en

aldri så bærekraftig måte, hjelper det lite når den ender

opp som søppel.

Produksjon av mat fører årlig til utslipp på mer enn 10

milliarder tonn CO2-ekvivalenter, eller 14 % av de totale

globale utslippene. Men i motsetning til mye annet vi

produserer som forårsaker klimautslipp, trenger vi faktisk

mat for å overleve. Det vi ikke trenger å produsere, er

mat vi ikke spiser. Utslippene fra produksjon, foredling

og transport av denne maten er helt forgjeves. Ingen

mennesker har blitt mette, og i tillegg skaper mat som

ligger deponert på søppelfyllinger store metangassutslipp.

Globalt gir kasting av mat utslipp på 3.3 gigatonn CO2-

ekvivalenter i året, noe som gjør det til den tredje største

klimagassutslipperen, etter USA og Kina. På mat vi

kaster har vi også kastet bort 250 km3 vann, den samme

mengden som renner gjennom elven Volga hvert år. Den

samme bortkastede matproduksjonen opptar 1.4 milliarder

hektar med land, noe som representerer nesten

30 % av verdens jordbruksareal. I tillegg svies det årlig

av 4700 milliarder norske kroner, eller hele Sveits’ brutto

nasjonalprodukt, på å lage mat som aldri blir spist.

Hvordan kan det ha seg at rundt en tredjedel av maten

som produseres aldri når sitt mål, noens mage? Det er

forskjellige grunner til dette, og årsakene varierer fra land

til land, og fra produkt til produkt. I USA går for eksempel

mer enn halvparten av frukt og grønnsaker tapt, men

bare 22 % av kjøttproduktene.De høye klimautslippene

forbundet med kjøttproduksjon gjør at dette tapet likevel

har stor miljømessig betydning. Det typiske er også at i

utviklingsland går mye av maten tapt i de første leddene

i verdikjeden fordi der mangler man gode teknologiske

løsninger som bevarer maten under lagring og transport. I

industrialiserte land er dette i mindre grad et problem, men

til gjengjeld har man her en overflod av velstand som gjør

at det spesielt på forbrukernivå kastes stadig mer.

Ser vi på verdikjeden ledd for ledd, finner vi at

aller først, hos produsenten, blir mye god og næringsrik

mat pløyd inn i jordet igjen fordi den hadde feil størrelse,

eller kosmetiske skavanker.

Når maten ikke når magen

ANNA BIRGITTE MILFORDPhoto: Intermarché

Hvordan kan det ha seg at rundt en tredjedel av maten som produseres aldri når sitt mål, noens mage?

23

Det finnes tilsynelatende ikke et marked for poteter under

en viss størrelse, agurker med bøy på, krokete gulrøtter eller meloner med flekker i skallet.

Vi forbrukere vil ha perfekt og plettfri mat. Eller vil vi det

det? I Frankrike har den store matvarekjeden «Intermarché»

hatt suksess med konseptet «les fruits et legumes moches»,

de stygge frukt og grønnsakene. Kampanjen markedsføres

med bilder av poteter som ligner frosker med utstående

øyne, eller sitroner som ender i tre tupper istedenfor én.

En litt lavere pris, eller kanskje reklamekampanjen som

appellerer til miljøengasjement, har fått folk til å fylle

opp kurvene sine med deformerte planteprodukter. Det

gjenstår å se om våre norske matvarekjeder vil følge

Intermarchés eksempel.

Også på foredlingsleddet er det mye matsvinn. Mye

går tapt når produktene skal skrelles, renskes og kuttes.

Når produkter må renskes manuelt og arbeidskostnadene

er høye, er det billigere å la større mengder gå tapt enn at

arbeiderne skal ta seg god tid for å unngå matsvinn.

Det kan likevel være bedre å ta klargjøringen av

produktene på dette leddet i verdkjeden, enn å la det skje

på forbrukernivå, ettersom det her kan bli enda større

tap av spiselig mat. Tap kan også unngås ved at maskiner

forbedres slik at mindre mat blir sittende fast og vaskes

bort etterpå.

Matsvinn forekommer også når en foredler bytter ut

en produktserie med en annen, og ikke klarer å selge ut

alt av den forrige serien. Mangel på god kommunikasjon

mellom foredler og distribusjonsledd kan også føre til at mat

blir produsert uten at den blir solgt videre. Å unngå denne

typen tap vil ikke bare vil gagne miljøet, men også foredlernes

økonomi. Dette gir håp om at vellykkede tiltak vil iverksettes.

På distribusjonsleddet kastes også mye mat. En grunn

kan være at leverandørene har faste leveringsmengder

som er større enn det butikken makter å selge unna før

produktet er blitt gammelt og usalgbart. En annen grunn

er at butikkene, i konkurranse om kresne kunder, føler

seg presset til alltid å ha hyllene fulle av kun perfekte og

plettfrie matvarer. For å oppnå dette er man nødt for å

kaste varer som ikke lenger er tipp topp. Av samme grunn

er det mange butikker som kaster matvarer som nærmer seg

«best før»-datoen, selv om «best før» ikke betyr at maten

er uspiselig når datoen har passert. Et mer miljøvennlig

alternativ som enkelte butikker benytter seg av, er å selge

disse nær utgåtte varene i egne hyller og til en rimeligere

pris. I mange land finnes også organisasjoner som sørger

for at denne maten blir delt ut til fattige mennesker med

tomme mager.

Men den virkelige nøtten når det gjelder kasting

av mat, er det siste leddet, forbrukeren. Det er vi som

kaster mest, og det er her det er vanskeligst å tenke ut

enkle, velfungerende tiltak. Vi kaster fordi vi kjøper større

mengder enn vi trenger når vi er i butikken. Eller fordi vi

tilbereder mer mat enn vi klarer å spise, og kaster restene.

Vi er kresne og vil ikke spise slappe gulrøtter eller yoghurt

som har gått ut på datoen. Vi kaster fordi vi har råd til det.

På 70-tallet kastet vi omtrent halvparten som mye mat

som vi kaster i dag. På 70-tallet var også maten relativt sett

ganske mye dyrere enn den er i dag. Så kanskje vi skulle

skru opp matprisene for å få bukt med matkastingen?

Det hadde kanskje fungert, men blir neppe gjennomført.

Dermed, uten økonomiske virkemidler å ta i bruk, gjenstår

det å informere, promotere og reklamere. I England har

man i flere år hatt en forbrukerrettet kampanje gående,

kalt «Love food hate waste». Med reklame, matlagingskurs,

rapporter og foredrag forsøker de å omvende folk til å bli

matelskere og søppelhatere. De mener kampanjen har ført

til mindre matkasting, og at det altså nytter å informere

forbrukere, ikke minst om den økonomiske gevinsten ved å

la være å kaste. Jeg avslutter med noen av deres gode råd for

å få all maten til å havne der den skal, i magen:

• Ha kontroll over det du har i kjøleskapet

• Anstreng deg for å finne ut hvordan du kan bruke det

du har fra før sammen med det du skal spise i dag

• Frys ned det som holder på å bli gammelt hvis du ikke

får spist det med en gang

• Ikke tilbered mer enn du klarer å spise

• Hvis du har feilet på punkt 4, ta vare på restene, frys

ned, ta med som lunsj eller spis det sammen med neste

dags måltider

• Planlegg på forhånd hva du skal spise de neste dagene

• Bruk handleliste når du er i butikken

• …Elsk mat, hat søppel!

24

The Story and Impacts of Industrial Corn in the American Food System

PIPER DONLINIllustration: Wikipedia

The great edifice of variety and choice that

is an American supermarket turns out to rest

on a remarkably narrow biological foundation

comprised of a tiny group of plants that is

dominated by a single species: Zea mays, the

giant tropical grass most Americans know as corn

–Michael Pollan from The Omnivore’s Dilemma

The United States has played a huge role in shaping

the global agricultural landscape of today. The impacts

of the industrialized food system have been both positive

and negative, and are some of the most complex issues

faced by the US and abroad. Dominating farm fields in

the Midwest is Zea Mays, or corn, as it is referred to in

the United States. According to the USDA, corn covers

over 80 million acres of farmland across the Heartland

and is the most widely produced feed grain in the US.

Most of the crop is used as the main source of energy

in livestock feed, but it is also processed to produce a

multitude of food and industrial products including

starch, sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial

alcohol, and fuel ethanol. The United States is a major

player in the world corn trade market, with approximately

20 percent of the corn crop exported to other countries.

Corn is one of the best representations of the negative

impacts of an industrialized food system. It has played

a role in almost every piece of US society - from health

and social justice, to economics, politics, and the

environment.

This paper is both an attempt to discuss the history

and serious impacts of corn production in the United

States, and briefly point to several solutions that may

lead to a more sustainable agricultural paradigm. All too

often, the issues associated with the industrial system are

called out without fully acknowledging the history and

complexity of food production in the United States, and

without any thought of how to solve them in a realistic

and pragmatic manner.

The Roots of Industrialized Agriculture

Elizabeth (Betty) Faville Tillotson (now Hawkins)

grew up on one of the first dairy farms in Southern

Wisconsin. Her family, who immigrated to Wisconsin

from New York, founded the Wisconsin Dairyman’s

Association in 1872. The Favilles, along with the

University of Wisconsin, actively promoted the dairy

industry in the late 19th century through scientific

research and education. Betty, born in 1919, was a first

25

hand witness of the changes that occurred during the

early 20th century in American Agriculture. According

to Fitzgerald, these changes were characterized by several

fundamental elements: mechanization, specialization,

standardization, and rationalization. Betty described some

of these characteristics in a recent interview via email:

“They milked [the cows] by hand with two hired men

until Grandpa got a DeLaValle milking machine when

I was eight or so. We were automated by the 1920s. I

think the whole area around our farm was about 2,000

acres and made up of about ten farms. The owners were

anxious and willing to have the University of Wisconsin

come and do research there. In fact, that’s how I met my

husband, who was a graduate student doing research on

our farm. Papa went to the University of Wisconsin for

agriculture because he wanted to farm.  He was good at

machines and he knew how to put things together.  He

was offered a position to teach agriculture but he just

wanted to get out on the land. We grew corn, and oats

to feed the workhorses. The transition from horses was

gradual, but eventually we started using tractors.  First

we had an old tractor with lugs on the iron wheels.  And

then after a while, Papa got a tractor with rubber tires. 

We always had John Deere.  Every time we’d get a new

one, it’d have so much more power. We were pretty self

sufficient in those days and lived pretty well.”

This interview gives insight into the industrial

transition that occurred on farms across the country in

the early 20th century. Skilled labor gave way to milking

machines and automation, horses gave way to more

powerful tractors, and researchers from the Land Grant

Universities became coveted partners for farmers hoping

to glean new information and techniques in their trade.

Fitzgerald argues that farmers were encouraged, either

implicitly or explicitly, to modernize their operations.

This meant larger areas in production, specialization,

mechanization, or in short, increased efficiency.

The industrialization of agriculture was a complicated

transition from the traditional to the modern involving

individual farm families, the state, new agricultural

experts, manufacturers, bankers, and journalists, all

playing a role in either pushing or resisting the trends

toward ‘factoryizing’ the farm.

In 1971, President Nixon appointed Earl Butz as

Secretary of Agriculture. This appointment may have

had the single largest impact on the changes to come in

agricultural policy. Under the mantra, “get big or get

out,” Butz created policies aimed at lowering the price of

food by boosting yields of a small handful of commodity

crops, specifically corn and soybeans. This policy forced

farmers to produce more in order to support themselves,

which lead to the serious depression in the Farmbelt

during the 1980s. Many farmers were forced to sell

their land or consolidate in order to make ends meet.

Butz’s policy was successful in lowering the price of food

for the American people, but not without significant

social, environmental and health consequences. While

the price of processed foods and fast convenience foods

plummeted, the price of fruits and vegetables continued

to rise. It is in this climate that the issues associated with

the American industrialized food system come into play.

26

The Politics and Business of Corporate Agriculture

Since the Roosevelt administration, the US government

has taken an active role in agriculture. Today, this is done

through the “Farm Bill,” which is a package of federal

farm and food legislation that represents billions of dollars

in government expenditures and sets the farm, food, and

rural policy goals and priorities for the United States. In

the simplest terms, the Farm Bill has a tremendous impact

on farming livelihoods, how food is grown, and what

kinds of foods are grown.  Unfortunately, agricultural

policy is not immune to the political or economic

interests of politicians or agribusiness. The Iron Triangle

describes the relationship between special interests,

government agencies and Congress and is behind most

of the policy decisions made in the US government.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the

agribusiness sector, which includes food processing

companies as well as seed and chemical companies, spent

a total of 123.6 million USD on federal lobbying in

2011. One of the largest segments of the Farm Bill is

the subsidies provided to farmers guaranteeing them a set

price for their harvests. Since the Nixon Administration,

farmers are paid not by the size of their harvest, but on

the size of their operation and production history.

This incentivizes farmers to increase the size of their farms

and forces smaller scale farmers out of the market. Over

the last decade, the percentage of subsidies going to large

farms has doubled to 54 percent and the average size

of a US farm was doubled. These subsidies incentivize

large-scale production, limit the diversity of crops grown,

and force smaller scale producers to either consolidate

or move off their farms. Large agribusinesses have the

resources to have an influence not only in government,

but also in higher education institutions. In 2010,

agribusiness gave 600 million dollars worth of grants to

Land Grant colleges for research and development. This

has a significant impact on what research is undertaken,

the findings, and the information provided to students

studying agriculture. At the University of Minnesota,

home to the Green Revolution’s Norman Borlaug, several

halls bare the names of agricultural companies, such as

the Cargill Plant Genomics Building. In 2010, the Vice

President for University Relations was forced to resign

after cancelling the showing of the film, “Troubled

Waters,” which emphasized the damage of industrial

farming on the Mississippi River, calling it “anti-farming,

anti-farm bill, pro-organic propaganda.”

The political and economic interests of businesses

and elected officials are powerful players and advocates

for the current agricultural norm. With billions of dollars

invested in the system, as it exists today, changing it will

present a significant challenge.

The Social and Health Impacts

The United States is facing rampant health problems that

can be directly linked to large-scale corn production.

According to Yale University, 60 percent of government

subsidies go to four main commodity crops including

corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. These foods also make

up 66 percent of the calories consumed by the average

American.

Subsidies that support commodity crops, but not

fruits and vegetables, have shaped the eating habits of Americans and their

waistlines.

In 2012, over one-third of American adults were obese.

Beginning in the 1970s, high fructose corn syrup was

used as a way to make the most of the corn surplus and

provide a cheap alternative to sugar. High fructose corn

syrup now replaces sugar in a huge portion of processed

products in US supermarkets. Disturbingly, it is not only

processed foods that contain corn. As Pollan puts it:

Corn is what feeds the steer that becomes the steak.

Corn feeds the chicken and the pig, the turkey and the

lamb, the catfish and the tilapia and increasingly, even

the salmon, a carnivore by nature that the fish farmers are

reengineering to tolerate corn. The eggs are made of corn.

The milk and cheese and yogurt, which once came from

dairy cows that grazed on grass, now typically come from

Holsteins that spend their working lives indoors eating corn.

The Story and Impacts of Industrial Corn in the American Food System

27

Americans spend less of their income on food than

any other industrialized nation, yet there are many long-

term costs that are unaccounted for, including higher

insurance rates, serious health conditions including

diabetes and heart disease, and shorter life spans. The

estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was

$147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for

people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of

normal weight. Here again, the Iron Triangle comes into

play. Health related regulatory policies are often slanted

in favor of the food processing industry. As Guthman

points out, the politics of the food pyramid provides an

example of such regulatory capture by the industry that

is the target of regulation; what is defined as healthy in

the pyramid has been heavily influenced by the food and

agriculture lobbies, more specifically by the meat and

dairy interests.

In addition to harmful corn based foods dominating

the diets of Americans, many lack access to healthier

options. The term “food desert” was first coined in the

UK during the 1990s, but has become a common way to

express a geographical area that lacks access to affordable

fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other foods that make

up a full and healthy diet. Many Americans living in

rural, minority, or low-income areas are subjected to food

deserts and may be unable to access affordable, healthy

foods, leaving their diets lacking essential nutrients. It

is a common problem to be caught in a vicious cycle in

which one lacks of means to pay for healthy food and

must subsist on an insufficient diet. Often, one is then

faced with serious health problems as a result, and must

take on significant debt in order to pay for treatment,

pushing them farther into poverty. The overconsumption

of heavily processed corn based foods is in many cases an

issue of access and class. While those with means and an

understanding of the food system are turning to the slow,

local, organic food movements, the vast majority of families

in the US are unable to access expensive produce from the

local coop or farmer’s market, and may not have a knowledge

of the issues associated with the current food system.

Consumers are not the only ones facing serious

health issues related to the production of commodity

crops such as corn – farmers are also faced with increased

rates of cancer that are linked to the use of harmful

pesticides used on crops. A study by the National Cancer

Institute found that the rates of certain types of cancer

and disease appear to be higher among agricultural

workers, which may be related to the exposure to

pesticides and fertilizers in their daily work environment.

Farming communities have higher rates of leukemia,

non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft

tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach,

brain, and prostate. Several studies show that the use of

common pesticides on crops could be linked to higher

rates of rare forms of cancer.

It is clear that the over production of commodity

crops such as corn is unsustainable as it takes advantage

of low income families, creates an environment in which

health issues are the norm, and endangers the lives of the

people who grow the food that feeds the nation.

The Environmental Impacts

The environmental issues associated with industrial corn

production pose even more broad and all-encompassing

problems. Among these concerns is soil degradation, CO2

emissions from land conversion, water pollution from

fertilizer runoff, decreased resilience of the ecosystem as

well as the food system. These problems are interrelated

and complex making them difficult to address.

To begin, the scale of farms across the country

has increased significantly, meaning more land is in

production. In many cases, this has been achieved

through converting native prairie that once covered a

Piper Donlin

Photo: CHARLOTTE LILLEBY KILDAL

28

massive portion of the country into farmland. A recent

study by the National Academy of Sciences found that

between 2006 and 2011, U.S. farmers converted more

than 1.3 million acres of grassland into corn and soybean

fields mainly for cattle feed and ethanol production.

Biofuels such as ethanol are now seen as a promising

alternative to fossil fuel. Currently, 14 percent of the

corn grown goes into ethanol production in the United

States. The Energy Policy Act of 2007, which set a 7.5

billion gallon renewable fuels standard to be attained by

2012 has helped to drive the biofuel economy. Ironically,

in the US’s efforts to decrease their dependence on fossil

fuels, it has decreased the resiliency of its agricultural

communities and put an added burden on already

stressed lands. In addition, removing perennial grasses

and replacing them with annual crops releases significant

amounts of previously sequestered CO2, countering the

effectiveness of renewable corn based ethanol.

Land conversion to cornfields also impacts the

health of the soil and water. The Mississippi River is one

of the largest rivers in the world stretching from Northern

Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River

Basin is the site of some of the world’s most fertile soil,

and thus home to some of the most productive farms

in America. However, the proximity of these farms to

the river is cause for concern. During spells of heavy

rain, the nutrients applied to fields by farmers wash into

the watershed. This erosion both decreases the health of

the water and the amount of topsoil on fields. A study

of water quality in the Mississippi River Basin found a

50-fold increase in the sedimentation (previously nutrient

rich topsoil) of the Mississippi River as cropland area

increased. The conversion of prairie and marginal lands

along rivers speeds up this detrimental process, because

the plants growing along the riverbanks cannot capture

the water. Many rivers are also seriously polluted. The

Environmental Protection Agency found that 44 percent

of the surveyed rivers in the Mississippi River Basin were

“impaired” in 2000 and nitrate concentration in the

Des Moines River is greater than 10 milligrams per liter,

which is the legal limit for drinking water supplies. These

nitrate concentrations can be attributed to the fertilizer

inputs on cornfields. Perhaps the most disturbing

consequence of excessive fertilizer use on farms in the

Northern Corn Belt is the impact it has on the Gulf of

Mexico, which has been termed a “dead zone” due to its

hypoxic waters, which do not contain enough oxygen to

support life. The area, which was created by the runoff of

phosphorus and nitrogen from farms upstream, currently

covers between 6 and 7 thousand square miles of water in

the Gulf.

Yet another environmental impact of industrial

corn production is on biodiversity and resiliency of

the food system. As stated above, corn is in practically

everything consumed by Americans and dominates

the agricultural landscape. A serious consequence of

this is lack of biodiversity and therefore resilience of

the food system. Resiliency is the ability of a system to

adapt to disturbance while maintaining its function and

structure. In short, resiliency is the capacity to adapt. In

the case of agriculture, there are many factors that can

cause disturbance to the system including droughts or

floods, extreme heat or cold, pests, disease, and market

fluctuations. One of the main arguments against a system

that lacks diversity and is entirely reliant on several large

commodity crops is that if a disturbance interferes with

this fragile system, the whole thing may collapse. Meat

production, farmer livelihoods, ethanol production, and

the international grain market are all dependent on corn

– any disruption in that system could be disastrous for

the entire food system.

In a system of such immense scale, the environmental

consequences of industrial agriculture impact every aspect

of American life and are simply too big to ignore.

Restructuring the System

Corn production presents a paradox: it is both too big

to fail and too big not to fail. The web of political and

private interests are doing everything in their power

to hold up the current paradigm, yet sooner or later, a

disturbance is bound to disrupt the food system, which

could be catastrophic. Addressing the social, political and

environmental issues is essential. Although there is no

silver bullet or perfect solution, there are many different

angles that may contribute to creating a more healthy and

diversified food system.

Remove the Influence of Iron Triangles: It is important

to note the need to take private lobbying power out of

The Story and Impacts of Industrial Corn in the American Food System

29

government. Iron Triangles often put the dollar above the

voices and needs of the American people. Cutting special

interests out of the equation may make it easier for policy

makers to create legislation for the good of the people,

not the corporation.

Restructure the Farm Bill: Reworking the Farm Bill

to cut subsidies for commodity crops like corn and

incentivize farmers to diversify their crops is a first step

that could lead to a healthier population and economy.

These incentives could include growing more edible fruits

and vegetables or crops that are more suited to local

landscapes and climates. Some states, like Minnesota

have implemented state subsidies that reward farmers

who employ best management practices, such as planting

buffer strips along streams and water bodies to prevent

runoff, using cover crops instead of nitrogen fertilizer to

decrease chemical inputs, and leaving stover (corn stalks)

in fields over winter instead of tilling to preserve top

soil and provide habitat for species of birds and animals.

In addition, more federal attention should be paid to

providing low-income families with the ability to shop at

local coops and farmers markets. Again, Minnesota has

created legislation that allows food stamps to be used in

farmer’s markets and coops. This gives families below the

poverty line the opportunity to shop for local and organic

produce as opposed to the limited options in large

supermarkets and convenience stores.

Create Youth Education Programs: One of the largest

issues within the United States is a lack of knowledge

about how food is produced, where it comes from, and

what it is made out of. Young Americans are subjected

to advertising from fast food chains and companies like

Coca Cola and General Mills. Millstone and Lang in

The Food Atlas state that the US has the second highest

number of food related advertisements per hour during

children’s programming, which significantly impacts their

dietary choices.With over 50 percent of the population

living in urban areas, children lack exposure to farming

and growing food. This is changing across the country

as programs such as the Farm to School Program, which

is active in all 50 states and has reached over 21 million

school children, take root. Reaching the next generation

of consumers can be a productive way to instill a

knowledge and respect for food, those who produce it,

and the land it is grown on.

Use Consumer Power: Being a conscious consumer

in current contexts may not be an option for everyone,

but making an effort to understand the social and

environmental impacts of food production may mean

making more ethical decisions at the grocery store.

Creating a market for ecological, local, sustainable,

and organic food sends a message to producers that the

market is shifting. The past decade has been marked by

a growing concern about the quality and origin of the

foods consumed by citizens in the US. Shopping at coops

and farmer’s markets, growing vegetables, and “knowing

your local farmer” are all popular trends. Many products

now bear labels stating, “Contains no high fructose corn

syrup!” The market for grass fed beef is also increasing

rapidly in the US. According to the Drover’s Cattle

Network, the grass-fed beef industry has grown 25%

annually over the last 10 years. These are all promising

signs that consumers are fed up with unsustainable, lower

quality foods and are concerned with what they’re putting

in their bodies.

These solutions are by no means exhaustive, but

provide a simplified model of some of the political and

social changes that can and are being made. These are

the beginning stages of shifting the food system to reflect

attention to quality, environment health and economic

sustainability, and social well-being.

Conclusions

Industrial farming has evolved a lot over the past century,

from its early beginnings as the logical next step towards

modernity, to a means of producing cheap food for the

American public. It is clear from the political, social

and environmental issues presented above that this era

of industrial corn production is unsustainable and is

hurting many aspects of American society. Judging by

the popularity of the sustainable and local agriculture

movements, the era of efficiency at any cost is coming to

a close. The changes that occur in agriculture over the

next century will likely reflect the need to balance the

health of the environment, the health of the public,

and the changing global economy. While the story of

industrial agriculture may be coming to an end, the

evolution of the food system is still in its infancy.

Piper Donlin

30

In Vietnam fast food is eaten slowly and slow

food fast. This provides a surprisingly good

starting point for discussing food, development,

modernity and tradition. And of course

transnational capitalism.

I have written elsewhere about the many changes Vietnam

has been going through since the economic reforms

known as Doi Moi (or “renovation”) . The defining part

of these reforms is the transition away from a communist

planned economy towards a market economy and

integration into global capitalism. What could be more

symptomatic of these changes than the recent entry of

McDonald’s to the Socialist Republic?

McDonald’s represents a strong symbol globally in

a variety of senses. The yellow arches give people around

the world associations of anything from capitalism and

“Americanization” to fast food, modernity and reasonably

clean toilets. Vietnam has been one of the few remaining

McDonald’s-free zones in the world, even though other

similar chains, like KFC, have been in place for some

years already. But in early 2014 the masters of bad burgers

set foot on Vietnamese soil, and are seemingly very

successful. (And, fittingly enough for Vietnamese “red

capitalism”, the Vietnamese branch is owned by the Prime

Minister’s son-in-law.)

Anthropologists have always been skeptical to

all the ado concerning Americanization and cultural

homogenization, and have often pointed towards how

foreign brands such as McDonald’s take on new roles and

meanings in the encounter with different cultures. One

example of this is how McDonald’s in many countries

is still a symbol of modernity and a hangout for urban

youngsters. This tendency is very visible in Vietnam.

If you go to foreign fast food chains the goal is

seldom to finish your meal quickly and leave.

You stay there for a long time. You observe and you are

observed. You chat and drink soda. You eat the fast food

slowly.

As any act of consumption, our food habits are ways

of both defining and communicating who we are or want

to be. In this sense, McDonald’s undoubtedly takes on

McPho: Fast slow food and slow fast food in Vietnam

ARVE HANSEN

31

different sign values in different cultures. At the same

time McDonald’s is the same wherever you go. This is the

core of the concept, and part of what has made the chain

a symbol of the expansion of standardized capitalism

all the way to the food we eat. And no matter which

culture this fast food encounters, the food is of relatively

low quality, the salary rather low and the tasks of the

employees quite dull.

That being said, one of the most interesting aspects

in the Vietnamese context is that foreign fast food

encounters strong competition. What is considered fast

food in Vietnamese daily life is “slow food” par excellence

and is served through an impressive variety of dishes.

The most famous one is pho, the national dish and the

breakfast of choice for millions of Vietnamese (and at

least one Norwegian). Pho consists of thick rice noodles

with many different herbs and a bit of beef (or sometimes

chicken in the North). You can get this dish more or less

wherever you go in Vietnam, but every Vietnamese will

have his or her favourite place. And, importantly, this

small kitchen should have pho as their only dish.

The recipes for a good pho are usually kept secret, and

have often been kept in the family for generations. And

cooking it takes a long time. The broth should be cooked

on bones for a whole day at least, and the ingredients

should be fresh from the local market. However, when

everything is prepared and ready, it is even quicker to

serve than the tasteless burgers of the foreign fast food

chains. Pho is therefore fast food for you and me, but very

slow food for the cook.

This way of eating is currently under threat in

Vietnam. A strong discourse of development and

modernity is evident, within which the traditional fast

food is considered old-fashioned and unhygienic. This has

led to an immediate response from the foreign fast food

giants. In a dramatic break with traditional Vietnamese

values concerning food, and almost as if making a

statement about contemporary capitalism’s many

disconnections from local food systems, McDonald’s

Vietnam promises to import 80-90 percent of their

ingredients in order to guarantee “clean food”.

Should strict rules for hygiene be enforced, it could

mean the end for many of the small street food outlets.

Tourism could actually represent a rather unexpected

salvation here, as Vietnam’s amazing street food is

increasingly recognized as an important tourist attraction.

The combination of these factors could possibly lead to

a similar situation as in Singapore, where street food has

been moved from the streets into big food courts.

Most people seem to still prefer the traditional fast

food. This has to do with price, as a bowl of filling noodle

soup tends to cost between 5 and 10 Norwegian Kroner

whereas a hamburger at McDonald’s would reach 20-30

Kroner. I choose to believe (perhaps somewhat naively),

however, that it first and foremost is about proud food

traditions and a rich food culture deeply concerned

about balance, healthiness, cleanliness and quality. In

other words the complete opposite of what McDonald’s

represents. I guess we will have to wait and see if

capitalism’s demand for commodification, standardization

and efficiency manage to overturn this, or if pho manages

to keep its dominance also in the future. At the same time

modern Vietnamese pho-chains have been emerging, and

McDonald’s Vietnam is considering developing their own

McPho. Let the battle of fast food begin!

Pho is at its best in the streets, served from a small kitchen with a couple of big pots surrounded by tiny

plastic chairs and plastic tables.

32

Photo: NATIA CHKHETIANI

33

As a 23 year-old American farmer who studies the US

food system from the field I have a unique perspective

on the serious challenges it faces. From drainage tiles that

evacuate nutrient laden water to the nearest public water

source, to obesity rates that cost untold lives, livelihoods, and

money, the US food system is badly in need of regeneration.

Food and health policy in the United States.

In the United States food policy is a collection of local

and national priorities that concern the supply of food.

US food policy sets supports for certain crops that lead

to a higher supply (and therefore lower price) of these

crops in the market. Crops that are insured by the US

government, against too much rain or too much drought,

for example, such as corn, soy, and wheat, are more

attractive to farmers than “non-insurable” crops, leading

to greater production of insured crops.

United States Health policy is a collection of state

and national regulations meant to minimize occupational

and recreational dangers and to improve health.

Seat belts, MyPlate.gov, the newest iteration of the

government recommended diet, FDA regulations, and

food labeling mandates are examples of health policy. The

intended purpose of many of these regulations, as they

relate to food, is to educate consumers to make informed

decisions about what they eat. MyPlate identifies proper

serving sizes for Americans (though it is not without

criticism). Food labels provide even, consistent criteria for

comparing two different items (even if less than half of

Americans read them).

The trouble is this...

On one hand we have food policies, such as government

crop insurance, that encourage environmentally damaging

fence row to fence row crop production or government

support for drain tile, drainage systems for fields that

shuttle nutrient rich runoff to the nearest water body to

be rushed downstream. On the other hand are well-

meaning health policies. One can imagine that in the

minds of the crafters of health policy each consumer

carefully reads the food label on each product, compares

the serving size of their meals against the MyPlate

recommendations, and eats just the right amount of

calories for their BMI each day. Real life food decisions

are more complex and price is a big factor in purchasing.

Price is where food policy gets involved. Government

support makes certain crops cheap. These cheap crops can

be used to create cheap food products (corn into chips

Common Ground

ERIC R. SANNERUD

34

and soda, for example). But chips and soda are shunned

by health policy, and do not have healthy nutrition labels

or a formal home on MyPlate.

Due to this disconnect between food policy and

health policy the US food system is malfunctioning. A

food system that creates historic rates of obesity while

continuously exploiting the resources humans require for

life, soil and water, requires change. However, since the

left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, any

efforts made, positive or negative, will be hindered by

inefficiencies and ineffectiveness.

There is no one elegant solution to reducing the

negative effects of such disconnected policies. Anyone

claiming to have a trump card is lying: GMOs will not

solve all of our problems, neither will organic production

nor sin taxes on fizzy drinks and new government serving

size suggestions. When dealing with interconnected

systems solutions require a full deck of answers.

Three cards to add to the deck.

1. Regenerating Health

US consumers shop with their wallets while health policy

targets their minds. Health policy that acts on this fact

will be moving in the right direction. The question for the

discerning health policy strategist then is how to make

healthy food price competitive?

One argument that I find persuasive as a low-paid,

full-time change maker is the prudence of home cooking.

Too often on the run I need food that is grab and go.

Frozen burritos at the store cost me $2.00 each, I can

make similar quality, though I must say, far tastier,

burritos at home for just $.75.

A more aggressive strategy than home cooking

promotion is artificially adding cost to unhealthy food.

The reasoning goes that if that 76oz soda costs $5.00

instead of $1.00 less people will imbibe. Unfortunately,

according to a recent US Supreme Court ruling all

Americans have the right to drink cheap soda.

One inventive way that communities across the

United States are improving the cost competitiveness of

healthy food is by offering “bonus bucks” to Electronic

Benefits Transfer (EBT), government food support,

purchases. Spend $20 of EBT at a participating farmers

market and get $5 additional “market bucks” good for

any fresh produce at the market.

2. Regenerating Land

More healthy food in the market will make healthy food

cheaper and more accessible. A benefit of coordinated

food and health policy is an increase in the overall supply

of healthy food.

For starters, imagine if US food policy aligned what

farmers were incentivized to grow with what health policy

encourages Americans to consume. The landscapes of

rural America, and the tables of all Americans, could

change drastically. This map, by Emily Cassidy at the

University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment,

shows the caloric efficiency of crop production across the

world. Caloric efficiency is the ratio of calories produced

on a landscape to the number of produced calories

consumed directly by humans. Developed countries

producing commodities show horrendous caloric

efficiency. Globally just 41% of calories produced are

consumed by humans. According to Cassidy, maximizing

caloric efficiency could feed an additional 4 billion

people. In the US, food policy structures that support

big commodity production could be amended to support

crops, meat, and production methods of higher caloric

efficiency including growing more crops for direct human

consumption and more caloric efficient animal proteins

such as chicken and fish.

Private actors have their own part to play in addressing

this disconnect. Non-governmental actors can work to

aggregate and add scale to local food systems: decreasing

prices of the freshest produce by harvesting efficiencies

of scale.

Two up and coming projects, Urban Oasis in St.Paul,

Minnesota and New Moran in Burlington, Vermont, are

examples of private sector innovation. By serving as an

aggregation, processing, and distribution hubs for local

farmers these projects can increase the scale of healthy

local food systems.

3. Regenerating Governance

Solutions also exist in state and local governments that

can induce dialogue between government food and health

policy makers.

At the state level food policy councils are popping

up across the nation. These food policy councils are

Common Ground

35

often created with the express purpose of increasing

dialogue between state departments of agriculture, natural

resources, and health. The Iowa Food Systems Council

is one of the most longstanding and studied State food

councils.

City level food councils are also developing. Similar

to the state level councils these organizations are made up

of a diverse group of stakeholders from across the food

system including farmers, nutritionists, academics, and

entrepreneurs. In Minneapolis, Minnesota “Minneapolis

Homegrown” is a food policy council made up of

appointed community members who serve an advisory role

to the elected city council on food and health policies.

Hand, eye coordination.

Food and health policies in which the left hand

Eric R. Sannerud

doesn’t know what the right is doing are only effective

at continuing the failing status quo. At their best,

food policy attempts to tackle resource issues in food

production while health policy encourages healthy

grocery store purchases. Discontinuity contributes to

the symptomatic nature of present day solutions and

thinking. A focus on symptomatic solutions leaves the

underlying disease untouched. In order to cure the cause

the US needs a new coordination between food and

health policy. Thankfully, there are many luminaries

across public, private, and government sectors who

understand the underlying problem and are generating

bold ideas to address it.

Photo: CHARLOTTE LILLEBY KILDAL

36

Photo: NATIA CHKHETIANI

37

Green Summer ChatInterview with Annikken Rustad Jøssund

NATIA CHKHETIANI

Annikken Rustad Jøssund (28) is a master’s

student and a “mini-farmer”. She is actively

involved in a number of collective urban farming

projects in Oslo and has recently got her own

private garden with her boyfriend at Nesodden.

The interview took place in “Geitmyra Skolehage”

at Sagene in Oslo, where she keeps chickens.

How did you end up as an urban farmer and when did you

find out that you wanted to do this?

I don’t know if I would like to identify myself as a

“farmer”. Let’s say mini-farmer then. Actually, it was a

reaction to my first educational choice. I studied art at the

national art school and I was going to become an artist.

However, in the end I realized that everything we were

doing there was useless, in a way. I remember the last year

of the study we threw all of our sketch books and silly

sculptures into a big container outside the school. It felt

strange – to put so much time and effort into making

all these things and then in the end they end up in a

container. This was the moment when I realized that I

had to do something more practical and useful.

So, this decision was not influenced by your family

background, right?

Not really! The turning point for me was at

Folkehøgskolen, where I learned everything about organic

farming - from making cheese to slaughtering hens and

riding a horse. I practically walked in my rubber boots for

one year. I saw and learnt the whole circle of the farming

system and I loved it. It was a fantastic experience!

Afterwards I continued with studies at the University of

Life Sciences (NMBU) to learn more about agroforestry

and permaculture.

Is it difficult to be an urban farmer in Norway?

There is a big difference between being a farmer in the

countryside and in an urban area. Urban farming is

booming nowadays in Norway, unlike in the countryside.

More and more people are getting involved in the green

world of plants. I think people miss it somehow, since

we live in a world where so many things are artificially

constructed, and therefore we appreciate everything that

is real. People love having chickens because they see that

38

they are actually tangible, living beings. What’s amazing

about it is that the green trend is not only about growing

food to eat, but the concept of being a part of nature and

taking care of it.

Do you think that this type of approach towards nature is

stronger in Norway than in other parts of the world?

We have a hiking culture which may seem special to

outsiders sometimes. Otherwise, I don’t think Norway is

an exception in any way – we have lost the connection to

nature like the rest of the Western world and are trying

to regain it. The wish to be involved in urban farming

can, however, be related to it – having your own piece of

land and working and growing things on it makes you

appreciate nature much more. In many countries farming

is a natural way to survive - people know that without it

they would starve. It’s not the same in Norway.

You have been participating in urban collective farming and

now you have your own little farm. How self-sufficient are

you as an urban farmer at the moment? Is self-sufficiency

your goal in a long-term perspective?

It is very difficult to be self-sufficient as an urban gardener

here; it largely depends on how much area you’ve got to

work with. If self-sufficiency is the goal, one should really

be creative. For example: do a lot of guerilla gardening,

pick apples people do not want, find mushrooms in the

forest, go fishing and so on. All these things are possible.

Personally, the only things I do not need to buy at this

stage are eggs and honey - I get it from my own hens and

bees. My garden is only two acres but my boyfriend and

I are trying to plan in a way so that we utilize every little

piece of the plot in order to make something sustainable

out of it. We can potentially get a lot of food from it.

It is important to know how you want to use your garden.

As I mentioned, farming is not only about self-sufficiency

for me, it’s about trying to build a relationship to the land

and the nature, and to feel interconnected.

These days most of the traditional farming knowledge

is lost in Norway - people simply can go and buy nicely

packed food in supermarkets. On the other hand there’s

urban farming: you make a glass of jam from scratch, put

effort and love into the entire process and gain the feeling

that it’s an extremely exclusive jam which you want to

share with someone you care about. It seems to me that in

our stressful society, the process of planting has a healing

effect. I do not believe in “green hands”, it’s just about

being aware and caring - that’s what plants need.

What kind of farming methods are you using?

We use permaculture in my garden. Permaculture is an

abbreviation of permanent culture, which means that

if you plan your garden well, you barely have to do

anything. It is a lazy man’s garden. The things we do are

simple - for instance, we always cover soil with hay and

this way keep it moisturized; we never plant things in

a row, but intertwine them into each other in order to

confuse insects; we plant things according to the sun and

the wind direction and so on. Chemicals are generally

short-term solutions, but you cannot be extreme in

anything either. For instance the chickens and turkeys

are free - but sometimes they are fed from leftovers that

can be based on conventional food systems. Once in a

while I will buy some conventional seeds if that’s the

only alternative, but I try my best to avoid it. We use

organic fertilizers like compost. We’re experimenting

with a compost toilet at home as well. Some people

think that it is nasty but if you do it in the right way it

is not nasty at all. I guess one should also be ready for

and even try the nasty things sometimes. We should

consider our excrement as valuable because we can

feed the plants through it. It is one way to think about

it - interconnection with nature and the outside world:

Nature is feeding you and you give something back to it.

It is flexible and creative, not a rigid hard-core entity.

You’re studying at SUM (Center for Development and the

Environment). How do you intend to use your academic

knowledge in your life as a farmer?

SUM is a very interdisciplinary institute and my

general approach is to be interdisciplinary in order to

make solutions that are practical, smart and social. To

Green Summer Chat

39

create sustainable and well-functioning projects both

environmentally and socially requires a holistic approach

where all the different dimensions are considered equally

important because they feed each other in the cycle. In

my view, an academic background helps to systematize

knowledge in a way that makes you more efficient in your

work and in shaping environmentally efficient systems.

The only thing I know at the moment is that I do not

want to sit in an office. I would love to work with

gardening and people wherever it will be - hospital, jail or

kindergarten.

Do you think that urban farming can play a role in the fight

against poverty and hunger globally?

I think urban farming as a concept is different in different

parts of the world. Originally, it evolved in Latin America

where people began to plant things in streets out of

desperate need for food. In Norway, and maybe in

other parts of Europe, people grow food in urban areas

because they like it, not because of food shortage. On the

other hand, in Dar-es-Salaam in Tanzania, 90 % of the

vegetables consumed in the city are grown in the same

city. That’s amazing, right?! People find a piece of land

and they plant things there legally or illegally because they

need to do it. Cuba is another excellent example when

it comes to urban farming. As we see, urban farming

contains a lot of different trends that are adapted to the

local context. But generally speaking, more and more

people want to participate in the food-growing process.

This trend is booming all over Europe and the world. I

do not think that urban farming it is the only solution to

feed the world, but it definitely is a part of it.

That’s the beauty of food - it is a link between us and

nature. We eat the world and we give something back to

it. Imagine if every kid had an education in farming. It

can really make a difference.

Tell me a little bit about your Master thesis. As I know it’s

related to gardening, right?

I am writing about school gardens in Oslo, specifically,

and how practices of school gardens have been carried out

in the country, generally. The number of school gardens

and gardeners has largely decreased in recent years. In

my view, we need a better structure to provide valuable

practical knowledge to children; this system used to

function well before in Norway.

I think children can learn a lot via gardening. Being

around animals and plants is a very direct cause and effect

thing: one can clearly see the result of what you have

done and what you have not. This process constitutes

honest relations, there is no identity pressure involved in

it; it’s only you and plants – only you and nature. And

it’s valuable for people to witness this direct link, full of

myriads of miracles: you put a seed in the soil, give it

some sun, water and BOOOM! - it will explode into a

huge plant. Isn’t it magical?

Yeah!

That’s a force of nature that is bigger than us!

Natia Chkhetiana

40

41

Photo: MARTIN HAAGENSEN

42

43

Photo: CHARLOTTE LILLEBY KILDAL

44

45

Photo: MARTIN HAAGENSEN

46

Matforbruket vårt bidrar betydeleg til

global oppvarming

Vårt forbruk og livsstil fører til store utslepp av

klimagassar. Å kutte ut ein Sydenferie for å redusere

klimaavtrykket sitt er relativt enkelt, mat må vi derimot

uansett ha for å leve. Derfor er det store utfordringar

med å redusere utsleppa knytt til mat, sjølv om mange

av løysingane er godt kjent. Jordbruket står for omtrent

12 prosent av dei globale klimagassutsleppa.1 Her i

Noreg kjem 8 prosent av utsleppa frå jordbruket, mens 2

prosent skuldast fiske.2 Jordbruk og husdyrhald skil seg

ut i forhold til andre sektorar. Karbondioksid (CO2) er

den viktigaste drivhusgassen for dei fleste kjelder, mens

maten vi et fører til små direkte utslepp av CO2 og store

utslepp av metan (CH4) og lystgass (N2O). Faktisk

står jordbruket for over halvparten av utsleppa av andre

klimagassar enn CO2.

Jokeren metan

Dette gjer det vanskeleg å samanlikne den reelle

klimaeffekten av matvanene våre mot andre aktivitetar.

CH4 er ein kraftig klimagass, men med ei atmosfærisk

levetid på omtrent 12 år. CO2 er faktisk ein svak

klimagass som derimot påverkar i atmosfæren i svært lang

tid, CO2-molekyl tilsvarande 15 til 40 prosent vil vere

i atmosfæren 1000 år etter utslepp. Grunna det lange

tidsperspektivet vert CO2 òg ein svært sentral klimagass.

N20 har ei levetid på omtrent 120 år. Klimaresponsen til

N2O liknar difor mykje meir på den for CO2 enn det

CH4 gjer. Vi kan samanlikne CO2 og CH4 på mange

måtar. Om vi er interessert i klimaresponsen kort tid etter

utsleppa, vekter vi CH4 tungt. Fokuserer vi på klimaet

langt fram i tid, vil CO2 vege tungt. Ofte vert Global

Warming Potential (GWP) med ein tidshorisont på 100

år brukt, som i Kyotoprotokollen. GWP summerer opp

det akkumulerte strålingspådrivet som utslepp fører til,

som er eit enkelt mål på klimaeffekten. Denne artikkelen

baserer seg på denne vektinga. Med det som basis gir

utslepp av 1 kg CH4 like store klimaeffekt som 28 kg

CO2.1 Men det er viktig å vere klar over at dette talet kan

vere både langt større og langt mindre, alt avhengig av kva

korleis ein måler klimapåverknad. Altså kan det diskuterast

kor mykje matforbruket vårt fører til global oppvarming.

Kva for utslepp skal med?

Eit anna spørsmål er kva for direkte og indirekte effektar

vi skal ta med i utsleppsrekneskapet for maten vår.

Blant anna forsvinn regnskog i dag for å dyrke opp

Klima for mat

BORGAR AAMAAS

47

Photo: CICERO Senter for klimaforskning

48

område. Europa var tidlegare ein skog, no er store areal

jordbruksområde. Avskoging fører til store utslepp av

CO2, opp mot 10 prosent av dei globale klimagassutslepp

i dag. I FNs klimapanel sin siste hovudrapport vert

landbruk, avskoging og andre endringar av landareal

samla i ein stor sektor.1

Vidare er det eit spørsmål om vi ser berre på utslepp

direkte frå jordbruk, eller òg relaterte aktivitetar. I tala frå

FNs klimapanel er berre dei direkte utsleppa inkludert.

Men motoriserte kjøretøy blir brukt på jorde og maten

må bli transportert frå bonden til butikken. Varene blir

pakka i passe porsjonar, ofte i plast. For å få det totale

utsleppet må vi sjå på heile livsløpet, på same måte som

eg diskuterte for elbilen i det førre nummeret.3 Då fører

matforbruket ikkje berre utslepp av CH4 og N2O, men

òg CO2.

Prosessane bak utsleppa

Klimagassutslepp frå jordbruk kjem frå ei rekkje

ulike prosessar. Når planter gror, tar det opp CO2 frå

atmosfæren og nitrogen (N) frå bakken. Deretter kan

karbon og nitrogen bli flytta rundt mellom biomasse

både over og under bakken, dødt organisk materiale og

jordsmonn med organiske materiale. CO2, CH4 og N2O

blir frigitt når planter pustar, når dødt organisk materiale

rotnar eller når organisk materiale brenn. I den naturlege

syklusen ute i naturen vert CO2 årleg tatt opp og frigitt.

Difor er denne CO2en frå jordbruket sett på som nøytral

og er dermed ikkje med i utsleppsrekneskap. Men når vi

endrar bruk av land, kan det føre til utslepp av CO2, og

dette er med. Avskoging er eit eksempel.

Kyr og sau levde òg før menneskeskapte

klimaendringar kom, men det store talet på dyr i dag er heilt unaturleg og bidrar difor i utsleppsrekneskapet.

Utslepp i jordbruket kjem i hovudsak frå fermentering

i fordøyingskanalen, oppbevaring og bruk av

gjødsel, kunstgjødsel, dyrking av ris, nedbryting av

planterester og brenning av biomasse. For drøvtyggarar

dominerer fermentering i fordøyingskanalen, som

fører til store mengder metangass. Fermentering er

ein fordøyingsprosess der mikroorganismar spaltar

karbohydrat til enkel molekyl som kroppen kan ta opp.

Dette er den enkeltprosessen som gir størst utslepp i

jordbruket. Sidan 1961 har utsleppa frå denne prosessen

auka med 0,7 prosent i året. Mikroorganismar frigir

CH4 og N2O frå gjødsel, sidan 1961 har utsleppa frå

dette auka med 1,1 prosent i året. Gjødsling bidrar til

auka matproduksjon. Difor aukar bruken av kunstgjødsel

kraftig, der klimagassutsleppa går opp med 3,9 prosent

i året frå 1960. På sikt kan kunstgjødsel bli ein av dei

største utsleppskjeldene frå jordbruket. I ein del av

livsløpet må ris stå i vatn for å vekse. Dessverre fører

dette òg til ideelle forhold for CH4-produserande

mikroorganismar.

Inn med grønsaker, ut med kua

Kor klimavenlege ulike matvarer er vil naturlegvis

avhenge av kor effektiv drifta er. Di meir mat vi kan få

ut av ein åkerlapp, di mindre utslepp per kg mat. Ifølgje

IPCC1 fører biffkjøt til størst utslepp, i underkant av 6 kg

CO2-ekvivalentar per kg dyr globalt sett. Deretter følgjer

svin med utslepp like over 1 kg CO2-ekvivalentar per

kg dyr. Kylling, egg, ris og mjølk fører alle til utslepp litt

under 1 kg CO2-ekvivalentar per eining. Aller best kjem

korn ut, med utslepp under 0,5 kg CO2-ekvivalentar per

kg. Om du skal redusere utsleppa dine frå det du et, bør

du difor på generell basis bytte ut raudt kjøt med kvit kjøt

og fisk, og bytte ut kjøt med grønsaker. Men det er store

regionale forskjellar,4 blant anna avhengig av praksis. Til

dømes vil biff basert på kjøt- og mjølkeproduksjon ha

mindre utslepp enn på rein kjøtproduksjon. Dermed vil

mykje av biffen produsert i Europa ligge under det globale

gjennomsnittet. Det same gjeld mjølk, der effektiviteten

på produksjonen er stor i Norden.

IPCC såg berre på direkte utslepp. Om vi tar med

transport og andre utslepp over livsløpet aukar dei

totale utsleppa litt. For villfisk er utsleppa aller størst

frå drivstoffbruken til fiskebåtane. Ei utfordring med

overfiske er at fiskarar må bruke meir drivstoff for å fange

like mykje fisk. Dermed går utsleppa per kg fangst opp.

Klima for Mat

49

Dessutan slår bruk av landområde inn. Til dømes vil

oppdyrka myr føre til store klimagassutslepp ettersom alt

det organiske materialet i myra vil rotne og frigi CO2 og

N2O i langt større tempo etter at myra er drenert. For

korn, potet og andre rotgrønsaker er dei direkte utsleppa i

utgangspunktet små, slik at ineffektiv bruk av motorkraft

og kunstgjødsel slår relativt sett mykje ut. Generelt sett

er tomatar dyrka ute i det fri meir klimavenlege enn

tomatar i drivhus varma delvis opp av fossil energi. Men

å transportere tomatar frå Sør-Europa til Noreg fører òg

til utslepp. Omtrent halvparten av utsleppa frå spanske

tomatar kjem frå transporten mellom Spania og Noreg.5

I ein global verden med varetransport over heile

kloden kan norsk dyrehushald til dømes føre til utslepp

i Brasil. Aftenposten skreiv for over eitt år sidan at norsk

jordbruk er avhengig av ein båtlast med soya i månaden.6

I Brasil er det ein klar samanheng mellom soya- og

biffproduksjon og avskoging, og dermed utslepp av CO2.7

Soya er ei viktig proteinkjelde, til dømes til bruk i kraftfôr.

Klimaendringar påverkar matproduksjonen

I tillegg til at matforbruket vårt fører til klimagassutslepp,

påverkar klimaendringar matproduksjonen.

Klimaendringane er her allereie i dag, og temperaturen

vil fortsette å stige ifølgje utsleppsbanene [8]. Men

klimaendringar er ikkje nødvendigvis alltid dårleg nytt.

Til dømes vil ei dobling av CO2-konsentrasjonen i

atmosfæren få fortgang i fotosyntesen, slik at avlingar

kan auke med 20 til 40 prosent. I tillegg vil høgare

CO2-konsentrasjonar redusere vassbehovet til vekstar

og dermed toler vekstane tørke betre. Her i Noreg

blir vekstsesongen lengre og perioden i den lyse

sommarhalvåret utan frost blir lengre. Alt dette kan bidra

til auka produktivitet.

Men ein auke i temperaturen er ei tviegga

sverd. Planter har ei grense for kva dei tåler av høge

temperaturar. Ved varmebølgjer, der temperaturen

stig over denne grensa, vert avlingane kraftig redusert.

Avlingar frå mange av jordas matfat, som lengre sør

i Europa, vil tåle ei moderat oppvarming, men ikkje

om vi fortsett som før med utsleppa. Det same gjeld

dyr. Produktive kyr blir langt mindre produktive ved

heteslag. Dessutan vil auka temperaturar kunne endre

beiteforholda og auke risikoen for sjukdommar. Ved ei

global oppvarming på 4-5 °C vil difor matproduksjonen

globalt gå ned. I tillegg er avlingar svært utsett for

ekstremvêr. Den globale oppvarminga gir meir

ekstremnedbør, fleire hetebølgjer, sterkare syklonar

og meir tørke i allereie tørre område. Dermed bør

jordbruket redusere utsleppa viss vi skal unngå dei

verste klimaendringane, men òg tilpasse seg til dei

klimaendringane som allereie er på veg.

Mange mogelege tiltak

Dermed er spørsmålet korleis vi kan redusere utsleppa frå

matforbruket vårt. Grovt sett er tiltak retta mot tilbod

eller etterspurnad. På tilbodsida har vi ønsket om å

redusere klimagassutsleppa per dyr eller per avling. Større

avlingar frå same åkerlapp er ein måte å gjere det på.

Sidan 1970 har kornavlingane meir enn dobla seg grunna

meir effektiv bruk av land, teknologisk utvikling og

diverse andre forbetringar.1 Jordsmonnet inneheld store

mengder karbon, der mogelege tiltak er å bevare og gjere

desse karbonlagra større. Til dømes kan åkrar bli omgjort

til beiteenger. Dessutan bør myr- og skogsområde ikkje

bli dyrka opp. Å kunne fange CH4-gassen frå gjødsel og

bruke denne energien er eit anna eksempel. I dag kjører

bussar på biogass frå avfall fleire plassar i Noreg.

Om du skal redusere utsleppa dine frå det du et, bør du difor på generell basis bytte ut raudt kjøt med kvit kjøt og fisk, og

bytte ut kjøt med grønsaker.

Borgar Aamaas

50

Etterspurnaden etter mat aukar først og fremst av den

enkle grunn at vi blir stadig fleire på denne planeten.

Dermed har talet på dyr globalt sett auka med omtrent 50

prosent sidan 1970, med aller størst vekst for kyllingar.1

Økonomisk vekst betyr at fleire har råd og lyst på

meir proteinrik kost, altså meir kjøt. Dette bidrar òg

til vekst i utsleppa. FNs klimapanel viser at endringar

i dietten må gå motsett veg for effektivt å redusere

utsleppa, med andre ord meir frukt og grønt og mindre

kjøt. Dette er eit sensitivt tema som det er vanskeleg

å gjere noko med så lenge store folkegrupper slit med

svolt, feilernæring og manglande mattryggleik. Ei anna

sentral utfordring er kasting av mat. Omtrent 30 til 40

prosent av alt mat blir kasta ein plass mellom garden og

måltidet.1 I utviklingsland er tapet størst på garden og i

distribusjonsledda. Her i Noreg er derimot produksjonen

og leveringa av mat effektiv, mens desto meir svinn

oppstår i butikkar og i heimar. Litt kasting er uunngåeleg,

men potensialet for å redusere kastinga, og dermed

utsleppa, er store.

Mat og eting er ein heilt fundamental del av det å

vere menneske. Sjølv den klimabevisste forbrukar duger

ikkje utan mat og drikke. Dermed er kutt i utsleppa frå

jordbruket vanskeleg, men mogeleg.

NOTES

1. IPCC, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of

Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. O. Edenhofer,

et al. 2014, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,

USA: Cambridge University Press.

2. SSB. Utslipp av klimagasser, 2013, foreløpige tall. 2014 June

30th 2014]; Available from: http://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/

statistikker/klimagassn/aar-forelopige/2014-05-14.

3. Aamaas, B., Elbilen er ikkje berre grøn, in Tvergastein

Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment. 2014. p. 30-33.

4. Gerber, P.J., et al., Tackling climate change through

livestock - A Global assessment of emissions and mitigation

opportunities. 2013, Food and Agricultural Organization of the

United States (FAO): Rome.

5. Sonesson, U., J. Davis, and F. Ziegler, Food production and

emissions of greenhouse gases. 2010, The Swedish Institute for

Food and Biotechnology.

6. Ekern, Y., Båten som berger oss, in Aftenposten. 2013.

7. Aamaas, B., Biff med bismak, in Argument. 2013. p. 26-27.

8. IPCC, The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working

Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, ed. T.F. Stocker, et al. 2013,

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:

Cambridge University Press. 1535.

Klima for Mat

51

Photo: CHARLOTTE LILLEBY KILDAL

52

Kva gjermatvananevåre med jorda vår?

SOLVEIG LYNGRE

53

Dei siste hundre åra har matvanane våre endra seg på ein

måte me ikkje har sett maken til sidan menneskja byrja å

dyrke jorda, og for vanlege forbrukarar er det ikkje berre

lett å forstå dei globale konsekvensane av vala ein tek

framfor hyllene i matbutikken. Dette vert ikkje lettare ved

at ei handfull multinasjonale selskap kontrollerer store

delar av den globale landbrukssektoren. Desse selskapa

gjer det dei kan for å skjule dei negative effektane ved

storskalaproduksjon, eller ”factory farming”, som er den

rådande forma for landbruk over størsteparten av verda.

Som forbrukar er det difor viktig å ta i betraktning at kvart

måltid me et har globale konsekvensar, og at det er opp til

oss sjølv å velje om desse konsekvensane skal vera positive

eller negative for klima, miljø, dyr og menneskjer.

Ein ekspanderande økonomi som gir større kjøpekraft

over store delar av verda fører til at fleire og fleire endrar

kosthaldet sitt til ein måte som går hardt ut over blant

anna jord- og vassresursar, biodiversitet og det globale

klima. I følgje ein rapport frå den Europeiske kommisjon

har maten me et større innverknad på klimaendringar

enn noko anna aspekt av dagleglivet. Matproduksjonen

står for 31 prosent av den globale oppvarminga, og

kjøttproduksjonen utgjer 18 prosent av klimagassutsleppa.

Ein britisk studie finn at utslepp frå oksekjøtt er så

høgt som 16 kg CO2 per kg kjøtt. Til samanlikning er

utslepp frå kveite 0.8 kg CO2 per kilo. Den effektive

måten ein i dag produserer kjøtt på, har gjort kjøtt til eit

kvardagsprodukt for fleire og fleire folk over heile verda,

og etterspurnad etter kjøtt vert stadig større på grunn av

høgare inntekter og folkevekst.

Den stadig aukande etterspurnaden etter kjøtt har

gitt opphav til det som vert kalla ”Factory Farms”. På slike

”fabrikkar” er målet å produsere mest mogleg kjøtt til

lavast mogleg pris. Resultatet er at dyra vert stua saman så

tett som mogleg, og den største kjøttprodusenten i USA

har 700.000 kyr. Desse vert avla på kraftfôr som inneheld

soya eller mais, som i stor grad er produsert på store gardar

i Argentina og Brasil. På slike gardar er stikkorda for

produksjonsmetoden monokultur, mykje sprøytemiddel

og kunstgjødsel; metodar som fører til øydelegging av jord

og grunnvatn.

Største parten av desse avlingane er også

genmodifiserte (GMO), noko som fører til endå meir

bruk av sprøytemiddel. Det mest brukte sprøytemiddelet

består av glyfosat, og restar av dette vert funne i produkt

frå dyr som et fôr med GMO-planter, blant anna kjøtt,

egg og mjølk. I områda der slike planter vert dyrka har

biodiversiteten sunke dramatisk, og kjemikalie kan også

At matvanane våre fører til klimaendringar er eit stort problem for den globale matsikkerheita, og problemet vert

størst for dei som er mest matusikre frå før.

54

søkke ned i grunnvatnet. Krefttilfella har det siste tiåret

tredobla seg der dette sprøytemiddelet vert brukt, og

mødrer som bur i ein omkrins på ein kilometer rundt

plantasjar der dei bruker glyfosat har dobbel så stor risiko

for å føde barn med misdanningar.

Det norske landbruket er svert avhengig av

soyaimport frå Brasil. Kvart år importerer norsk landbruk

over ein halv milliard tonn soya til kraftfôrproduksjon frå

dette landet på andre sida av jorda. I Noreg er GMO-fôr

forbode ved genteknologilova, men oppdrettsnæringa har

dispensasjon til å bruke slikt fôr. Det er også eit stadig

aukande press på norske myndigheiter om å opne opp for

import av GMO-produkt.

I tillegg til å øydeleggje grunnvatn med blant anna

gjødsel og sprøytemiddel, er storskalaproduksjon forbunde

med intensivt vassforbruk. Landbruk er hovudkjelda for

den globale vasskrisa, og konsumerer 70% av ferskvatnet

som er tilgjengeleg på verdsbasis. Ein tredjedel av

vatnet som vert brukt i landbruksproduksjon går til

husdyrbestanden, hovudsakleg indirekte gjennom fôr. I

følgje WWF trengst det 15.500 liter vatn for å produsere 1

kg oksekjøtt. Når ein tredjedel av verdas befolkning ikkje

har nok drikkevatn og 1.1 milliardar menneskjer ikkje har

tilgang til reint drikkevatn seier det seg sjølv at dette er ei

urettvis fordeling av jordas vassresursar; for at folk i den

vestlige verda skal få ete kjøtt i store mengder må folk i Sør

svelte og tørste. Det er langt i frå gitt at folk ikkje hadde

vore svoltne og tørste om me hadde ete mindre kjøtt. Det

er derimot sikkert at fordelinga ville vorte jamnare då

mykje av det som vert dyrka til dyrefôr vert dyrka i allereie

vassfattige land, og det vatnet som fins er i fare for å bli

utsatt for forureining.

Dersom kjøttforbruket fortset å auke i det

tempoet det gjer i dag, vil vassmengda som trengst

til kraftforproduksjon doblast innan midten av dette

hundreåret hevdar Worldwatch Institute. I tillegg vil

klimaendringar som følgje av global oppvarming truleg

redusere vassmengda endå meir. 2.5 milliardar menneskjer

lev allereie i områder med ustabil vassforsyning, og

innan 2025 vil dette talet vera over halvparten av verdas

befolkning. Dette kan føre til konfliktar i desse områda.

At matvanane våre fører til klimaendringar er

eit stort problem for den globale matsikkerheita, og

problemet vert størst for dei som er mest matusikre frå

før. Klimaendringane fører til dårlegare avlingar av viktige

matvarer i Sør, og FAO antar at dette problemet vil bli

større etter kvart som jorda vert varmare. Ekstremvær

og tørke vil førekoma oftare, og dette går hardt ut over

matsikkerheita både på lokalt og globalt nivå.

Dersom forbrukarar over heile verda vert gjort meir

merksame på problema med eigne matvanar, vil mange truleg få eit anna forhold til kva dei kjøper i

butikken.

Ein bevisst forbrukar vil krevje meir berekraftige

produksjonsmåtar som blant anna småskalalandbruk

representerer. Denne forma for landbruk vert utøvd i pakt

med naturen og økosystemet, og utnyttar jord og vatn

meir effektivt enn storskalalandbruk. Dyra får beite ute, og

slik vert det mindre trong for kraftfôr basert på soya som

er produsert på andre sida av jorda. Denne måten å drive

landbruk på er også med på å redusere CO2 utslepp, då

graset fangar opp mykje av denne gassen.

Det er også trong for å kutte ned på kjøttforbruket.

I store delar av den vestlige verda er dette ein trend

som byrja å vise seg for nokre år sidan. I mange land

har kjøttforbruket stagnert, og i nokre land har det

gått litt ned, men i land med voksande økonomiar er

trenden den motsette. For å snu denne trenden trengst

det bevisstgjering og politisk mot og vilje. Likevel er det

forbrukarane som til sjuande og sist har det siste ordet; det

er vala me tek i butikken som kan hjelpe til at me får ei

betre verd å leve i.

Kva gjer matvanane våre med jorda vår?

55

NOTES

1. Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., de Koning,

A., van Oers, L., Suh, S., Geerken, T., Van Holderbeke, M.,

Jansen, B., Nilsen, P. (2006)Environmental Impact of Products

(EIPRO): Analyses of the Life Cycle Environmental Impacts

Related to the Total Finalconsumption of the EU 25. Brussels:

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies/European Science

and Technology Observatory, European Commission Joint

Research Center, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/

eipro_report.pdf

2. Ibid

3. UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service. (2012). http://

www.unep.org/pdf/unep- geas_oct_2012.pdf

4. food & water watch. (2010). http://documents.

foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FactoryFarmNation- web.pdf#_ga=1.

37133152.1718243390.1405589561

5. UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service. (2012). http://

www.unep.org/pdf/unep- geas_oct_2012.pdf

6. Benbrook, C.M. (2012). Impacts of Genetically Engineered

Crops on Pesticide Use in the U.S. -- the First Sixteen Years.

doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24 http://www.enveurope.com/

content/24/1/24

7. Heinrich Böll Foundation 2014. Meat Atlas

http://www.boell.de/en/2014/01/07/meat-atlas

8. Dagens næringsliv. (06.03.2013). Norges avhengighet av soya

bekymrer. http://www.dn.no/nyheter/politikkSamfunn/2013/03/06/

norges-avhengighet-av-soyaimport- bekymrer

9. Heinrich Böll Foundation 2014. Meat Atlas

http://www.boell.de/en/2014/01/07/meat-atlas

10. Heinrich Böll Foundation 2014. Meat Atlas http://www.boell.

de/en/2014/01/07/meat-atlas

11. De Schutter, Olivier, 2011, The Green Rush: The Global Race

for Farmland and the Rights of Landusers. Harvard International

Law Journal / Volum 52. http://www.harvardilj.org/wp- content/

uploads/2011/07/HILJ_52-2_De-Schutter.pdf

12. Gåsvatn, Kari. (26.06 2014). Kan Dagros berge klimaet? I

Nationen http://www.nationen.no/landbruk/kommentar-kan-

dagros-berge-klimaet/

Solveig Lyngre

Photo: MAGNUS WITTERSØ

56

Issues concerning sustainable production of healthy food

through proper stewardship of soil and water are taking on

global significance. In recent decades, industrial farming

methods across the United States have damaged the health

of land, water, and people. But experience tells us that

land abuse can also be a catalyst for change.

This is a brief case study of one organization’s fight

to sustain small-scale farms, ecosystem health, and safe

food across the north-central United States. The Land

Stewardship Project’s goals, techniques, and agenda may

provide a useful model for those who are studying or

designing alternative food systems in other parts of the

world. As watershed biologist with the federal government,

I have worked closely with the Land Stewardship

Project (LSP) and a variety of other public and private

organizations for over 25 years to cooperatively build a

resilient culture of conservation and sustainability with

healthy local foods at its core.

In the aftermath of the Dustbowl and Great

Depression of the 1930s, farming methods in the United

States began to change dramatically. On one hand, a

nation-wide network of Soil and Water Conservation

Districts was formed to promote better farming practices

in a variety of ways - this helped heal a landscape

devastated by drought. On the other hand, farms

became increasingly dependent on mechanization, fuels,

fertilizers and an ever-growing list of pesticides and other

chemicals. Pressure to produce commodities on a finite

supply of suitable land created a growing list of abuses

and issues, summarized here from the book, Harvest of

Rage by Joel Dyer:

During the 1970s and 1980s, farmers in the United

States were encouraged to plant “fence row to fence row”

by the government. Larger industrial operations were

given incentives and financing to expand ownership

and intensify methods to maximize high-input factory

livestock and mono-crop production. Consequently,

smaller producers using less intensive methods found

themselves caught in the economic squeeze. Families

found it harder to keep up and make ends meet. Many

farms faced foreclosure and suicide rates escalated.

As the populations of rural communities across the

nation’s “breadbasket” declined, businesses were shuttered

and schools were closed. Main streets began to look

deserted, as they had appeared during the Dustbowl and

Great Depression of the 1930s. Policies had been brokered

by the multinational food companies during the 1950s to

A Thirty Year Fight for Healthier Food

ARTHUR (TEX) HAWKINS

57

accelerate the transition from a decentralized, independent

and self-sufficient rural society to a nation of wage-earners

and consumers. This created an economic system in which

agriculture became increasingly dependent on global

markets and vulnerable to rising costs, ranging from land

and fuel to fertilizer and petrochemicals.

As documented in the Land Stewardship Project’s web

pages, some of the diversified crop/livestock farmers in

southeastern Minnesota began hosting “kitchen table

meetings” in the 1980s with neighbors and local activists

concerned about the purchase of family farms by distant

investors, representing some of the country’s largest banks

and insurance companies. These corporate giants were

systematically buying up bankrupt farms and stripping

them of conservation practices that had been installed and

maintained by local farmers, with assistance from natural

resource agencies. The Land Stewardship Project began

organizing with small farmers and conservation allies to

fend off the assault.

This was the first major battle of the organization,

which has since enlarged its mission and geographic scope,

in collaboration with other institutions, to serve the north-

central region of the United States. From the beginning,

LSP has been primarily concerned about land health and the

well-being of diversified, often organic and nature-friendly,

small family farmers. It has also been concerned with

maintaining access to healthy local foods. The organization

and it members are great sustainability partners.

Maintaining natural soil fertility and water quality

using biologically diverse conservation buffers, contour

strip crops in rotation, well-managed pastures and hay,

perennial crops and cover crops - all of these things and

more, backed by reformed agricultural policies - are

considered essential by Land Stewardship Project members

for future sustainable landscapes and lifestyles across rural

and urban America. This is good news for wildlife.

At about the same time LSP was getting started, I

began piloting a new position as watershed biologist for

the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge,

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, my

job was to assist grassroots conservation efforts in order

to help reduce floods, sedimentation and contamination

of floodplain habitats along a 500 km stretch of river. We

improved upland wildlife habitat quality and connectivity

in order to protect and enhance bottomland habitats

bordering tributary streams and the river.

Photo: BRIAN DEVORE

58

LSP members – many of them small farmers – were

interested in using habitat buffers to keep soil, water and

biological diversity on their farms, instead of watching

their land wash downstream to the Gulf of Mexico, so

I welcomed an invitation from LSP to attend a two-day

workshop for grass-based livestock farmers. The workshop

introduced “holistic resource management” concepts

developed by Alan Savory. I liked the idea of blending

esthetics and science, ecology and culture in ways designed

to help farmers meet the challenges of producing food

more sustainably. While the science supporting managed

pastures in rotation remains controversial, it was successful

and satisfying for the farm families I had the privilege of

working with, and our friendships continue.

In the late 1990s, LSP Executive Director George

Boody invited six of these grass-based farm families to

team up with University of Minnesota researchers and

natural resource agency professionals. We developed and

tested a “toolbox” for farmers interested in monitoring

their progress toward sustainable food production

methods. Over a three-year period, we developed a suite

of biological and socio-economic “indicators” to be used

in tracking soil health, water quality, biodiversity, finances

and quality of life.

Use of the Monitoring Toolbox spread through LSP’s

“Beginning Farmers” training and mentoring programs,

with expansion of social media and networking to promote

healthier food, better access to markets and worker rights.

Watershed-scale modeling was developed with university

researchers to demonstrate costs and benefits of different

management scenarios. These models illustrated multiple

benefits to be expected from establishing more perennial

cover on the land.

In the late 1990s, LSP brought a group of

conservation writers and professionals together at the

“Shack” of Aldo Leopold, near Baraboo, Wisconsin, to

begin work on a project that would document some of the

progress in sustainable farming made after the posthumous

publication of Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac in

1949. The result of our efforts, The Farm as Natural

Habitat: Reconnecting Food Systems with Ecosystems,

was published by Island Press in 2002. This book provides

essential multiple perspectives on profitable alternatives to

highly industrialized agriculture.

Over the past 30 years, I have been impressed with

LSP’s willingness to tackle new challenges, ranging from

mega-feedlots and silica sand mining for oil or gas “fracking”

to high-input feedlots and mono-cropping in areas where

steep fractured limestone (karst) topography invites severe

surface and ground water impacts. The organization has

never hesitated to address controversy and complexity

that others might avoid, fearing over-extension or political

fallout. For people who care, LSP has been there.

When there was an attempt by agribusiness interests to

censor and limit circulation of research findings presented

in the film, Troubled Waters, LSP launched an immediate

and effective campaign to assure public access to the film

and ensure wider circulation of information it contained

pertaining to water quality, food systems and public health.

The campaign to suppress the film backfired and citizens

benefitted.

As I see it, the Land Stewardship Project provides an

excellent model to consider for organizations that are willing

to accept the ambivalence and uncertainties of intertwined

issues affecting growers and eaters. The organization seeks

to balance its membership among urban and rural, young

and old, upper and lower income levels. LSP addresses issues

by engaging both grassroots citizens and policymakers in

constructive discussions around real-world projects.

Education and action are LSP priorities. LSP’s Director

for Programs and Policy Mark Schultz describes the

organization as both member–driven and mission-driven.

He says that it is designed to work at both personal and

systemic scales. It helps eliminate the “silos” that characterize

institutions where each discipline is isolated from all others.

On the subject of member activism, Schultz says that LSP

tries to “fight the worst and promote the best.” This is

augmented by telling the stories about real people willing to

try unconventional approaches and make sacrifices for the

common good.

By intentionally uniting its rural, small-town base with

urban dwellers and suburban communities, LSP achieves its

mission of connecting people more closely with the land and

one another. A seemingly bipolar approach helps LSP build

long-term credibility and effectiveness, while promoting

ethical stewardship for food system sustainability. I think

that this is good lesson for all to learn.

A Thirty Year Fight for Healthier Food

59

NOTES

Dyer, J. (1998): Harvest of Rage. Boulder CO and Oxford UK.

Westview Press.

LSP “Our History” URL: HYPERLINK “http://

landstewardshipproject.org/about/history”http://

landstewardshipproject.org/about/history (retrieved 15 August 2014)

Savory, A. (1999): Holistic Resource Management. Washington

D.C. Island Press.

LSP “The Monitoring Toolbox” URL: HYPERLINK

“http://landstewardshipproject.org/about/libraryresources/

scienceandresearch/monitoringtoolbox”http://

landstewardshipproject.org/about/libraryresources/

scienceandresearch/monitoringtoolbox (retrieved 15 August 2014)

LSP “The Multiple Benefits of Agriculture” URL: HYPERLINK

“http://landstewardshipproject.org/about/libraryresources/

scienceandresearch/benefitsofag”http://landstewardshipproject.org/

about/libraryresources/scienceandresearch/benefitsofag (retrieved 15

August 2014)

Leopold, A (1949): A Sand County Almanac. New York and

Oxford, Oxford U Press.

Jackson and Jackson, ed. (2002) The Farm as Natural Habitat:

Reconnecting Food Systems with Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.

Island Press.

University of Minnesota, Bell Museum of Natural

History (2011): “Troubled Waters” URL: HYPERLINK

“http://landstewardshipproject.org/posts/290”http://

landstewardshipproject.org/posts/290 (retrieved15 August 2014)

LSP “Long Range Plan 2014-2019” HYPERLINK

“http://landstewardshipproject.org/repository/1/1222/

long_range_2014_2019.pdf”http://landstewardshipproject.

org/repository/1/1222/long_range_2014_2019.pdf (retrieved

15August 2014)

LSP “About Us” HYPERLINK “http://landstewardshipproject.

org/about”http://landstewardshipproject.org/about (retrieved 15

August 2014)

Arthur Hawkins

60

In a Paraguayan city, a pillar rises up in a park that rests

within the boundaries of a food desert. On the pillar, a

message is painted. Translated, it reads: When we’ve cut

down the last tree/ when we’ve contaminated the last river/

when we’ve killed the last fish/ you’ll find that you can’t

eat money.

This issue on Food Fights and Food Rights offers the

opportunity to consider food deserts as an abstraction of

space. Food deserts are a type of food environment that

lacks equitable retailing access to healthy and affordable

foods. In food deserts, much of the available food is

processed, canned, or prepared packaged snacks and

entrees (e.g. obeseogenic foods). If fresh and healthy

food is available, the foods are higher priced. As a result,

residents are forced to bargain for with their health

by making a decision to purchase the “economical”

choice or the “healthy” choice. The economical choice

can lead to obesity. Food deserts are also considered as

an abstraction of systemic social injustices over time

because food deserts are thought to have developed from

historic, exclusionary planning and segregation policies.

As a result, food desert residents in the US and the UK

have mobilized community campaigns to redevelop

and revitalize marginalized neighborhoods. Their efforts

reversed their obesity risk from their exposure to food

deserts and created new and equitable trajectories into

more sustainable and resilient paths.

Food deserts provide the opportunity to transform

spaces of exclusion, inequity, and injustice into

spaces of opportunities and health.

In less developed countries, food deserts also exist.

Researchers have found them in Brazil, South Africa, and

Paraguay; however, they do differ from food deserts in

developed countries. In developed countries, food deserts

can be transformed by city initiatives. In less developed

countries, this kind of infrastructural change is rare,

mostly because cities lack the kind of revenue needed

to fund city wide development and change. Instead,

residents must draw upon the people who work in the

Money Can’t Be Eaten

MEREDITH GARTIN

61

food system more directly. Open air markets, in particular,

are key retailers that help to stabilize food prices and

conserve food supplies in anticipation of food shortages.

Furthermore, the building of trust between vendors,

producers, and consumers can manifest into informal

credit lines that help people obtain food while they work

to accumulate cash. In my own research of a Paraguayan

food desert, the open market reduced bulk prices for

smaller store owners. The smaller store owners brought

market food to their homes for resale to their neighbors;

and for the poorest neighbors, store owners allow credit.

A shopper explained that “the [food] price is raised more

every day, every month… and the [store owner] gets it...

We can always count on her to trust us.”

Yet, when smaller stores are in competition with

global networks, the food environment remains vulnerable

to global forces (e.g. price fluctuations). During the Global

Food Crisis of 2008, for example, the director of the

World Hunger Program stated that there is ‘food on the

shelves but people are priced out of the market’. Today, the

problem endures. The idea of global as a ‘force’ resonates

among residents of a food desert and can cause local food

systems to buckle under global pressures. Residents in

Paraguay explained how politicians profited from opening

trade and increased prices. “Meat used to be really cheap

and it would be from here,” explained one resident, “but

now it’s more expensive. It’s the politician’s fault for

closing down the meat factories and it’s the reason that

the city infrastructure is shutting down.” The integration

of Paraguay into the global food system is relatively recent

and has resulted in local food stores and factory closings,

including the loss of urban agriculture. Even more

recently, open air markets are at risk of being closed down.

In response, protests occur and signs of public outrage are

revealed- like in the photo - with a message that amplifies

discourses of sustainability and justice.

Environmental science tells us that place matters.

Food desert research tells us that where people shop

matters. It is in a food desert residents are forced to

bargain for their food. And, it is in how we consider and

approach food deserts in the global food system that will

help us find new ways to reduce inequity and restore food

rights worldwide.

Instead of examining city food environments for

food deserts, researchers and practitioners should examine how community partnerships and social

interactions exist to remove food deserts and increase

food access.

Questions raised by studying food deserts with this

perspective could focus on whether the exportation of

food in supermarkets also includes the exportation of

cash-for-food food environments and subsequently food

deserts. If the local food system depends on cash for food

profiting, then will food deserts emerge as the poverty

gap widens between countries? And, finally, at what point

do people realize that money can’t be eaten and seek new

policies to change the food system in local cities to ensure

food equity and justice?

This material is based upon work supported by the

National Science Foundation (RCN 1140070). Any

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this material are those of the author and do

not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science

Foundation.

NOTES

1. Wrigley, N. (2002): “Food Deserts in British Cities:

Policy context and research priorities”. Urban Studies, 39,

2029-40.

2. Petticrew, M. et al. (2007): “Validating health impact

assessment: Prediction is difficult (especially about the

future)”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27,

101-107.

3. Gartin, M., and L. Zautner (2013): “Gardens Feed and

Fuel Grassroot Organization: Neighborhood Progress Inc.”.

Anthropology News [online] 54, Mar.

4. Holt-Giménez, E. and Peabody, L. (2008): “From food

rebellions to food sovereignty: Urgent call to fix a broken food

system”. Institute for Food Development and Policy, 14, 1-6.

62

New social movements for food sovereignty are

arising worldwide, and Latin America is home to

many of these. The movements have emerged

for different reasons; as a reaction to a system

that excludes small peasants from the production

system, as protests to rising food prices, threats

against traditional crops, and yet others again

are fighting for their local production of food and

access to land. Agroecology is being promoted

as part of the solution to the food crisis by

these movements, with hopes that others will

acknowledge its importance for feeding the world

in a sustainable manner.

The international food system has gone through important

changes in recent years. These include the privatization of

grain markets and the deregulation of the international

commodity markets. In many places, land use has changed

from food production to the production of biofuels and

large agribusiness, coupled with increases in oil and fertilizer

prices, increases in meat consumption and climate change-

linked droughts. Profits have largely gone to merchants of

agricultural input and seed providers, large companies, and

“food speculators”, while the prices of important food grains

have risen. The peak was reached with the food crisis in

2007 and 2008, with aftershocks in 2011.

Farmers and small-scale producers make up half of

the global work force, and the livelihoods of 2.2 billion

people are still linked to small-scale agriculture. There are

approximately 1.5 billion smallholders worldwide, and 350

million small farms. In Latin America alone, there are 65

million small farmers, a majority of which are indigenous

peoples (40-55 million). Local food systems are the core of

peoples’ nutrition, incomes, economies and culture. As an

example of their importance, half of the maize, three fourths

of the beans and over 60 percent of the potatoes in Latin

America are produced in local food systems.

The new global food system has especially been

developed at the cost of two groups. The first is small

producers who remain at the margins of the global food

market, unable to fully engage in it and at the same time

competing in asymmetrical conditions with products

imported from other countries. The second group is

poor consumers who suffer from the increase in costs of

food. The situation has been further aggravated with the

elimination of national production capacities, selective

subsidies (e.g. to agro exports and biofuels), land grabbing

and lack of support to small farmers. National economies

Struggles for Food Sovereignity in Latin America

CECILIE HIRSCH

63

Photo: CECILIE HIRSCH

64

Struggles for Food Sovereignity in Latin America

have been put under pressure from trade policies to

open their markets, without the ability to maintain farm

programs, price support, and import restrictions.

Latin America is a continent characterized by extremely

unequal land distribution and contested patterns of

land ownership.

Most arable land in Latin America is in the hands of a small

elite. Small peasants and indigenous peoples on the other

hand have historically been the least privileged groups,

something that is reflected in their poor access to land.

Food protests

Peasant and indigenous movements, as well as the urban

poor have not kept silent, and have engaged in street

protests, demonstrations, campaigns and other creative

strategies to face these challenges. Food related protests

happen at the local, national and international level.8

At the international level, social movements

have organized against unfair trade systems and trade

agreements discriminating local small producers, and

the dumping of food in local markets from subsidized

farmers in the developed countries. Via Campesina, an

international alliance of organizations of peasants, family

farmers and farm workers, has been one of the most

central actors in these protests, along with academics and

activists.9 According to Via Campesina, food production

should stay in the hands of small scale sustainable farmers

and not be left under the control of large agribusiness

companies or supermarket chains.10

At the national level in many countries, large

movements of urban and rural people have been protesting

against rising food prices and government policies, the

lack of provision of technology and support for local food

production, unequal land distribution, monoculture and

the absence of or insufficient agrarian and land reforms.

At the local level, communities are fighting against

threats of displacement, destruction of local ecosystems

and loss of livelihoods resulting from extractive projects,

plantations, and expansion of agri-business or biofuels.11

Local struggles: different paths and challenges

Small peasant and indigenous groups recently won an

important victory in Guatemala against a law that would

permit 25-year patents for new plant varieties including

hybrid and genetically modified (GM) varieties and

sanctions of the unauthorized use of the plants or seeds.

Thousands of indigenous peasants took to the streets

and blocked the Inter-American highway to demand

the law’s revocation, arguing it would contaminate local

crop varieties, disrupt traditional indigenous farming

and prioritize large-scale farmers. Although considered

an important accomplishment, the success of this

achievement is still dependent on Guatemala’s international

commitments in treaties such as the Central American Free

Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

In Brazil, the Landless Workers Movement (MST) is

working to put an end to the enormous agrarian injustices

in Brazil. The MST fights for agrarian reform by occupying

large and often uncultivated estates (latifundios), to remind

the federal government of its constitutional responsibility.

The occupation by the landless commences a legal process

to expropriate the land and grant title to the landless

workers. The movement has three central aims: land

reform, food sovereignty and a more just and equal society.

MST is in strong opposition to the use of land for biofuels,

or as they call it, agro fuels, which refer to the use of land

that could have been used for local food production. The

cultivation of soya for export as animal food is yet another

cause for their opposition to an unjust system. MST has

been very successful in achieving access to land for their

members and have had considerable political influence in

recent years. However, MST activists have also been subject

to criminalization and repression, as well as violence from

the private landholders as a result of their acts.12

Yet another important movement is the Zapatista

movement, a movement largely consistent of small

indigenous peasants in Chiapas, Mexico. The Zapatista

movement emerged as a reaction to the North American

Free Trade Agreement in 1994, which has had terrible

consequences for small peasants, the livelihoods of

65

Cecilie Hirsch

indigenous peoples and the right to communal lands

(ejidos). The massive import of subsidized maize from the

United States has had severe impacts on small peasants’

possibilities to sell their products, in addition to the

consequences the imports have had for the local varieties.

The movement demands access to land and food,13 and

has fought over a decade for the creation of their own

autonomous society, with autonomous production systems,

cooperatives, education and health systems, and a different

way of doing politics. The Zapatista movement is under

constant pressure, control, vigilance and threats from both

the government and paramilitary groups, at times with

violent outcomes.

Alternatives and food sovereignty

Many social movements in Latin America have embraced

the concept of food sovereignty as an alternative to the

neoliberal and marked oriented approach with a focus

on high-chemical input industrial agriculture. Farmers,

indigenous peoples, pastoralists, women and migrants

are getting organised and linking together with their

counterparts in other countries. Whereas the neoliberal

approach has to a large extent put its faith in international

trade to solve the world’s food problem under state and

corporate control, these movements seek to develop

a diversity of food systems. The movements opt for a

transformation away from uniformity, concentration,

coercion and centralisation towards diversity,

decentralisation, adaptation and democracy.

The concept of food sovereignty arose in 1996,

presented by La Vía Campesina at the World Food

Summit held by FAO. The concept has since then

undergone changes, with some common features. The

main principles of food sovereignty include the right to

food and land, respect for the producers, localized food

systems, local control over local resources, support to local

knowledge and skills, and the protection, not destruction,

of nature.14 Altieri15 has defined food sovereignty as “the

right of people to produce, distribute and consume

healthy food in and near their territory in an ecologically

sustainable manner”. Different parts of the movement also

include the right of each nation/people to define their own

agricultural/food policies; indigenous territorial rights,

traditional fisherfolk’s right to fishing areas, a retreat

from free trade policies and an end to the dumping of

cheap food on southern markets by rich nations, agrarian

reform, and peasant-based sustainable farming practices.

Food sovereignty has also acted as a new channel for

seeking gender equality and as space for empowerment,

by recognizing the role of women and their knowledge in

food systems and promoting their participation.

Agroecology as the solution?

Agroecology-based production refers to systems that are

“biodiverse, resilient, energetically efficient, socially just

and comprise the basis of an energy, productive and food

sovereignty strategy”.16 The concept of agroecology is

prominent in the agenda of several social organizations,

who argue that agroecology in combination with energy

and technological sovereignty is the basis for how

rural communities and even countries can reach food

sovereignty. Agroecology is based on small and family

farms, minimal dependence on agrochemicals and energy,

diversification and beneficial biological interaction and

synergies. Important parts of the production systems

include the regeneration of soil fertility and polycultures

with rotations, such as agroforestry, crops and livestock.

The system is knowledge intensive and based on local

techniques, community involvement and empowerment.

By exploiting the environmental functions in a sustainable

manner, and using locally available resources, farmers

are able to produce without external inputs. According

to Cohn et al. such systems have the potential to reduce

producer’s dependence on costly inputs and to mimic the

functioning of natural ecosystems to maintain soil fertility,

enhance yields and control pests.17

Countries with considerable experience in agroecology

include Brazil, Cuba and the Andean countries.14 The

AS-PTA (Assessoria e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura

Alternativa) network in Brazil started in the 1980s, and

include NGOs, farmer’s organizations and agriculture

students. MST has adopted agroecology and actively

promotes it among its 1.5 million members. In Cuba, the

farmer-to-farmer movement produces over 65 percent of

the food on only 25 percent of the land, where the state

provides land and inputs to the farmers.19 20 In Peru,

Ecuador and Bolivia, communities, cooperatives and

farmers organizations have recreated the native Andean

66

Struggles for Food Sovereignity in Latin America

agriculture with special rotation practices, terraces and

irrigation systems, and the selection of animals, crops,

and crop varieties, providing the communities with an

adequate diet through local resources while avoiding soil

erosion. In Bolivia, a strong peasant movement has moved

into the government’s offices with president Evo Morales,

and agroecology is defined as one of the four central goals

of his mandate. Food sovereignty is defined as a national

priority together with a national seed bank.

Hopes for the future?

The dominant rules for agriculture and food governance

have, the last decades, been poorly designed for the

strengthening of local organizations and autonomous

food production systems. In 2006, Cohn et al. warned

that mainstream agricultural research had largely ignored

acroecology’s potential.

However, through important counter trends and

“food fights,” peasants, urban and indigenous movements

are recreating a political realm as well as autonomous

foods systems, questioning free markets’ logic as well as

centralization, with the final goal of a just food system.

They argue that a sustainable and sovereign foods system

will require cooperation, where both pro-poor and pro-

nature voices are heard.

Since the food crisis in 2007-2008, there has been

an increased interest in the future of agriculture and the

role of small farmers, and there are hopes that the tides

are changing.21 Two recent major international reports22 23

recommend a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a

way to boost food production and improve the situation

of the poorest. In September 2014, the International

Symposium on Agroecology for Food and Nutritional

Security was held at the headquarters of the Food &

Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) in Rome.

The meeting was a milestone as it marked the first time

that the FAO has ever officially and directly addressed the

topic of agroecology. Via Campesina points to advances

due to the organization of ‘dialog og knowledges,’ (dialogo

de sabers) between small scale farmers, indigenous

knowledge and sciences such as ecology, agronomy, and

rural sociology, and the growth of new collaborations and

alliances between rural social movements, consumers,

environmentalists and academics.

On the 16th of October the World Food Day is being

held in Norway with the main topic “Family Farming”,

and Norwegian and Brazilian small farmers (from the

MST) are joining forces for a joint campaign.

67

Cecilie Hirsch

NOTES

Altieri M.A., Nicholls C.I., Funes F., (2012). The scaling up

of agroecology: spreading the hope for food sovereignty and

resiliency; A contribution to discussions at Rio+20 on issues at the

interface of hunger, agriculture, environment and social justice,

SOCLA (Sociedad Cientifica Latinoamericana de Agroecología.

1 FAO (2009). The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets

High food prices and the food crisis –experiences and lessons

learned. Knowledge and Communication Department. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

2 Cohn, A, Cook, J Fernández,M and Steward, C. (2006).

(eds) Agroecology and the Struggle for Food Sovereignty in the

Americas. IIED, CEESP and Yale F&ES.

3 Singh, S. (2012). The woes of rural labour. Capcity.org 44:8-9.

4 See also http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16521IIED.pdf

5 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_

pathways/docs/Factsheet_SMALLHOLDERS.pdf

6 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_

pathways/docs/Factsheet_SMALLHOLDERS.pdf

7 Altieri and Toledo 2011

8 See e.g. Cohn et al 2006

9 http://www.viacampesina.org/en/index.php/actions-and-events-

mainmenu-26/10-years-of-wto-is-enough-mainmenu-35

10 http://viacampesina.org/en/

11 A number of food movements have also emerged at the

consumer side in developed countries, but here we mainly focus

on the food movements of small peasants, the urban poor and

indigenous peoples.

12 http://www.acciontierra.org/spip.php?article330&lang=en

13 As well as shelter, health, education, independence, freedom,

democracy, justice, and peace

14 Millstone, E et al (2008). The Atlas of Food. Who Eats What,

Where, and Why. University of California Press.

15 Altieri 2009

16 Altieri 1995 and Gliessman 1998 in Altieri and Toledo 2011

17 Cohn et al 2006

18 See Altieri and Toledo 2011

19 Altieri and Toledo 2011

20 For more information, see also http://viacampesina.org/

downloads/pdf/en/Agroecological-revolution-ENGLISH.pdf

21 Altieri et al 2012

22 IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,

Science and Technology for Development) (2009) Agriculture at a

crossroads. In: International assessment of agricultural knowledge,

science and technology for development. Global report. Island

Press, Washington, DC

23 de Schutter, O. 2010. Report submitted by the Special

Rapporteur on the right to food. UN General Assembly. Human

Rights Council Sixteenth Session, Agenda item 3 A/HRC/ 16/49.

68

Å lære barn og unge om mat, kan løse et av våre

største problemer: overvekt. Så hvorfor snakker

politikerne bare om veier og eldre?

Et av de viktigste temaene i vår tid blir sjelden tatt opp i

politiske diskusjoner. Men, for at vi skal sikre folkehelsen

for fremtiden, må vi gjøre noe for å demme opp om den

kommende fedmeepidemien. Og for å gjøre dette må vi

sørge for at de oppvoksende generasjonene har en helt

grunnleggende ferdighet: Matmessig alfabetisme.

Tredobling av de tyngste

Noen tall først: Undersøkelser fra Universitetet i Bergen

viser at 17 prosent av barn mellom seks og 12 år er

overvektige. Siden 1970-tallet har det skjedd en tredobling

av antall barn i den tyngste vektklassen. Det er særlig disse

som er spesielt utsatt for å få alvorlig redusert livskvalitet.

De har større fare for livsstilssykdommer som diabetes 2.

Og de opplever redusert livskvalitet knyttet til lek og andre

hverdagslige aktiviteter.

Dette er dramatisk i seg selv, og ekstra dramatisk når

man ser på tallene fra USA og Storbritannia. Der var de

omtrent på vårt nivå for 20 til 25 år siden. Siden den tid

har problemene eskalert med rekordfart. I dag er én av tre

unge amerikanere overvektige, og antall sykelig overvektige

er mangedoblet.

Helsebudsjettene øker mest

Problemene er ikke ukjente. Da den rødgrønne

Regjeringen la frem Folkehelsemeldingen i fjor, var sunt

kosthold, sammen med fysisk aktivitet trukket frem

som den viktigste måten å sørge for en sunn befolkning

på. Myndigheter og helsepolitikere er også akutt klar

over de rent praktisk-økonomiske problemene ved at

helsebudsjettene øker mer enn verdiskapningen ellers i

samfunnet.

Så hvorfor i er ikke dette et større tema for offentlig

debatt?

Det er ikke slik at oppskriften på en sunn befolkning er

ukjent. Hvis barn og unge lærer mer om mat, og blir glad i

mat, vil de også bli i stand til å ta sunne matvalg resten av

livet. Så enkelt er det.

Tidligere var det slik at alle fikk med seg den

kunnskapen hjemmefra. Slik er det ikke nå lenger.

Matkunnskap - billig løsningpå dyrt problem

1

ANDREAS VIESTAD

69

Når Folkehelsemeldinga peker på at vi har et individuelt

ansvar for å spise sunt, er det helt riktig. Men det er ikke

tilstrekkelig, når stadig flere er matmessige analfabeter.

Kan ikke lage mat

Vi treffer dem hver dag på Geitmyra matkultursenter for

barn. Unge mennesker som kommer fra hjem hvor ingen

av foreldrene kan lage mat. Hvor man ikke vet hvordan

poteten vokser, langt mindre hvordan man kan tilberede

den. Hvor de har fått med seg at potetgull og cola ikke

er det sunneste man kan spise, men hvor man ikke er

matmessig kyndige nok til å ta andre og sunnere valg når

man skal kose seg.

Disse barna får ikke kunnskapen på skolen heller.

Mat- og helsefaget har vært systematisk bygd ned de

siste tiårene, til fordel for opplæring i de fagene som

oppfattes som viktigere. Tidligere i år hadde vi besøk av en

sjetteklasse hvor barna aldri hadde vært på et skolekjøkken

før. De var nysgjerrige, sultne på alt som vokste og grodde,

og på nye smaker. Men de hadde aldri før holdt i en skarp

kniv, stekt eller kokt noe, eller blitt fortalt om hva ulike

typer fett og stivelse gjør med kroppen.

Man kan innvende at denne klassen hadde fått

et dårligere grunnlag enn gjennomsnittet. Men ikke

mye: Gjennomsnittlig har bare en tredjedel av mat- og

helselærerne fagkompetanse, og gjennomsnittlig er

råvaretilskuddet i mat- og helsetimene fire kroner pr. elev.

Overlates den enkelte

Konkrete tiltak for å styrke barns matkunnskap har vært

mye drøftet i andre land, blant annet i USA, Finland,

Danmark og Frankrike. Men det er nærmest et ikke-tema

her hjemme.

En satsing på å bidra til matmessig alfabetisme hos

barn og unge, handler om å gi dem en ferdighet som er

minst like grunnleggende som de man trenger for å lære

matte eller engelsk. Det handler om å gi dem muligheten

til å ta egne valg og leve sunne og meningsfulle liv.

Mindre enn Meråkerbanen

Det er nyttig å huske på at dette er et billig tiltak. Et

skikkelig nasjonalt løft på dette feltet vil ikke koste

mer enn et middels viktig lokalt samferdselstiltak, som

oppgradering av Meråkerbanen, eller en finjustering av

rikingskatten.

De som er opptatt av ansvarlighet i den økonomiske

politikken bør også merke seg at dette er et tiltak som kan

spare mye penger i det lange løp. Dessuten vil det være

med på å gi en oppvoksende generasjon et bedre liv. At

mat også er glede og nytelse, bør ikke være grunn nok til

at politikerne holder seg unna temaet.

“En nasjons skjebne avhenger av hvordan den ernærer

seg”, skrev den franske gastronomen Brillat-Savarin i

1825. Det har aldri vært mer sant enn nå. Kom igjen,

snakk om det!

NOTES

1 Denne artikkelen har tidligere stått på trykk i Aftenposten.

En satsing på å bidra til matmessig alfabetisme hos barn og unge, handler om å gi dem en ferdighet som

er minst like grunnleggende som de man trenger for å lære matte eller engelsk.

70

The current process of developing principles and

guidelines for responsible agricultural investments (RAI)

under the auspices of the Committee on World Food

Security, CFS2 emerged largely because previous attempts

gave smallholders inadequate consideration. In order to

contribute to this process it is important to reflect on the

features of smallholder farming regimes. Smallholders

are different from both large-scale agriculture and land

labourers. What distinguishes them is the centrality of

the family unit both for production and consumption.

Family labour is used, which means there is little, if any,

wage labour. Smallholders also perform multiple functions

– economic, social and cultural – through their farming

and off-farm activities, both. In addition, the land they

cultivate is obviously small in relation to even medium-

sized farms in their area or country, but what is meant by

‘small’ differs from one context to another.

When measured as farms cultivating less than 1 ha

of land, 73 per cent of the farms in the world are small,

according to a study based on statistics from 81 countries

across all continents.3 The largest share of smallholders is

found in China (93 per cent), followed by India, ‘Other

Asia’ and Africa (all in the 57-63 per cent range). In

Europe and in the Americas, farms below 1 ha constitute

30 per cent of the total or less. The average size of farms

is declining over time in China and Africa. The threat

to smallholders is particularly strong in Africa: “25 per

cent of the small-scale farm households in the countries

surveyed are approaching landlessness,” claim Jayne,

Mather and Mghenyi,4 based on their study of Ethiopia,

Malawi, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda and Zambia. This

finding challenges the claims of high availability of unused

or extensively cultivated lands in Africa. The alienation

of African smallholders should be seen in the context of

increasing land inequalities and in relation to increased

competition for lands with good access to water, urban

markets, infrastructure and services.5

Beyond size, there are wide variations among

smallholders. Some could be described as rural residents,

since they mainly farm for subsistence. Others cultivate

chiefly for the market and are commercially oriented. In

practice, they may function as enterprises and may be

highly productive in terms of area and labour. Research

from several African countries indicates that around 10

per cent of smallholders belong to this category.6 Many

variations exist between these extremes.

Over the years there has been a debate about the

efficiency of scale in agriculture. Smallholders have often

Smallholder Agricultural Production Regimes

1

KJELL HAVNEVIK

71

Photo: CHARLOTTE LILLEBY KILDAL

72

been found to cultivate more efficiently than large-scale

farms.7 This depends, however, on the kind of smallholders

in focus. In sub-Saharan Africa generally, where

smallholders dominate, agricultural labour productivity

is lower than in other parts of the world. In Brazil, by

contrast, according to the 2006 Agricultural Census,

large landowners and agro-businesses dominate and

cultivate 76 per cent of agricultural land, whereas they

contribute 62 per cent of the annual gross agricultural

value. Smallholders across Brazil, who cultivate 24 per cent

of the land, contribute as much as 38 per cent of gross

annual value of agricultural production, including the

major share of food production. In addition, smallholder

farms are much more labour intensive than large-scale

holdings, employing 15 persons per 100 ha cultivated,

while large-scale agriculture employs 2 persons.8 The UN

Special Rapporteur on the right to food, argues that the

coexistence in Brazil of both a competitive agro-industrial,

export-focused sector and a family agricultural sector that

is responsible for the greater part of the domestic market

while also contributing to exports has, “served the country

well in different contexts.....Brazil should therefore

continue to promote family agriculture, and ensure that it

is afforded the support required to face the challenges of

an eventual liberalisation of agricultural trade.”9

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food,

however, as well refers to the heated debate within Brazil

about the conflictual relationships between large scale

agriculture and family farming. His argument is to

welcome such a debate, but “it should take into account

not only the question of productivity per hectare or per

active labourer, but also the environmental and social

dimensions of farming”10. Brazilian researchers on their

side, including Fernandes et al. 2012 and Mendonca et al.

2013, have in their research pointed to the negative trends

as regards social concerns and yield, i.e. area productivity

in large scale sugarcane cultivation from 2009 onwards.

However, overall area productivity in Brazilian agriculture

has shown great increases, in particular in the centre-

eastern part of the country.11

On the environmental side, findings from the period

2005 - 2010 show that greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)

in Brazil was reduced by 38 per cent, from 2.03 billion ton

of CO2eq to 1.25 billion ton of CO2eq. This took place

mainly because of decline in deforestation in Brazilian

Amazon in the period. On the other hand from 2005

to 2010 GHG emissions from Brazilian agriculture as a

share of total GHS emissions, increased from 20 to 35 per

cent. This made agriculture the major sector of Brazilian

GHG emissions in 2010.12 Since large scale agricultural

expansion into new areas has been a characteristic feature

of Brazilian agriculture during the period in question,

it is likely that this form of agriculture also accounts for

the major share of the negative climate change connected

with the sector. Recent reports, however, show that

deforestation in the Amazon increased by 28 per cent

during 2013, however from a low level.13 This may indicate

that the New Forest Code which granted amnesty to 58

per cent of Brazil’s deforestation before 200814 has given

the wrong signals by government and may possibly lead to

a break in trend of declining deforestation in the Amazon.

Rajao et al. have also pointed to the negative experiences

as regards deforestation connected with the system for

environmental licencing of rural properties outside the

Amazon, i.e. in Mato Grosso.

In spite of this labour-intensive character, smallholder

farms may utilise their labour force more efficiently than

large-scale farms, as their costs for supervising labour are

lower. However, the most important reasons small-scale

agriculture may be more efficient are agronomic.15 For

instance, intercropping of different plants may provide

shadow and better microclimates for plants, nitrogen

fixation from the air to the benefit of other plants and

less damage from pests and diseases because of lower

uniformity. There are also gains to be made in terms of

less weeding in some cases of intercropping. Furthermore,

the use of animal and plant manure lowers input costs,

and simpler forms of mechanisation may be efficient on

soils of varying quality. In sum, a variety of agronomic

factors taken together may make smallholder farming

more efficient than larger scale farming. However, the

end result depends on how farming is organised, which

cultivation techniques and farming systems are used and

how efficiently factor and output markets are working.

One way of structuring the description of smallholder

farms is to look at their entitlements in terms of assets,

functioning markets and functioning institutions. When

smallholders have access to certain assets, they may use

Smallholder Agricultural Production Regimes

73

them as collateral for obtaining credits, and they may also

access more effective cultivation techniques. Hence, their

productivity has a potential of being raised through such

mechanisms. But assets are not sufficient for smallholders

to be successful. It is only when, in addition, they have

access to functioning markets that they may translate

their productivity and production into higher incomes.

Furthermore, markets need to enable smallholders to

participate on an equal footing with other actors. Clearly

defined standards and qualities, accepted and enforceable

rules for conflict resolution and enforcement of sanctions

are desirable. However, the cost of certification and

attaining certain standards is generally high and has for

this reason the tendency to exclude smallholders.

All the above elements constitute the institutions

that are necessary for markets to work properly. Other

institutions include rules and functions needed to hinder

gender, class or ethnic factors as expressed in terms of

agricultural markets, tenure security or property rights.

When smallholder farms are structured around

their access to assets, markets and institutions, eight

possible combinations emerge, and these illustrate various

categories of smallholder farms. These should be seen as

typical cases, and do not exclude other possibilities.16

The table clearly shows that some of the characteristics

ascribed to farmers themselves most likely are linked to

contextual factors.

The table indicates that when one or more of these

factors, which can be considered production conditions,

are missing or weak, they constitute major hindrances

for smallholder farmers to develop. However, such a

statistical perspective does not capture well historical

trajectories, dynamic evolution or local context. Moreover,

to understand smallholder farming systems, it is crucial

to envisage the wider framework within which they are

placed. Unlike the situation in many Latin American

countries, India and parts of Africa agriculture is largely

dominated by smallholders. This situation is changing in

countries where labour opportunities in other economic

sectors are increasing and large-scale farms are increasing.

In parts of Europe and Canada, but also parts of Asia,

smallholders still play central roles in providing ecosystem

services, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, conserving

biodiversity and maintaining landscapes. In other settings,

smallholders are pushed to the margins, and in fighting for

their survival they destroy the environment, e.g. through

deforestation to expand their agricultural acreage.17

Contexts and frameworks differ distinctively

between countries and continents. Some smallholders

live in countries with strong state-led strategies, some in

systems with heavy subsidies and others still in contexts

where policies of deregulation and laissez faire dominate.

It may nevertheless be noted that similar policies have

been promoted in low-income countries over the past

few decades by International organisations, the donor

community and country governments that (1) focus on

SOURCE: HLPE 2013:43, + INDICATES THE EXISTENCE AND – THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE FACTORS

Kjell Havnevik

increased production through technical packages rather

than broader improvements to farming systems and

markets; (2) reduce or withdraw state involvement in

agriculture; and (3) close down agricultural banks, state-led

extension services, rural infrastructure work as well as

agricultural research. Many of the strategies promoted

by international institutions for low-income countries

differ considerably from what currently industrialised and

developed countries employed during their own efforts to

develop.18

The larger part of investment in smallholder

agriculture is made by farming families themselves. This

indicates the importance of access to credits, infrastructure

and functioning factor and output markets. HLPE

highlights three core areas connected to small-scale

agriculture if investments are to be realised: (1) smallholder

families need to feel hope for their future in order to

invest; (2) there has to be long-term security in terms of

tenure and user rights and (3) prices on output markets

need to be remunerative.19

In parts of the world where smallholders are

becoming numerous and where their relative incomes

are falling, effective social security systems can be an

important compensating mechanism. An international

debate on this is emerging (see 19). Smallholder contexts

where functioning institutions are weak or lacking leads

to increased insecurity and vulnerability. Social security

systems cannot compensate fully for weak institutions, but

they can facilitate the build-up of better functioning and

more relevant institutions.

Smallholder Agricultural Production Regimes

72

75

NOTES

1 The author is thankful to Mats Hårsmar for constructive

contributions to this article. A more comprehensive analysis of the

features of smallholder production regimes in comparison to those

of large scale agricultural regimes can be found in Kjell Havnevik,

“Responsible agricultural investments. How to make principles

and guidelines effective.” The Swedish FAO Committee and the

Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm, March 2014.

2 CFS, Committee on World Food Security (2013), “Rai Zero

Draft.” 1 August. Rome. CFS, Committee on World Food Security

(2014), 2nd Draft 14 August. Rome.

3 HLPE (2013), “Investing in smallholder agriculture for food

security”, Report No. 6, High Level Panel of Experts on Food

Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome.

4 Jayne, T. S., D. Mather and E, Mghenyi (2010), “Principal

Challenges Confronting Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Saharan

Africa.” World Development, Vol 36:10, pp 1384 – 1398

5 Olanya, D. (2012), “From Global Land Grabbing for Biofuels

to Acquisitions of African Water for Commercial Agriculture.”

Current African Issues, No. 50, Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala.

HLPE (2012), “Social Protection for Food Security.” Report, High

Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, FAO,

Rome. Jägerskog, A., A. Cascão, M. Hårsmar and K. Kim (2012),

”Land

Acquisitions: How will they Impact Transboundary Waters?”

Report No 30, Stockholm International Water Institute,

Stockholm, Sweden

6 Djurfeldt, G., H. Holmén et al. (2005), The African Food Crisis

– Lessons from the Asian Green Revolution. Wallingford, Oxon.:

CABI. Djurfeldt, G. E. Aryeteey and A. Isinika (eds) (2010),

African Smallholders: Food Crops, Market and Policy. Wallingford,

Oxon.: CABI.

7 Binswanger, H. and P. Pingali (1988),”Technological Priorities

for Farming in Sub-Saharan Africa.” The World Bank Research

Observer, Vol 3, No. 1, Washington. D. C. Coulson, A. (2013),

“The end of the peasanty? Reflections based on Henry Bernstein’

“Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change.” Kumarian Press and

Fernwood Publishing 2013.

8 Fernandes, B. M., C. A. Welch and E. C. Goncalves (2012),

Land Governance in Brazil. A geo- historical review of land

governance in Brazil. International Land Coalition Framing the

Debate Series No. 2, Rome.

9 De Schutter, O. (2009b), “Report of the Special Rapporteur on

the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. Addendum. Mission to

Brazil.” United Nations General Assembly. A/HRC/13/33/Add.6.

New York. De Schutter, O. (2009a), “Preliminary Conclusions:

Mission to Brazil, 12-18 October 2009, press release- annex.

10 Klink, C. A. (2013), “Brazilian strategies to reduce forestation

in Brazil?” Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brazil.” Presentation at

conference, Deforestation and REDD+ in Brazil. What is going on?

Oslo, 28 October 2013.

11 (Nobre 2013).

12 BBC World Service (2013), November 15.

13 Rajao, R. (2013), “Implications of the Forest Code and

Challenges of leakage: An institutional Outlook.” Presentation at

seminar, Deforestation and REDD+ in Brazil, What’s going on?

Oslo, 28 October.

14 Coulson, A. (2013), “The end of the peasanty? Reflections

based on Henry Bernstein’ “Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change.”

Kumarian Press and Fernwood Publishing 2013.

15 HLPE (2013), “Investing in smallholder agriculture for food

security”, Report No. 6, High Level Panel of Experts on Food

Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome.

16 HLPE (2013), “Investing in smallholder agriculture for food

security”, Report No. 6, High Level Panel of Experts on Food

Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome.

17 Bairoch, P. (1993), Economic and World History: Myth and

Paradoxes. The University of Chicago Press. Bhaduri, A. and

R. Skarstein (1997), Economic Development and Agricultural

Productivity. Edward Elgar Publisher. Chang, H-J. (2002), Kicking

Away the Ladder. Development Strategy in HistoricalPerspective.

Anthem,London.

18 HLPE (2013), “Investing in smallholder agriculture for food

security”, Report No. 6, High Level Panel of Experts on Food

Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome.

19 HLPE (2013), “Investing in smallholder agriculture for food

security”, Report No. 6, High Level Panel of Experts on Food

Security and Nutrition, FAO, Rome.

REFERENCES:

Mendonca, G. L., F. T. Pitta and C. V. Xavier (2013), “The

Sugarcane Industry Rajao, R. (2013), “Implications of the Forest

Code and Challenges of leakage: An institutional Outlook.”

Presentation at seminar, Deforestation and REDD+ in Brazil,

What’s going on? Oslo, 28 October.

Soares-Filho et al 2013 Swedfund (2013), “Addax Bioenery, Sierra

Leone. Fakta.” First published December 4 2011.

Kjell Havnevik

76

Consumers get bombarded by nutritional information

on a daily basis through a host of different channels:

newspapers, TV, magazines, radio, Facebook, celebrity

tweets, and through the many blogs that can be found

online. While many welcome nutritional information, it

is not so easy to sort through it all. In addition, different

pieces of information may give contradictory messages.

Why do we get contradictory information? Would

providing crystal clear information on what is healthy and

what is not be enough to get people to eat healthier?

Many of these informational messages consist of

different levels that can contribute to contradictory

messages. These levels consist of the scientific background,

the interpretation of the background information, and

the framing and source of the message. The scientific

background is often the first, for example, a study might

show a relationship between the intake of food A, and

health parameter Z. There are different ways in which

this result may have been obtained: for example through

epidemiological studies, randomized controlled trials

Is more nutrition information really going to help us eat healthier?

The issue with health claims and food labeling

MARIJE OOSTINDJER

77

or cohort studies. Each type of study has its advantages

and its limitations. Epidemiological studies may show a

relationship but do not say anything about causality (does

food A directly affect parameter Z, or is food A related to

food B, which actually has the effect on Z?). Randomized

controlled trials are better for looking at mechanisms,

but such trials are often difficult to conduct for a long

time or with extreme food intakes. In addition, people

eat a diet, not single foods, and the interactions between

different foods in the diet may be complex.1 This is why

in many cases the science underlying the effects that food

has on our health is not completely bullet-proof, but with

new advances in analytical tools and systems biology the

knowledge will continue to evolve.

The second level underlying informational messages is

the interpretation by the one who presents the message to

the consumers. This person or organization has a certain

level of understanding, focus, and opinion that can impact

on how they interpret the message, and how they frame it.

This can often be seen in blogs, where the same scientific

article may be interpreted and framed very differently in

different blogs.

The third level that underlies informational messages

consists of both the frame and the source of the message.2

Reputation and expertise of the source is important for

people to trust the message and to help them accurately

assess the risks or benefits of eating a food. However,

certainty of the message, as well as strength of the

arguments are also important and can even compensate

for low reputation or expertise of the source. Framing

of the message is also important: use of fear appeal for

example, such as the cigarette packaging with photos of

the consequences of smoking that are used in Australia

and some other countries, will have a different effect on

consumer attitudes than messages in which fear is not

induced. While fear appeal can be effective in the short

term, it is not known what the long term effects are of

using fear appeal to frame messages to consumers.

In Europe there are strict regulations on what type

and in what format information messages can be used

when communicating about relationships between food

and health. This is particularly true for information

provided on food itself, in the form of food labels,

nutrition claims or health claims. The European Food

Safety Authority (EFSA) is involved in the regulation

of food labels, and new regulations will soon (end of

2014) result in new labels not only in the EU but also

in Norway.3 Nutrition claim examples include ‘no added

sugar’ and ‘low fat’, and a regulatory framework is in

place with rules on the nutritional requirements that

foods must have before it can have a nutrition claim. This

framework also is present for health claims, though more

complicated. Health claim examples are ‘Food X boosts

the immune system’ or ‘Food Z helps to reduce blood

cholesterol’. EFSA looks at whether the food or ingredient

is properly defined, whether the claim is well-phrased

and concrete enough to be scientifically evaluated, and

what the evidence is for this effect.4 EFSA also provides

Foods with health claims, particularly from food categories that are normally not considered as healthy, are expected

by many consumers to be less tasty. However, there is variation within and between populations in consumer

taste expectation of healthy food.

78

documentation on how studies that may serve as evidence

for the claim should be conducted. Such studies should

be extensive in order to provide sufficient evidence for the

claim, and so far only 250 claims have been authorized,5

many of which are related to vitamins and minerals.

Cholesterol reduction by certain type of fats or fibers is

another frequent category in the authorized claims list.

There are more than 2000 applications that have not

been authorized so far, as EFSA panels judged the claim

not validated sufficiently. The regulatory framework on

health claims is strict in order to protect consumers from

non-validated health claim use in marketing and branding

of products.

Even if more conclusive studies were done and

many health claims were authorized and used in

food labeling, would it really help consumers to eat

healthier?

This requires that consumers are motivated to buy

food items that claim to be healthy. However, food that

is labeled as healthier, or food that has been altered

to incorporate health promoting ingredients change

expectations and attitudes of consumers. Consumers

typically expect such products to be more expensive,

as many healthy foods to tend to be more expensive.

Consumers also may expect the product to be less natural

though this depends on the combination of the health

promoting ingredient and the medium in which the

ingredient has been used. Pork with a health claim is

expected to be less natural than yoghurt or bread.6 Such

effects may affect the attractiveness of the product and

most importantly the expectations of taste. Foods with

health claims, particularly from food categories that

are normally not considered as healthy, are expected

by many consumers to be less tasty. However, there is

variation within and between populations in consumer

taste expectation of healthy food. For example, in almost

all of the Nordic countries taste expectations is reduced

by providing health claims, but not in Iceland. Variation

was large in a Uruguayan consumer sample who tasted

chocolate desserts with antioxidants: some found it very

healthy and tasty, while others found the products to be

healthy and having an off-flavour.7 Making consumers

combine taste of the food product with health information

can affect consumer perception and acceptance: if the

product really does taste less good than its unhealthy cousin,

many consumers will not choose the healthier option.8

It is a serious problem that consumers expect healthier

products to be more expensive and less tasty, as taste and

price are two of the major motivators for choosing certain

food products. This is why researchers are taking an

alternative route to motivating consumers to eat healthier:

nudging. A nudge is a change in the environment that

results in changed behaviour, but does not forbid any

options, and does not change economic incentives. A

successful example in terms of eating behaviour is an

intervention in a salad bar in a cafeteria, which made

calorie-dense foods slightly harder to reach, and changed

the serving utensils from spoons to tongs (with which it

is harder to take large quantities of for example cheese

cubes), which resulted in an 8-16% decrease in intake of

these foods.9 Such effects are modest, but reliable, and may

very well add-up.

Although providing consumers with information

about nutrition is complex and may not always work as

desired, it is still considered a major way to get consumers

to eat healthier. Many countries are looking into ways to

make it easier for consumers to use nutrition information

to make healthier choices. Simplified labels such as the

traffic light system that is used in the UK are easier for

consumers to understand as they use colours in addition

to more detailed information. The Nordic Keyhole

Label is another simplified label, which signals healthier

alternatives within the food product category. The labeling

is voluntary and not yet available for all categories, though

regulations around the label are continuously updated.

Products with the Keyhole label typically contain more

dietary fiber, and less salt, sugar and saturated fats. The

vast majority of consumers in the Nordic countries

Is More Nutrition Information Really Going to Help Us Eat Healthier?

79

recognizes and buys products with the Keyhole label,

though the consumer may lack precise understanding of it.

However, the majority of Nordic consumers says that the

label makes it easier for them to choose healthier.10

In conclusion, it will not be enough for the scientific

community to just work on gaining more knowledge on

nutrition, as this information alone may not be enough

to get consumers to eat healthier. Providing accurate,

clear and easy-to-understand information is key to ensure

consumer trust in the product. As there is variation

between consumers in how information is perceived and

how information affects expectations and attitudes towards

foods, it is important to also explore alternative strategies

that do not involve direct communication towards the

consumer, such as nudging, which can work in synergy with

information campaigns to get consumers to eat healthier.

NOTES:

1. Oostindjer, M., Alexander, J., Amdam, G.V., Andersen, G.,

Bryan, N.S., Chen, D., Corpet, D.E., De Smet, S., Dragsted,

L.O., Haug, A., Karlsson, A.H., Kleter, G., de Kok, T.M., Kulseng,

B., Milkowski, A.L., Martin, R.J., Pajari, A.M., Paulsen, J.E.,

Pickova, J., Rudi, K., Sødring, M., Weed, D.L., & B Egelandsdal

(2014) “The role of red and processed meat in colorectal cancer

development: a perspective.” Meat Science 97: p. 583.

2. Oostindjer, M. (2014) “Food communication: the source and

the message.” [online]. URL: http://www.umb.no/statisk/forsiden/

presentation_11_feb_marije.pdf

3. Mattilsynet (2012) “Merkeforskriften revideres”. [online].

It is a serious problem that consumers expect healthier products to be more expensive and less tasty, as taste and price are two of the major motivators for choosing certain

food products.

URL: http://www.mattilsynet.no/mat_og_vann/merking_av_mat/

generelle_krav_til_merking_av_mat/merkeforskriften_

revideres.4711

4. EFSA (2014) “Nutrition and health claims.” [online]. URL:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/nutrition.htm

5. European Commission (2014) “EU register of nutrition and

health claims made on food.” [online]. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/

nuhclaims/

6. Lähteenmäki, L., Lampila, P., Grunert, K., Boztug, Y., Ueland,

Ø., Åström, A., & E. Martinsdóttir (2010) “Impact of health-

related claims on the perception of other product attributes.” Food

Policy 35: p. 230.

7. Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Giménez, A., & A. Gámbaro

(2010) “Consumer expectations and perception of chocolate milk

desserts enriched with antioxidants.” Journal of Sensory Studies

25: p. S243.

8. Carrillo, E., Varela P., & S. Fiszman (2012) “Effects of food

package information and sensory characteristics on the perception

of healthiness and the acceptability of enriched biscuits.” Food

Research International 48: p. 209.

9. Rozin, P., Scott, S., Dingley, M., Urbanek, J.K., Jiang, H.,

& M. Kaltenbach (2011) “Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in

accessibility decrease food intake.” Judgment and Decision Making

6: p. 323.

10. Mattilsynet & Helsedirektoratet (2014) “Nøkkelhullsmerket”.

[online]. URL: http://www.nokkelhullsmerket.no/

Marije Oostindjer

80

Photo: MARCELA OLIVEIRA

81

Laksentar vi den for god fisk?

Tilgang til mat er en menneskerett og matsikkerhet er

en av vår tids største problemstillinger. Det er imidlertid

ikke bare retten til å bli mett som er et sentralt aspekt i

dagens matpolitikk. Også mattrygghet er blitt en viktig

dimensjon som ikke kan utelukkes i diskusjonen om

rettigheter. Bør det ikke også være en rettighet at maten er

trygg og sunn? Hvis svaret er ja, er vi i stor grad avhengig

av kvalitetssikret informasjon, ettersom mye av ansvaret er

overført til den individuelle forbruker. Å sikre helsemessig

trygg mat er blitt en stadig større utfordring med moderne

matproduksjon. Matkjeden er blitt mer sammensatt, og

økt antall ledd mellom det som produseres og serveres gjør

det mer utfordrende å utføre helhetlige matkontroller.

Maten og kostholdet betyr mye for helsen vår, og

forbrukerne har fått økende interesse for hva de tilfører

kroppen, både av hensyn til kvalitet, men også av hensyn

til helse. Vi lever i et risikosamfunn preget av komplekse

informasjonsstrømmer. Som forbrukere eksponeres vi

stadig for avisoverskrifter der eksperter og tilfeldige

aktører uttaler seg om effektene av ulike matvarer. Disse

er gjerne motstridende og media bidrar til å polarisere

debatten; i dag var varen trygg, i morgen er den farlig.

Forbrukerne blir forvirret, og usikkerheten undergraver

trygghetsfølelsen. Dermed blir det desto viktigere med god

informasjon fra uavhengige organ.

Grunnidéen om en helhetlig tilnærming til

CHARLOTTE ANDERSEN

matpolitikken er at forvaltningen strekker seg utover hele

matkjeden, «fra fjord, jord til bord». I denne tilnærmingen

ligger det en forutsetning om at sluttproduktet gjenspeiler

produksjonsmetoder og den behandlingen varen har

fått gjennom hele matkjeden. Det betyr at den varen

som vi enten får servert i frysedisken i butikken, eller

på restaurant, skal være helsemessig trygg. Både mat- og

ernæringspolitikken skal sikre oss veier til trygg mat.

Vi kan få god helse via et ernæringsrikt kosthold, men like viktig via den

kunnskapen vi mottar om varer vi bør unngå.

På den måten er trygghetsaspektet og ernæringsaspektet

to viktige elementer som er ment å integreres innenfor

et samlet matpolitikkfelt. Forvaltningen er bygget opp

av ulike institusjoner som både grenser til og overlapper

hverandre. Et administrativt skille mellom mat- og

helsesektoren gjør det derfor mulig å snakke om et skille

mellom det trygge og det sunne. Sektorene har hvert sitt

ansvarsområde og sine hensyn å ivareta. Et eksempel på

hvordan sektorene krysses og kobles kan illustreres med

82

deres tilnærming til kostholdsråd.

Et skille mellom sektorene kommer til uttrykk ved

at matforvaltningen har fokus på fremmedstoffene, mens

helseforvaltningen gir råd og anbefalinger om de positive

næringsstoffene i maten. Matforvaltningen advarer altså

mot matvarer som inneholder høye nivåer av miljøgifter.

Helseforvaltningen gir derimot kostholdsråd utelukkende

på helseeffekter.1 Kostholdsrådene har over lang tid vært

matvarebasert ved at man har oppmuntret befolkningen

til å konsumere varer med viktig næringsinnhold.

Utfordringen som melder seg når man opererer med et

klart skille mellom det trygge og det sunne, er at det kan

resultere i ulike råd fra mat- og helseforvaltningen.

Som et ledd i retning av å integrere hensynet til

det «giftige» og det sunne, har det blitt gjennomført

nytte-risikovurderinger som vurderer fremmedstoffer og

næringsstoffer opp mot hverandre. Dette er foreløpig kun

blitt gjort på én matvaregruppe i Norge, fisk. Debatten

om norsk laks illustrerer problemstillingene som oppstår

når det blir foretatt en helhetsvurdering etter trygghets- og

sunnhetsaspektet.

Helt siden 1980- tallet har matsektoren gitt råd om

å begrense inntak av sjømat som kan inneholde for høye

nivåer av fremmedstoffer. Disse rådene har gjerne vært

geografisk avgrenset og tatt utgangspunkt i områder med

mye industrivirksomhet. Råd har for eksempel blitt gitt

til lokalbefolkning nært et forurenset område, som for

eksempel i Grenland der myndighetene var bekymret

for sammenhengen mellom industrivirket, selvfiske hos

lokalbefolkningen og inntak av for mye miljøgifter.2 I

de senere årene har praksisen endret seg. Økt kunnskap

om flere miljøgifter og de negative effektene disse kan

ha for helsen vår, har resultert i at matforvaltningen

nå kommuniserer mer generelle kostholdsråd. For

eksempel rådes gravide kvinner til å begrense inntaket

av fet fisk til to ganger i uken. Dette gjelder da matvarer

som overholder grenseverdiene, og som flyter fritt over

landegrensene, men som visse grupper likevel må være

forsiktige med.

I dag er det velkjent at laksen inneholder miljøgifter.

Allerede i 2004 ble norsk laks kritisert av amerikanske

forskere i det vitenskapelige tidsskriftet Science. Det ble

argumentert for at konsum av laks medførte risiko for kreft,

og forskerne konkluderte med at man ikke burde spise mer

enn ett måltid laks i måneden for å unngå risiko for kreft.3

Kritikken skapte uro i matforvaltningen og i

sjømatsektoren i Norge. Mattilsynet svarte på kritikken

ved å bestille en risikovurdering fra Vitenskapskomiteen

for mattrygghet (VKM). Vurderingen skulle ta for seg

både ernæringsmessige fordeler ved å spise fisk, og se disse

i lys av ulempene fra fremmedstoffene. Risikovurderingen

ble lagt frem i 2006 og konklusjonen var at de

helsemessige fordelene ved å spise fisk var langt større enn

ulempene. Det skjedde ingen endring i kostholdsrådene,

og fisken beholdt sunnhetsstemplet.

Nå, ti år senere etter den store urolighetsbølgen,

er debatten tilbake. Det er fortsatt usikkerhet knyttet

til risikoen rundt miljøgiftene, og til hvorvidt laksen

er så sunn som man skal ha det til. Som en følge av

sushitrenden er det grunn til å tro at langt flere av oss

spiser mer laks. Endringer i vårt kostholdsmønster kan gi

grunnlag for revidering av råd. I tillegg er en annen viktig

dimensjon at fiskefôret nå inneholder mer plantebasert

fôr. På mattrygghetssiden hevder vitenskapelige miljøer

at miljøgiftinnholdet har gått ned i laksen,4 og at den er

trygg. På ernæringssiden er det grunnlag for å stille seg

spørsmålet om den er like sunn. Dette henger sammen

med at det stilles spørsmål til at overgangen til et

plantebasert fôr påvirker innholdet av omega 3. Risikoen

er altså ikke lenger bare en følge av forurensning, men også

en effekt av at endringer i matproduksjonen.

I lang tid har helsemyndighetene sett på laksen som

en kilde til omega 3 og andre viktige næringsstoffer. Laks

har derfor vært en selvsagt vare å fremme som en viktig

del av et norsk sunt kosthold. Da debatten om laksen

igjen dukket opp i fjor sommer, utviklet det seg en stor

mediedebatt omkring miljøgifter, sprikende kostholdsråd,

usikkerhet og risiko. Urolighetene ble ikke mindre da

det ble vist en dokumentar i Frankrike som kritiserte

norsk oppdrettslaks. Rundt samme tid opplevde Norge

nedgang i lakseeksporten til Frankrike. Den norske laksen

hadde ikke lenger referansepunkt som kvalitetsfisk, og

franskmennene så heller til Skottland for å få kvalitet. Om

eksportnedgangen skyldes en negativ dokumentar eller økt

pris på fisken er ikke godt å vite. Uansett illustrerer dette

at laksen fortsatt sliter med omdømme, både her i Norge

og i utlandet.

Når laksen skal frikjennes fra all kritikk, samt fortsatt

Laksen - tar vi den for god fisk?

83

bli merket med kvalitet og sunnhetsstempel, har næringen

selv et viktig ansvar. Tidligere i år gikk verdens største

lakseprodusent, Marine Harvest, ut med melding om at

de skal rense fôret fritt for giftstoffer. Dette kan være en

omdømmestrategi og et forsøk på fjerne all tvil omkring

laksen, men det positive er at teknologien er på plass.

Siden vi ikke har data som viser hvor mye miljøgifter vi

eksponeres for totalt sett gjennom vårt kostholdsmønster,

er det desto viktigere at giften fjernes der det er mulig.

Dette er et steg i riktig retning dersom målet er å redusere

eksponeringen for miljøgiftene mest mulig.

Ofte hører vi argumentet «varen overskrider ikke

grenseverdien, og er derfor trygg». Å forstå hva som ligger

i en grenseverdi er komplekst, men spissformulert kan

man si at det handler om regulering av handel. Målet

med å sette grenseverdier er at varer med høye stoffer av

miljøgifter ikke skal nå ut til oss forbrukere. Grenseverdier

kan derfor ikke kun betraktes som grenser for helseskade.5

Grenseverdier skal også ta høyde for eventuelle storspisere

av en bestemt vare. Likevel er det her mye av utfordringen

ligger for myndighetene. Det er mangel på data som

forteller oss hvor mye miljøgifter vi utsettes for gjennom

vårt totale kostholdsmønster. Koblingen mellom

fremmedstoffer og næringsstoffer burde derfor ses mer

i sammenheng når myndighetene kommuniserer sine

kostholdsråd. Dette skjer nå på fisken, og i fremtiden

også kanskje på andre typer varer. Gjennom en

helhetsvurdering og tilegning av kunnskap om hva stoffene

gjør med oss blir vår evne til å gjøre egne risikovurderinger

styrket. Vi trenger tydelig og sikker kunnskap om hvilke

helserisiko som følger med de ulike stoffene i matvarene.

Denne høsten kommer vitenskapskomiteen

for mattrygghet (VKM) ut med en oppdatering av

risikovurderingen på fisk og annen sjømat. Vurderingen

skal ta utgangspunkt i ny kunnskap om fremmedstoffer

og næringsstoffer, og se om dette danner grunnlag for

revidering av offisielle anbefalinger om kostholdet.

La oss håpe myndighetene, med bakgrunn i en

helhetlig kunnskapsvurdering, lykkes i å kommunisere

informasjonen til forbrukerne. Uavhengig av hva

konklusjonen blir, er det best for alle parter at

forbrukerens usikkerhet reduseres.

NOTES

1 Vitenskapskomiteen for mattrygghet (2006: 19), ”Et helhetssyn på

fisk og annen sjømat i norsk kosthold” (1- 171)

2 Tom Erik Økland (2005) ” Kostholdsråd i norske havner og

fjorder”. En gjennomgang av kostholdsråd i norske havner og

fjorder fra 1960- tallet og frem til i dag. Rapport utarbeidet av

Bergfald & Co as, på oppdrag fra Mattilsynet, Vitenskapskomiteen

for Mattrygghet (VKM) og statens forurensningstilsyn

3 RF (2005: 105) “Mat, risiko og kriser”, Matvaretrygghet

i endring i Norge, Tyskland og Storbritannia. Forfatter av

rapporten er: Hauge, Jarleiv og Allred, Kirsten. URL: http://

evalueringsportalen.no/evaluering/mat-risiko-og- kriser-

matvaretrygghet-i-endring-i-norge-tyskland-og-storbritannia/

Mat_risiko_kriser.pdf/@@inline

4 NIFES ”Fet fisk er trygg mat” (nett) URL: http://nifes.no/fet-

fisk-er-trygg-mat/

5 NIFES ”Uønskede stoffer: hva er en grenseverdi og hva

er tolerabelt ukentlig inntak?” (nett) URL: http://nifes.no/

forskningstema/trygg-sjomat/grenseverdier-for-uonskede-stoffer/

Siden vi ikke har data som viser hvor mye miljøgifter vi eksponeres for totalt sett gjennom vårt kostholdsmønster,

er det desto viktigere at giften fjernes der det er mulig. Dette er et steg i riktig retning dersom målet er å redusere

eksponeringen for miljøgiftene mest mulig.

Charlotte Andersen

84

Oslo Food Cooplocal, organic and sustainable

ANDREAS FÆRØVIG OLSEN

A couple of weeks ago I was working for Kooperativet

(Oslo Food Coop) at Mathallen, filling bags of vegetables

together with other volunteers. Looking around, I made

eye contact with a woman who had been studying the

carrots destined for our bags. “They look just like the ones

I grow myself!” she enthusiastically exclaimed. I quickly

replied, “and I am sure they also taste just as good.”

In the fall of 2013, the UN issued a report called,

“Trade and Environment Review 2013” subtitled “Wake

up before it is too late.” It claimed that we need a shift

towards more organic, local and small-scale farming.

Kooperativet, a cooperative based on letting its members

buy organic/biodynamic produce directly from local

farmers, handed out their first bags one month before the

report was published, and those values are some of our

core principles.

In order to encourage sustainable agriculture, reduce

the environmental impact and promote animal welfare,

we require our suppliers (or “our farmers,” as we usually

call them) to be certified organic. In practice, however,

many of them have a biodynamic approach to farming

or in other ways take special interest in sustainable food

production. Several of them therefore follow even stricter

guidelines than what is found in the standard rules of

organic certification.

We want the food to be grown as locally as possible.

This reduces the negative impacts of transportation, and

it allows us to receive vegetables that most of the time

are harvested the same day. Minimizing the time spent

on transportation and storage also improves freshness

and taste. For this to work as intended, we have to let the

current season and the farmers’ ability to deliver decide

what to offer in our bags. In practice, our members simply

order an unspecified bag of vegetables and other produce,

and the contents are based on what is available at the time

of delivery.

Sustainability is important not only when it comes

to the farming itself. Kooperativet is run independent

of external support, and in a way that minimizes waste

generation. The members, for instance, have to return

the bag they received the last time when collecting their

vegetables. All the work is done by volunteers. That

means 95% of the income goes directly to the farmers.

Without any intermediaries, we can offer a fair price

for the produce, encouraging them to keep focusing

on sustainable farming practices, while maintaining a

reasonable charge for the members. Profit is not a goal for

Kooperativet, but being able to offer our members high

85

quality food at an affordable price – and offer our farmers

the price they need for their crops – certainly is!

What has Kooperativet accomplished since the launch

last year? We currently have just above 1000 members,

with a rapidly growing waiting list containing just as

many. The members have the opportunity to support

what we consider sustainable agriculture, replacing some

of their previous purchases with the bags we offer. The

farmers are able to sell their produce directly to someone

who appreciates their work, and they get a fair price. This

might encourage them to keep up their good practices and

others to switch to organic farming.

At the same time we have been trying to

communicate our values to the general public. A lot of

people approach us when we fill the bags at Mathallen,

and we get plenty of opportunities to generate interest in

what we are doing. Through cooperation with others, like

our recent contribution to the festival “Piknik i Parken”,

we get to show even more people how sustainable farming

can result in high quality food.

Like I told the woman admiring our carrots, the

contents of Kooperativet’s bags taste good; not only for the

taste buds, but also for the conscience.

Photo: SVEIN GUNNAR SKJØDE

86

Photo x 4: FINN DALE IVERSEN

87

88

89

90

91

92

Thanks to globalization, we can today enjoy greater

interaction between people and countries. We can enjoy

the delicious flavors of sushi in Halden and play virtual

soccer games with friends in Quito. This development

has also integrated the global economy making different

nations more dependent on each other. A good example

of this is the production of iPod’s, Apple computers

and other electronic devices that requires certain

amount of minerals that need to be extracted from the

soil. Extraction activities have inevitable a great socio-

environmental impact in countries rich in minerals such

as gold and copper. With the acceleration of large-

scale mining on prime agricultural land, it is crucial to

investigate the implications these activities might have for

local and national food security. In this article I attempt to

analyze this complex topic by focusing on Latin- America,

more specifically Colombia.

Mining activities: A brief overview

Mining exploitation has always existed in Latin-America

since the presence of millenaries cultures. Today, many

communities including indigenous and afro-descendants are

sustained by artisanal mining activities or small-scale mining.

However, the expansion of large-scale mining has

Between mining and food security:The case of Colombia

PALOMA LEON CAMPOS

increased dramatically in the region during the last decade.

Latin-America has become the largest destination for

international mining investments; from 12% in 1990s to

33% by 2000.1

The boom of international investment in the mining

industry can be seen in relation to two major factors; a

growing demand and consumption worldwide and the

decrease of primary natural resources. Economically

speaking, this situation has generated an attractive

investment climate. The Economic Commission for

Latin-America and the Caribbean registered in 2010

an economic growth of 6% in the total GDP of the

region.2 According to Bebbington the extractive booms

are each part of a far larger re-ordering of Latin-America’s

geopolitical economy and economic geography. This might

explain why as the mining sector is expanding, social and

environmental conflicts are increasing.

According to the OCMAL (Observatorio de

conflictos mineros en America Latina) 185 socio-

environment conflicts were registered in the region at the

end of 2012.3

Although conflicts triggered by mining exploitation

are not a new phenomenon, they are now emerging, not

just as a fight for labor rights, but for socio-environmental

93

rights as well. This is due to the characteristics of modern

mining itself, which both depends on a large workforce

and to a larger extent, on land and water, used to extract

minerals. In the report published by Minerals Yearbook

2010 it is stated that recent mining initiatives have

directed their interest towards rural territories where

exploration costs are relatively high. In this way mining

activities also affects local livelihoods by expanding their

activities to agricultural land.

Mining and Food security

Latin-American and especially Colombia are not only

rich in minerals. The region is also characterized by its

abundance of diverse crops, vegetables, fruits and its

great biodiversity. Still, the investments in agricultural

development in the region have decreased considerably the

last years, and are now competing with more profitable

activities such as the agroindustry and extraction of

minerals, oil and carbon. As the General Director of FAO

asserts; “in the last three decades, national investments in

agriculture and development have decreased, and millions

of small farmers have had to fight to adapt too many

changes; climate, market and price.”4 Yet, small-scale

farmers and agriculture have long been a low priority for

policymaking and the governments. Peasant’s permanent

fight for agrarian reform illustrates that access to land and

territory has been and still is a significant problem.

In the wake of the 1990s, the major tendency in

Latin-America was drawn upon liberal economic measures

promoting “structural adjustment programs” in order to

achieve economic growth. Deregulation, privatization

and trade liberalization became the guiding economic

principles for policy makers. According to Daniel Shepard,

liberalization encouraged the withdrawal of the state from

agricultural production leading to a decline in agricultural

expenditure.5 This situation has converted many countries

from being food self-sufficient to become food importers,

and in that way undermining local production.

This situation ultimately puts at risk the possibility

to enhance a national agricultural development based

on the food security of the population. This spurred

Antonio Hill, the representative for Latin American

Oxfam’s CRECE Campaign, a campaign directed to boost

small-scale agriculture, to insist that in order to offset this

tendency, the governments of the region should “not yield

to the private interests of the agro-business sector, which

oftentimes go against the generation and production of

basic food” and to “invest in the sustainable productivity

of small- scale farmers within the framework of food

security policies that will guarantee the provision of food

for everyone.”6

Food security in this regard is understood as

“a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have

physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and

nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food

preferences for an active and healthy life.” However, in

different debates it has being argued that food security

should also include how and where food is produced.

According to Raj Patel (2009) food security “moved from

being simply about producing and distributing food, to a

whole nexus of concerns around nutrition, social control,

and public health.” These debates led to the broadening

of the concept to “food sovereignty” introduced by Via

Campesina in 1996.8

Food sovereignty is understood as: the right of each

nation to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce

its basic foods respecting cultural and productive diversity. We

have the right to produce our own food in our own territory.

Food sovereignty is a precondition to genuine food security”.9

A precondition to food sovereignty and food security

is then access to land, water, seeds and control of one’s

food system, but this is not a guaranteed right for all.

According to Raj Patel, it is not only property rights that

need to be changed, but a full spectrum of social, physical

and economic goods.10 In other words, as Raj Patel

suggests, food sovereignty cannot be reduced to access to

land simply, but it involves challenging deep inequalities

of power. Talking about food security and sovereignty

involves then to talk about structural inequalities of power.

Therefore, as Hills affirms; the continent should

strengthen small-scale agriculture through major

investment in agricultural technology and policies, not

only to decrease hunger but also to protect the region

against the economic crisis in Europe and other parts of

the world.10

However, this seems far away from being possible

considering the large extension of land that has been

authorized to mining exploitation. According to some

94

studies; in the region, the averages of mining concessions

by countries have increased to cover more than 10%

of each national territory.11 This situation invites us to

rethink the territorial configuration that is being shaped

by activities such as mining, and how these will affect

the food security of its population. This has undoubtedly

contributed to a high concentration of agricultural

land that again can have serious consequences for the

agricultural development of small-scale producers and as

such the food security of peasants in the long-run.

The case of Colombia

Colombia has had some of the most prolonged social and

armed conflict in Latin-America, contributing to high

rates of dispossession and forced displacement. According

to the latest report by the International Office on Human

Rights - Action Colombia, the country has one of the

highest land concentrations in the world, which is under-

used for agricultural purposes.12 Only 4,9 million hectares,

of a total amount of 21,5 million hectares suitable for food

cultivation, are cultivated land.

Colombia’s social and armed conflict has been

triggered by a historically unequal land distribution.

Before the year 2000, the country attracted little mining

investment as a result of the internal conflict. However,

with the government of Alvaro Uribe Velez from 2002 to

2008 and his policy of democratic security, this situation

changed creating a sense of security that has driven foreign

investment. In 2001 a new mining code compiled in

the law 685 was introduced and is considered to be one

of the most flexible mining policies in the continent,

making Colombia one of the most attractive places for

multinationals investment opportunities. This has caused

a general deregulation in social and environmental terms

allowing what PBI states as: “the unilateral expropriation

of land suspected of containing minerals irrespective of

who occupied that land, the policy cleared the way for

intensifying exploration and mining activities.”13

The aim of the present government is to further

stimulate mining exploitation in the coming years. The

President Juan Manuel Santos announced publically that

mining would become one of the economic engines of

Colombia’s development, bringing “prosperity to all, more

jobs, less poverty and more security.” 14

According to the latest available data on mining

concessions in Colombia; between 1990 and 2001,

the Government conveyed 1.880 mining rights while

in 2010 there were registered 8.928 concessions and

20.000 in process applications.15 Half of these concessions

are concentrated in the mountainous areas of four

departments: Cauca, Nariño, Antioquia and Chocó.16

Moreover, the government has enhanced a strategy that

favors agribusiness (African palm oil, flowers, sugar

etc.) which illustrates that the development model that

the Colombian government is promoting sees national

agriculture more as an obstacle rather than a potential area

to invest. According to the United Nations Development

programme (UNDP): “this situation renders Colombia

more dependent on imports (including basic staples as

rice, cereals and corn) to guarantee food security.” 17

Along with the pressure exerted by mining

explorations between 2001 and 2011, the Database of

social conflicts (Base de Datos de Luchas Sociales de CINEP/

PPP) registered 274 social conflicts associated with

the extraction of mineral, oil and carbon.18 There is no

doubt that the historical unresolved conflict of Colombia

concerning access to land is still present, but during the

last years these conflicts has got new actors and been

intensified. Mega-projects have in many cases involved

the expropriation of farmers, indigenous people and afro-

descendants forcing them to leave and abandon their land

and contribute to the concentration of land ownership.19

As Mabel Gonzales Bustelo20 asserts, “the semi-feudal

land-ownership and power model has been replaced by

a neoliberal model that confronts indigenous farming

economies with major national farming and stockbreeding

interests, and with world economies, as well as finance

capital, mega-projects, and transnational investments.” 21

Some final remarks

Today mining represents one of the main sources of

income in Latin-America that has generated further

economic growth. This can encourage further industrial

development and economic benefits. However, these

industries are today penetrating rural land that has great

agricultural potential generating socio-environmental

conflicts. Although the region today represents a major

food exporter and therefore plays an important role in

Between Mining and Food Security: The Case of Colombia

95

maintaining global food supplies, there are many reasons

to be worried about the accelerating extraction of mining

now and in future years and its pressure on cultivable land.

In order to achieve integral food security it is crucial

not only to have access to food, but also to control

territories and water supply. This is why it is important

to promote sustainable agricultural policies in which

small farmers can have access to markets, infrastructure

and economic support. Otherwise, I am afraid that

we might end up in and absurd paradox where we are

obligated to choose between iPods or food on our table.

NOTES

1 Bebbington. A , et.al (2008): Contention and Ambiguity: Mining

and the Possibilities of Development. In Development and Change.

Institute of Social Studies. Published by Blackwell Publishing, USA.

2 Minerals Yearbook (2010): The mineral Industries of Latin-

America and Canada. US. Geological Survey (USGS). URL: http://

minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/country/2010/myb3-sum-2010-

latin-canada.pdf

3 Observatorio de Conflictos Mineros de America Latina

(OCMAL): Sistema de informacion para la gestion comunitaria de

Conflictos Socio- Ambientales mineros en Latinoamerica. Localized

on 30 of March 2013, URL http://basedatos.conflictosmineros.net/

ocmal_db/

4 Vivas, Esther (2011): La Via Campesina: Food sovereignty and

Global feminist struggle: In Food movements Unite! Strategies to

transform Our food System (Food first, 2011)

5 “Overall, in Latin America and the Caribbean, real expenditure

on agriculture declined sharply between 1980 and 1990 from 30.5

billion dollars to 11.5 billion. It has recovered somewhat since then

but remains below the 1980 level” (Shepard 2008).

6 Shepard, Daniel (2008): The food crisis and Latin America:

Framing a new policy approach. Policy Brief, The Oakland Institute.

Localized on 4 of April 2013, URL: http://www.essex.ac.uk/

armedcon/themes/food_security/Latin_America-Food_Prices_Brief.

pdf

7 FAO. 2002. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001.

Rome. Localized on 2 of April 2013, URL: http://www.fao.org/

docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e06.htm

8 Food sovereignty emerged as a policy framework and discourse

elaborated by Via Campesina, an international farming and peasant

movement, and introduced at the World Food Summit in 1996.

9 Via Campesina (1996): The Right to produce and access to land:

Food sovereignty; A Future without Hunger. November 11-17, 1996

in Rome, Italy. Localized on 7 of April 2013, URL: http://www.

voiceoftheturtle.org/library/1996%20Declaration%20of%20Food%20

Sovereignty.pf

10 Raj, Patel (2009): Food Sovereignty. In the Journal of Peasant

Studies, 36. Localized on 12 of April 2013, URL http://dx.doi.

org/10.1080/03066150903143079

11 Villaroel, C.Ricardo (2006): Environmental Conflicts and the

Plundering of Resources in Latin America . In: Observatorio de

Multinacionales de America Latina. Localized on 7 of April 2013

http://www.palgrave-

journals.com/development/journal/v49/n3/full/1100270a.html

12 Oidhac (2013): Land in Colombia, between usurpation and trade;

current situation of a central issue within the conflict. The international

Office on Human Rights- Action Colombia. Bruxelles. Localized on

10 of April 2013

www.oidhaco.org

13 PBI- Colombia (2011): Mining in Colombia at what cost?

Newsletter nr.17. Editorial CODIVA

14 Ibid

15 Gonzales Posso, Camilo. La renta minera y el Plan de Desarrollo

2010- 2014. Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Paz

(INDEPAZ)

16 Ibid

17 UNDP (2011): Report on Colombia: It’s rural economy, stupid.

Localized on 2 of April 2013 https://nacla.org/blog/2011/9/26/

latest-undp-report-colombia-its-rural-economy-stupid

18 CINEP (2012): Informe Especial: Minería, Conflictos Sociales y

Violación de Derechos Humanos en Colombia. CINEP/ Programa

por la Paz. Centro de Ivestigacion y Educacion Popular, Bogotá-

Octubre 2012

19 PBI- Colombia (2011): Mining in Colombia at what cost?

Newsletter nr.17. Editorial CODIVA

20 Mabél González Bustelo is a journalist and researcher for the

Peace Research Center (Centro de Investigacion para la paz, CIP-

FUHEM), in Madrid.

21 Ibid

Paloma Leon Campos

96

Illustration: NINA BELLIKA

97

Beef of Burden?

SIRI KARLSEN BELLIKA

As much as 181 per cent of global greenhouse

gas emissions originate from the production of

livestock. This is a fact that to a large extent

is neglected by the Norwegian consumer. Meat

consumption is still increasing and no other

actors seem to be interested in raising the issue.

This is problematic.

Norway has always been unsuitable for large-scale

agricultural production; the climate is rough, the soil

is poor and the terrain is difficult. As the arable land

was scarce, Norwegian farmers traditionally made use

of rough grazing in outfields and harvesting fodder. As a

result, contemporary Norwegian agricultural production

is focused mainly on livestock farming.2 A high degree

of self-sufficiency in food production has always been

an important goal in Norwegian agricultural politics.

However, Norwegian beef production is currently

declining due to a decrease in the demand for dairy

products and increased productivity per cattle. Today close

to one out of five steaks are imported. The proportion of

foreign meat on the market is predicted to increase further,

together with the level of consumption.

The debate on what is considered sustainable

beef consumption has many different aspects and

consideration. Some may claim that the only sustainable

choice would be to not eat beef. Yet, others will argue that

the degree of sustainability depends on the way the beef

is produced. In this case, I argue that the amount being

consumed is the most pressing problem.

The number of cattle has a large impact of the

greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere, mostly

through their emission of methane, but also due to the

amount of energy used to produce beef. Beef production

has a 40:1 ratio for energy input to protein output and

demands about 200 000 litres of water per kilo beef.3 In a

world were freshwater is becoming a scarce resource, this

illustrates how pressing the problem is.

This article is based on the findings from my research

conducted for my master thesis. I focused on how meat

consumption and sustainability is seen among Norwegian

consumers. Through collaboration with the Norwegian

Consumer Research Institute (SIFO) I got access to data

material revealing Norwegians attitude towards climate

change and their ability to actively contribute to the

solution. Here, meat consumption was also touched upon.

I will elaborate on some of the quantitative findings to

show some of the general opinions regarding climate

98

change, consumption and meat. I also interviewed people

about their thoughts on meat and sustainability.

Lack of political incentives

The debate about meat consumption in Norway has

been close to non-existing. To understand why this is, we

need to look at the political and economic role of meat

production in Norway`s agricultural politics.

Cattle farming secure food production throughout

the country, in areas where it otherwise would be hard to

cultivate the land. The economic and political incentives

to support beef production are therefore strong. Politically,

the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party are the two

most significant political actors in the debate, and holds

two different views on the issue. In the Stoltenberg II

government, the Socialist Left Party held the Ministry of

the Environment and the Centre Party held the Ministry

of Agriculture and Food. This made it hard for them to

agree upon a common policy on the area of sustainable

meat consumption.

This has led to a debate where the government’s

representatives and other politicians are vague and make

little references to what political measures can be used to

deal with the sustainability issue of meat consumption,

essentially leaving the problem to the consumers.4 So, the

question is:

Lack of knowledge

First of all, in order for people to act meat consumption

must be recognized as a problem. An important question

here is: «Do Norwegians know that meat consumption

has negative effects on climate change?». The answer to the

question is largely no. The data from the survey I accessed

investigating Norwegians attitudes to climate change and

consumer responsibility confirmed this.

The respondents were asked to range various measures

according to which they believe has the most positive

effect on the environment. The alternatives were ‘reduce

the production and consumption of meat’, ‘reduce

food waste’, ‘increase the production and consumption

of organic food’ and ‘increase the production and

consumption of local food’. A reduction of food waste

and eating more local was seen to be the most efficient

measures. Buying more organic food was seen to be the least

effective measure and only 11 percent saw reduced meat

consumption and production as the most effective measure.

This reveals how most people in Norway do not

consider reduced intake of beef to be an efficient

measure in reducing climate change and environmental

degradation. Not only does the national survey show

this, but it became evident in the interviews as well.

The sustainability issues related to a high intake of beef

was at large seen as a consequence of an industrialized

agricultural sector and as something that was out of the

hands of the consumer.

Alienation

Several of the informants were critical of the

industrialization of the food system and what they

perceived as asymmetrical power relations between the

consumer and the food distribution chains. The food

chain’s pursuit of profits was seen to compromise the

quality of the food and the diversity of products. It was

evident that many of the informants felt as if they had

become alienated from food in different ways. This was

both in regards to the origin of the product and the content

of the highly standardized and processed food products.

Beef production and consumption is seen as one

of the many problematic issues in the food system. The

highly technical and abstract food system left many of

the informants feeling powerless. In general, it was the

mass production and commodification of food that was

regarded as problematic. The majority of the informants

have addressed the issue of beef consumption as an issue of

choice and production, not seeing their aggregate level of

consumption to be problematic.

The level of consumption needs to be addressed. The

environmental issues linked to beef are only addressed as

a problem of production methods, yet addressing how

one can make the production more environmentally

sustainable and still keep the consumption at today’s level

is not clear.

«Are Norwegian consumers willing to voluntarily reduce

their consumption of beef?»

Beef of Burden?

99

Addressing responsibility

A European study shows how Norwegian consumers,

together with Danish consumers are beneath the European

average when it comes to all topics indicating consumer

responsibility. Norwegian consumers also seem to believe

their voices matter very little and express consistently that

they have little responsibility for key food issues such as

safety, nutrition and ethics.5

My findings indicate that beef consumption is a

question of quality, rather than a question of quantity.

Here, organic and locally produced beef is used as a

medium to promote individual and ethical consideration.

In the case of the informants, it was not explicitly stated

that ‘ethical consumption’ implies less consumption. It is

often quite the contrary: as long as one buys sustainably

produced beef, they can buy as much as they want.

While the informants stated they wanted more natural

and specialty beef, this does not mean that they abstain

from factory-farmed beef sold by Gilde when that is

convenient. Local and environmentally friendly beef is of

course ideal, but the option of reducing their consumption

of beef was not considered by most of the informants.

The informants clearly lacked a sense of agency as

consumers and other actors were seen to be the ones who

have to take action and encourage a change. The lack of

political consensus on the issue further complicates this

matter. This problem cannot be left to the Norwegian

consumer to self-regulate.

As the study shows, Norwegian consumers still lack

information about the environmental effects of meat

consumption and in addition to this it is not seen to be

a consumer issue, but rather something the government

needs to regulate.

Where do we go from here?

In the debate about beef and sustainability we need to

emphasize the importance of reducing the total beef

consumption. Information about the environmental

effects of beef consumption need to be communicated

and the government should also address this as an issue of

consumption levels.

In order to contribute to solving the issues related

to climate change and resource depletion, reducing the

overall consumption of beef is significant, irrespective

of the type of beef consumed. Still, this cannot be left

solely to the consumers. Norwegian consumers still lack

knowledge about the topic and largely do not see it as

an issue for the consumer to solve. The government,

producers and consumers all need to play a role in trying

to reduce the overall consumption of beef.

NOTES

1 Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. &

de Haan, C. (2006): “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, in FAO [online]

URL: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf

[cited 15.01.2013]

2 Syse, K. L. (2012):”Nationhood and Landscape Management”,

in Bjørkdahl, Kristian & Nielsen, Kenneth Bo (eds.):

Development and Environment: Practices, Theories, Policies.

Oslo: Akademika Publishing

3 Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. (2003): “Sustainability of a

meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment”, in The

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [online] 78(3): 660S-663S,

URL: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf+html

[accessed 12.03.2013]

4 Austgulen, M. H. (2013): Sustainable Consumption of

Meat - an Analysis of the Norwegian Public Debate. Manuscript

submitted for publishing.

5 Kjærnes, U., Harvey, M. & Warde, A. (2007): Trust in Food.

A Comparative and Institutional Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Information about the environmental effects of beef consumption need to be communicated and the government

should also address this as an issue of consumption levels.

Siri Karlsen Bellika

100

In the US alone, the popularity and consumption of sushi

has exploded in the last 20 years,1 as this eastern delicacy

went from exotic snack to preferred staple. It is here that

we must analyze how market forces might be impacting

the health of the oceans and what kind of measures can be

taken to mitigate the impact this industry is having on the

environment. It is also imperative to ensure the sustainable

development of operations such as aquaculture.

Mariculture and aquaculture are “fish farming”

practices, practiced in both salt water and freshwater

environments. There are predictions from organizations

like The Ocean Foundation, the Institute of Food

Technologists and the International Food Policy Research

Institute, calling these practices the future of fish and

seafood sourcing, given that finding fishing grounds is

becoming an ever growing challenge. Fishing fleets are

forced to venture further into remote areas as catches get

smaller. The percentage of seafood supply sourced from

aquaculture for example, has grown from 25% to 50% in

the last couple of years.2 According to Ken Stier at Time

Magazine “close to 40% of the seafood we eat nowadays

comes from aquaculture and the $78 billion industry has

grown 9% a year since 1975.”3

Although many scholars and industry insiders

alike have praised aquaculture and mariculture as the

best solution to tackle the wild fish stock “crisis,” it is

important to take a look at the environmental impacts

that these practices are having and how they can cause

serious issues such as the disruption of trophic systems, the

degradation of endemic species’ natural habitats and the

depletion of the natural seed stock.

In their report on threats to Oceans and Coasts4 the

World Wide Fund for Nature lists some of the issues

found within aquaculture and wild-caught fish ranching,

such as competition for space, pollution, exotic escapees,

parasites and disease, fish feed and predator conflicts.

When considering the issue of space, suitable conditions

on land to set up fish farms can only be found in limited

locations. These locales would need optimal water quality

and frequent water exchange. Since the habitat of wild fish

population as well as other marine life is found in these

kinds of locales, these species face habitat loss once the

infrastructure for aquaculture operations is put in place.

For example, fish farms in Europe have been placed in the

migratory routes of wild salmon, and shrimp farms in Asia

and Latin-America have destroyed mangrove forests.

In terms of pollution, the impact stems from

discharges of wastewater coming from open net cage

The trouble with Sushi: the environmental cost of fish

farming practices

CHRISTINA CAMPO

101

and land-based fish farms. This wastewater can cause

eutrophication due to the increase in algal bloom looking

to feed on fish feces and leftover fish feed. Eutrophication

translates to reduced oxygen in the water, which can

generate toxic chemicals in the water, killing marine

life. The use of antibiotics and anti-fouling agents in

the practices can also cause significant impact to the

environment.

Due to the alarming number of problems and

environmental impacts these operations are causing, there

is a pressing need to take measures to achieve sustainability

in the management of aquaculture operations. Several

solutions have been suggested: a call for stricter domestic

policies, increased efforts in waste water management and

the development of a certification scheme, to name a few.

Stricter domestic policies could help regulate measures

for discharging waste water and reduce pollution. At the

same time, using a carrot and stick method, whereby

environmentally friendly operation is encouraged, could

yield very positive results. The challenge with achieving

local government support often has to do with the issue

of capacity; some of the biggest aquaculture centers are

located in developing countries in South East Asia or Latin

America, where achieving compliance and developing

stringent enforcement measures is a challenging feat due

to the limited resources these countries can allocate for

this purpose.

Fish farms, unlike the management of fisheries

resources, are industrial enterprises. Therefore, the notion

of implementing legislation to regulate the practice

might pose a significant challenge for fish farms. When

talking about waste water management, a measure that

could significantly reduce the impact of aquaculture

operations, the dilemma of protecting the environment

vs. economic development comes to mind. In his research,

Stern found that in the case of South America, many

farmers still do not perceive the private financial benefits

of water amendments implemented on a commercial

scale. Financial analyses to date have not demonstrated

an overwhelming economic gain through the adoption of

waste water treatment measures for operators.5 Farmers’

aversion to adopting new technologies also hampers their

will to embrace environmentally friendly techniques.

Another way to tackle the issue would be through the

establishment of a certification that could influence

consumer behavior.  Consumers might be drawn to

a product proven to be environmentally friendly and

produced according to sustainability standards.

Perhaps what we need in order to deal with the issues

of aquaculture is a similar approach to other industrial

endeavors, a uniform branding campaign similar to

what is being done with green labeling in Europe. This

could make consumers more aware of their consumption

patterns and the environmental impacts related to their

food choices.

Though the development of a certification through

initiatives of the WWF and the Marine Stewardship

Council have begun, the latter has drawn heavy criticism

for both lax policies towards fisheries and approval of

sustainable operators who only pass inspection due to less

than stringent standards.

Fish farming practices, such as aquaculture and

mariculture, are regarded as the future of seafood

sourcing, yet there are many issues regarding the harmful

environmental impacts these industries are having.

Increasing consumer awareness of these issues could help

raise awareness that in turn could help drive solutions on

a governmental and market level. If we follow the saying

that, “we are what we eat,” how can we become more

environmentally in tune with the health of our oceans

through our choices of fish and seafood sourcing?

NOTES

1 Yamaguchi, Adam; Slobig, Zach. Can bluefin tuna farms work?

Los Angeles Times. July 21 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/

jul/21/food/la-fo-bluefin-20110721

2 Casson,Trenor. The Question of certification. Sustainable Sushi.

net. December 2009. http://www.sustainablesushi.net/2009/12/22/

the-question-of-certification

3 Stier, Ken. Fish Farming Growing Dangers. Time Magazine.

September 2007 http://content.time.com/time/health/

article/0,8599,1663604,00.html

4 Marine Problems: Aquaculture. World Wildlife Fund Report. http://

wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/aquaculture/

5 Samuel Stern presented at the 1995 Special Session on Shrimp

Farming of the Meeting of the World Aquaculture Society a country

review of shrimp farming in Ecuador, including aspects of the history

and development of the ship farming industry in the country.

102

Det blir det stadig tydeligere at det industrielle

landbruket er basert på bruk av ikke-fornybare

ressurser, nyttiggjør seg av sprøytemidler vi

ikke kjenner den samlede effekten av, reduserer

biodiversiteten, og skaper miljøproblemer.

Permakultur representerer et nedenfra-opp

alternativ for matproduksjon og matglede i

lavutslippssamfunnet vi er i ferd med å skape.

Permakultur er en helhetlig planleggingsmetode som

samarbeider med naturen for å oppnå bærekraft og lar deg

gi og skape mer enn du tar. Metoden både benytter og

bygger økosystemer, bevarer permanente livssykluser, og

fungerer i alle klimasoner. Menneskers omgivelser designes

ved å ta i betraktning helhet, langsiktige konsekvenser og

permanent ressursbruk. Betegnelsen permakultur leses

gjerne som en forkortelse for «permanent agriculture»,

altså permanent jordbruk på norsk. Gå ikke i den

vanlige fella å tro at permakultur bare er for bønder!

Permakultur er dynamisk, alltid i utvikling og rommer

i bredere forstand tanken om at hele samfunnskulturen

må være bærekraftig. Mye av den seneste utviklingen

har også skjedd på storbyers skyskrapertak, i bakgårder

Permakultur i din miljøhverdag1

THALE LINDSTAD & JØRGEN RAFN

og vinduskarmer. Bedrifter med sans for god helse hos

sine ansatte vender og vrir sine ressurser slik at det

investeres i langsiktig helhet snarere enn kortsiktig utbytte.

Asfaltflekker grønnes, tidligere prydbed fylles med spiselige

vekster, og frukthager popper opp i bykjernene.

Betegnelsen permakultur ble innført av Bill Mollison

og David Holmgren på 1970-tallet, men har røtter langt

tilbake i tiden. Mange av teknikkene er velkjente, men

tilføres noe nytt ved å bli satt mer i system. Ofte ansees

permakultur som en av flere postmoderne reaksjoner på

det moderne, industrialiserte landbruket. Som en del

av denne større bevegelsen finner vi også blant annet

Masanobu Fukuoka’s Natural Farming og Rudolf Steiners

biologisk-dynamiske jordbruk, som har visse paralleller

til permakultur ved at de erkjenner flere av de ikke-

bærekraftige aspektene ved det moderne landbruket og

at de setter økologien mer sentralt. Mye av det Mollison

og Holmgren satte i system var influert av blant andre

systemteoretiker og økolog Howard T. Odum og Limits to

Growth-forfatter Donella Meadows. Permakultur løftes i

dag frem av en stadig mer kunnskapsrik bevegelse som har

rukket å bli mainstream i Australia og vinner mer og mer

oppmerksomhet i USA, Canada og mange europeiske land.

103

Står på flere ben

Permakultur handler bl.a. om å dyrke mat i polykultur.

Det innebærer å dyrke flere forskjellige planter sammen,

i stedet for å dyrke i monokultur, som vil si å dyrke én

type planter over et større område. Polykultur gir større

motstandsdyktighet mot insektsangrep fordi angriperne

ikke har like store, ensartete områder å boltre seg på, og

fordi polykultur sørger for tilstedeværelse av flere insekter

som kan spise de uønskete insektene. Polykultur gjør det

mulig å utnytte åkerplassen smartere og å dyrke planter

som har gunstig påvirkning på hverandre. For eksempel

kan samplanting av basilikum og tomater gi tomatene

inntil 30 % mer vekst. Når ulike elementer settes sammen

i synergiske konstellasjoner, skapes et syklisk system

som maksimerer utbyttet og lager sterkere samarbeid.

Polykultur handler om å ha flere ben å stå på og gir langt

mer resistente avlinger.

Utvidet perspektiv

Permakultur dreier seg i stor grad om å være oppmerksom

på konsekvensene av det du foretar deg og hva som skjer

rundt deg i forlengelsen av det du gjør. Det gir deg gode

vaner hvor du forholder deg mer helhetlig til hva du gjør

med ressursene dine, og hva ressursene dine gjør for deg.

Med innblikk i sammenhengen mellom valg vi gjør i

hverdagen og global ressursforvaltning, bidrar kunnskapen

om permakultur til at positive muligheter åpenbarer

seg. Dette gir deg større bevissthet om den helheten ditt

liv er en del av. Bredere perspektiver og økt bevissthet

kan påvirke både de store politiske beslutningene og de

mindre, men like betydningsfulle hverdagsvalgene. De

henger nemlig i hop.

Heldigvis skorter det ikke på oppfordringer til

hvordan vi kan justere hverdagen vår til å bli litt mer

i takt med naturen. Idealismen er i vekst, og vi hører

stadig oftere om gode miljøvalg vi kan ta. Vi hører om

bievennlige blomster til hagen, om miljøsertifiseringer,

hjemmelaget vindusvask og hårvask, at bestemors

nøysomhet atter er trendy, og om hvordan vi best vasker

plasten før vi sender den tilbake i produksjonssystemet.

Mange vegrer seg nok ennå for å la alvoret om

naturødeleggelser og klimatruslene synke inn, men vi

mangler heller ikke informasjon om farene eller mulige

tiltak.

Bærekraftsbegrepets målsetning om å etterlate

jorden i like god eller bedre stand som vi selv har fått

nyte godt av, kan fremstå utopisk hvis vi ikke samtidig

tenker oss store endringer i livsstil og produksjonsomfang.

Miljøutfordringene vi står overfor i dag medfører

på mange måter at naturens verdi blir viktigere enn

økonomiens – også fra et økonomisk perspektiv. Truende

jorderosjon, avskoging, farlig forurensing, negative

virkninger av sprøytemidler og en mengde andre

miljøproblemer kan spores tilbake til industri og teknologi

som drives med kortsiktige metoder. Derfor har det

betydning at vi lærer oss å tenke annerledes når vi handler

for fremtiden.

Du kan starte enkelt

Kanskje du kan dyrke noe spiselig eller insektsvennlig på

balkongen eller i hagen? Kanskje finnes det en parsell-

eller kolonihage i nærheten? Etter all sannsynlighet finnes

det andre i nabolaget som vil være med å dyrke, men

som ikke vil gjøre det alene. Kanskje ønsker du et kort

innføringskurs for å komme i gang? Mat som dyrkes lokalt

kan produseres helt uten sprøytemidler og kunstgjødsel.

Den bidrar ikke til utslippene forbundet med

storproduksjon, lang transport og prosessering og behøver

ikke masse emballasje til pakking. Samtidig kan det være

både inspirerende og samlende for individer, familier eller

nabolag å dyrke noe selv.

Kanskje kan du kompostere mat- og hageavfall?

Dersom du ikke har hage kan du ha markkompost inne.

Markkompost er enkelt, og betyr rett og slett at en spesiell

type mark bryter ned matavfallet ditt sammen med litt

avispapir, og dermed produserer en av de mest næringsrike

Hvordan du velger å forholde deg til din forbrukermakt, din velgermakt og din tilgang på jordens ressurser har større innflytelse enn det kan være

behagelig å tenke på.

104

kompostene vi vet om – perfekt for planter i potter, på

balkong eller i hagen. Fordi den er luktfri når det gjøres

riktig, kan den være akkurat hvor du vil – nylig hørte vi til

og med om en dame som har den innerst i klesskapet sitt!

Enkle gjør-det-selv-oppskrifter finnes på internett (google

«wormery» eller «vermicompost»). Slik kan vi nyttiggjøre

oss av næring som ellers ville blitt sendt ut av husstanden.

Kanskje kan du resirkulere plast, metall, glass og papir

eller undersøke muligheter for å redusere strømforbruket

og samtidig spare penger? Ikke alle har tid, ønske, eller

ressurser til å gjøre noe av dette hjemme. Da er det godt å

huske at vi gjennom vår forbrukermakt bidrar konkret til

hvordan våre naturressurser forvaltes. Du kan velge å kjøpe

økologisk og/eller lokal mat, besøke bondens marked, kjøpe

mat direkte fra et nærliggende økologisk andelslandbruk

eller økologisk gårdsbruk. Du kan hente ferske og lokale

øko-grønnsaker fra et kooperativ, og kanskje har du selv

mangfoldige ideer til hvordan du kan bidra.

Videre skritt

Når sollys treffer planter, henter plantene karbondioksid

fra luften og danner organisk materiale. Noe av dette lagres

i jorden hvor det nærer liv og danner humusforbindelser.

At planter kan binde karbon ned i jorden er et enkelt

faktum som kan hjelpe oss til å utnytte plass og planter

bedre. Byene våre byr på mange små smutthull og åpne

flater, som kan fylles med store og små karbonfangere

og samtidig gi helse og trivsel. Når du også vet at store

rotsystemer binder mer karbon enn de små, får du kanskje

også lyst til å utforske flerårige planter, som står i jorden

i flere sesonger og har røtter som får lov til å vokse seg

store og effektive. Hvordan underjordisk fungi og røtter

samarbeider (i.e. mykorrhiza) om å sende hverandre

næring er også fascinerende kunnskap for fremtiden.

Det finnes i dag kunnskap og teknikker som gjør

ørkenlandskap frodig, fruktbart og matproduserende.

Afrikanske landområder så inntørket av sol at de

ser ut som papp er blitt vekket til live ved hjelp av

permakulturteknikker. Kinesiske utmagrede, overbelastede

åkre er igjen gjort produktive og selvoppholdende.

Arabiske stater har tatt i bruk permakultur for å helbrede

tørke, hindre vannmangel og maksimere avlinger. Denne

formen for revitalisering av skrantende økosystemer er

en del av den fremvoksende fagdisiplinen Regenerative

Agriculture (RegenAG).

Flere FN-rapporter viser at bønder i utviklingsland

som tar i bruk økologiske prinsipper får forhøyede

avlinger, større inntekter, samt bedre helse og mindre

avhengighet til kommersielle aktører innen såfrø og

kunstgjødsel. Det fremheves fra flere hold at permakultur

kan bidra til å bekjempe naturressursnød og uforutsette

kriser som følge av klimaendringer. Tørke, flom,

forurensning, brann og sult kan håndteres bedre. Vi må

være flere som fortsetter å lære oss mer om hvordan –

siden kan vi dele det med flere. Slik får kanskje det du

gjør i din polykulturelle permapotte på din balkong i

velstandslandet også betydning for den som sitter alene

med et mer utarmet livsgrunnlag, sykdom og redsel for

fremtiden. Ikke nødvendigvis fordi det gjør deg til bonde,

men fordi det kan gi deg litt større tanker. Permakultur

har potensiale til å gi mange flere mennesker mulighet til å

leve liv som handler om mer enn å overleve – det fortjener

vi alle sammen.

Hva hvis drømmen om å leve et liv der du gradvis beriker naturen mer enn du belaster den ikke er så langt unna?

Permakultur i din Miljøhverdag

105

Det er faktisk ganske morsomt å oppdage

sammenhengene i vår værens mangfold og å leke med

å lage gode, samarbeidende kretsløp. Naturen gjør det,

og det kan du også. Et PDC-kurs (Permaculture Design

Certificate course) gir sertifisering som er gyldig over

hele verden. Undervisningen gir innføring i blant annet

økosystemforståelse, jordliv, vann- og næringssykluser,

alternativ økonomi, dyrking, og urban økologi. Å ta et

grunnkurs i permakultur (PDC) er en god begynnelse eller

tilleggskompetanse til det du har med deg fra før. Du og

dine valg er viktige.

www.permaculture.no Bærum permakulturforening

www.permakultur.no Norsk permakulturforening

NOTES

1 En lengre versjon av denne teksten har stått på trykk i

Pengevirke 3/14

Thale Lindstad & Jørgen Rafn

106

The protection gap in the palm oil sector in Indonesia

1

Palm oil is the world’s most traded vegetable oil. Indonesia

is the country that produces most palm oil in the world.

The palm oil industry’s impact on human rights and

the environment has received much attention worldwide.

I will take it as a starting point that there are serious

human rights concerns. What I seek to address is how

legal norms affect realities on the ground in the palm

oil sector in Indonesia; and how this impacts on human

rights protection. Then I will ask what implications these

experiences have for an international regime that aims to

regulate the impacts of businesses on human rights.

Most of the human rights challenges in the palm oil

sector are directly related to land. Today there are more

than 4,200 land conflicts according to the national land

agency, and many of these involve palm oil companies and

local communities.

Historically, Indonesia’s Forestry Law has defined

all forest land as state land (much like the colonial laws),

which covered 70% of Indonesia’s total land area. This has

been the basis for Indonesian forest management until

today. Under Suharto’s New Order regime, the state was

very centralised, and forest management was top-down. In

order to implement large-scale projects, investors needed

good relations with the President.

Under the following democratic reform period,

management of natural resources was de-centralised, and

local authorities gained a much larger say in decision-

making. This has not yet resulted in the improvement in

‘democratic representation’ and accountability that was

hoped for – local authorities tend to be closely linked

with commercial interests, interests they often depended

on in order to be elected in the first place. Corruption

at district level has increased, and so has the number of

issued operating permits for palm oil companies. The palm

oil expansion mostly takes place in Indonesia’s so-called

’outer islands’, that are comparatively less populated and

less developed than Java, and where the state generally has

less capacity to hold local actors to account.

My first point is that in spite of weak law

enforcement and in spite of a gap between laws and

policies on the one hand, and realities on the ground on

the other, laws and policies do ‘set the stage’ for what

happens at the local level.

The stipulation that all forest land belongs to the

state did not fully remove the various normative systems

that land management previously was based on, but it put

local communities in a very weak position whenever there

was a conflict of interest between the communities and

AKSEL TØMTE

107

Photo: MAGNUS WITTERSØ

108

commercial interests backed by the state.

Similarly, the fact that a plantation permit is

issued for a given area does not necessarily result in any

plantation being established, but it puts those living

within the concession area in a weak bargaining position;

especially when (as is often the case) these communities

don’t possess any formal acknowledgement of ownership

over the lands they traditionally have been living off. The

land takeover that happens ‘on paper’ has been fittingly

described as ‘virtual land-grabbing’.

A company possessing operating permits would still

be legally obliged to respect people’s land use rights within

its concession area. Beside the above-mentioned problem

that many communities lack formal acknowledgement

over their lands, the people tasked with obtaining land

for companies are often able to use a variety of means to

make local population give up its lands. To take just one

example, in our work in Central Kalimantan we have met

communities who claimed that companies had put fire

to their fruit gardens first, and then started negotiations

about buying their land afterwards. Obviously, the option

of not selling their land was much less attractive after their

fruits trees were gone.

Faced with such realities, communities would often

settle for what they could get, such as compensation

(which technically speaking often would be considered

‘charity’, if their ownership is not formally recognized),

or promises of jobs at the plantations or participation in

smallholder schemes. This pragmatic approach leaves out

any question of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC).

However, companies seeking to get palm oil

plantation permits do not necessarily have any clear

intention of establishing a plantation.2 Motivations

for seeking permits could be 1 - that the permit would

enable them to clear-cut a forest and extract the timber

in it; 2 – that the permit could give access to bank loans

or subsidy schemes; or 3 – possibilities of ‘selling out’,

waiting for a possibility to give up the licence to a different

company in the palm oil or extractive industry sector.

Perhaps companies could even hope to ‘sell out’ to an

environmental/climate project.

Even though law implementation is weak, law still

plays a large role in facilitating plantation establishment

and land acquisition. The elites are often able to benefit

from the law being implemented in their favour, yet at the

same time they are able to operate outside the law, without

suffering any sanctions. Law enforcement is agenda-

driven. Powerful actors, such as business enterprises with

close links to state and local governments, media and the

police, have much influence on how laws are enforced. It

is well documented that both the police and the judiciary

are perceived to be among the country’s most corrupt

institutions, and the police is often accused of one-sidedly

protecting the interests of palm oil companies. Almost any

law that has an operational aspect can potentially be used

for extracting bribes.

One underlying reason for partial law enforcement

is the imbalance in power between companies and

communities with regards to financial resources, legal

understanding, access to information, access to decision-

makers and law enforcers. Companies are generally in a

much more powerful position. The parts of the country

with the largest projected growth in palm oil plantation

development tend also to be places where the civil society

is particularly weak and education levels are low. Therefore;

the social foundations for accountability are weak.

Another – related - problem behind the partial law

enforcement is the law-and policy framework itself. There

are legal grey areas, unclear lines of responsibility, and the

problems of state institutions with overlapping mandates.

Consequently, having the law on your side can be

perceived more as a sign of privilege than any indication of ethical behaviour (or even legal/procedural compliance). The ‘underprivileged’ in this

context, will be those with the least protection.

In the palm oil sector, those that lack formal land

ownership would have weak protection of their rights.

The Protection Gap in the Palm Oil Sector in Indonesia

109

Gaining acknowledgement of ownership can be seen as

an investment, and may require considerable financial

resources, even when no bribing is involved.3 (Plantation

workers who lack work contracts are also in a particularly

vulnerable position).

There are also examples from other sectors:

• Hundreds of thousand illegal artisan miners operate

every day throughout the country. The fact that their

operations are ‘illegal’ does not necessarily hinder

them from working but it puts them in an extremely

vulnerable legal position.

• Or logging; sustainable small-scale logging for

personal consumption in traditionally managed

forest may be technically illegal whereas large-scale

commercial logging which has much more significant

social and environmental impact may be legal.

The processes supposedly intended to include local

communities in decision-making, or ensure that their land

right is protected often does not work very well. A main

challenge is to ensure genuine representation, and avoid

‘elite capture’.

In Central Kalimantan, we have encountered many

examples of how village heads or traditional leaders have

been bribed to make statements about the traditional

customary land, getting rich by giving up common village

land. As a result, it is quite common that there are conflicts

within communities affected by the palm oil industry. Case

studies elsewhere have found similar patterns.4

‘Elite capture’ is also perceived to threaten the

indigenous movement in Central Kalimantan in a different

way. The ‘indigenous institution’5 is acknowledged and

given certain authorities through a province law, but

this law also gives provincial authorities a great deal of

influence over the appointment of indigenous leaders.

The governor is himself the head of the national Dayak

council.6 At the same time, ‘indigenous rights’ are

probably the human rights that are most often invoked for

social mobilization purposes in land conflicts. Thus there

is a risk that the ‘counterforces’ will be co- opted, and the

indigenous leaders will end up representing elite interests.

On a larger scale, avoiding ‘elite capture’ and ensuring

genuine democratic representation constitutes

one of the most fundamental challenges for democracy in

Indonesia as a whole.

Ethical industry initiatives have failed to guarantee FPIC The

Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) constitutes

the most prominent ethical industry initiative. RSPO’s

own criteria oblige companies to apply FPIC, but case-

studies find that compliance with these criteria is low even

among RSPO-members.7

One important reason for this is that in most areas,

traditional land ownership is not acknowledged by the

state, and companies tend to base themselves on state law

in questions of land ownership.

Conclusion

There is a normative protection gap (as even companies

that comply with national laws can end up abusing human

rights.) There is also a gap in law enforcement (which to

some extent is caused by the legal framework itself ). The

elite is able to use both these gaps to its advantage.

Due to the imbalance in power between companies

and communities, any attempt to establish a regulatory

scheme that guarantees FPIC will risk being undermined

by the same forces that make law enforcement so partial

and rights protection so weak in the first place, which I

refer to as ‘elite capture’. A main challenge is to ensure that

affected groups are genuinely represented.

It is crucial for human rights protection in

Indonesia that civil society manages to hold governments

accountable for how it manages its natural resources.

Aksel Tømte

110

Photo: MAGNUS WITTERSØ

111

NOTES

1 This text is based on a presentation given at the conference

‘Seminar on Corporations in the Global Food System and

Human Rights’, in Oslo September 2014. The presentation was

based on the experiences of NCHR’s Indonesia-programme in

implementing project activities in Central-Kalimantan (mostly

data-collection and trainings for local civil society actors in

cooperation with the Jakarta-based Institute for Ecosoc Rights). It

also owns much to the works of Luke Arnold and John McCarthy

and the Forest People’s Programme, among others.

2 As pointed out by McCarthy

3 For example, indigenous/customary communities that seek

formal acknowledgement of their lands may need considerable

resources to map their lands, and lobby and train local

parliamentarians in order to (possibly) get a ‘by-law’ passed that

would recognize their traditional lands

4 For example, case studies done by the Forest People’s Programme

lembaga adat, could also be translated as ‘customary institution’

5 Dayaks are the main group of indigenous people in Kalimantan

6 See for example ‘Conflict or Consent? The oil palm sector at a

crossroads’ ed. by M. Colchester and S. Chao

Aksel Tømte

112

Borgar Aamaas is a Research Fellow at Centre for

International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo

(CICERO). His research focuses on how to assess and

compare the climate impact of different emission types

and sources. He holds a master’s degree in Geosciences

with specialization in Meteorology and Oceanography.

Charlotte Andersen is a master’s student at the

Department of Political Science at UiO. Some of her main

fields of interest include food policy and food safety. She

is interested in identifying how different sectors can best

interact to solve complex problems in an interdisciplinary

manner. She has a huge interest in communicating the

importance of food policies and their impact worldwide,

as well as challenging our own perceptions on the matter.

Siri Karlsen Bellika is a former master’s student at

Centre for Development and the Environment at UiO.

She is part of the blog collective ”Grønne Jenter”, a blog

dedicated to the concept of green living. She also writes

for the UiO blog ”Matlære”, as food is her passion.

Kristian Bjørkdahl is a researcher at the Rokkan Centre

for Social Studies in Bergen, where he is currently working

on a project about science communication related to the

A(H1N1) – “Swine Flu” – pandemic in 2009. He has

submitted a PhD thesis about the rhetoric of human-

animal relations, but the committee cannot decide

whether it is gold or granite boulder – as the (Norwegian)

saying goes. Kristian himself can never decide whether

he prefers food over drink, but tends to conclude,

pragmatically, that the two go rather well together. He

blogs at Hvordan leve livet (hvordanlevelivet.tumblr.com)

and is supposed to blog at Matlære (blogg.uio.no/sum/

matlaere).

Natia Chkhetiani is from Kutaisi, Georgia. She is

a master’s student at the Centre for Development

and Environment and studies Culture, Environment

and Sustainability. She holds a bachelor’s degree in

International Relations from Akaki Tsereteli State

University (Georgia).

Christina Campo is a master’s student of Environmental

Law at Ocean University of China. Her current research

focuses on sustainability and shipping in the Arctic region.

Christina has a bachelor’s degree in International Relations

and a master’s degree in Business Administration.

About the Contributors

113

Paloma Leon Campos has a master’s degree from

the Department of International Environment and

Development Studies, Noragric. Her master’s thesis was

a study on the different perspectives on development and

its linkages with indigenous food systems. Paloma holds

a Bachelor in Pedagogy with a major in Sociology from

the University of Oslo and has worked as a teacher and

seminar leader in Nicaragua. She is also a lover of music,

literature, movies and plans to take a course in video

editing in the future.

Piper Donlin is a master’s student at the Centre for

Environment and Development studying indigenous

food systems and food sovereignty in the US. Piper

holds a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Policy and

Sustainability from the University of Minnesota. Piper is

a contributor to the UiO blog, “Matlære.” She is also an

avid lover of food and cooking and spends a great deal

of time in the kitchen experimenting to the delight (and

dismay) of her partner, Carl Frederik.

Dr. Meredith Gartin is a scholar of global health and a

postdoctoral fellow with the Urban Sustainability Research

Coordination Network. Dr. Gartin examines urban food

systems. Prior to conducting her research in Paraguay, it

was implied that food deserts could exist in the Global

South; yet, no prior empirical evidence provided support

for food deserts in the region. Nor was there evidence to

support if the impacts on individuals who reside in food

deserts are the same (or even worse) in the Global South

as compared to various cases from the Global North. Her

empirical research has been published in a special issue

on Global Obesity in 2012 with the American Journal of

Human Biology.

Arve Hansen works at the Centre for Development

and the Environment, University of Oslo, and has spent

a considerable amount of time in Vietnam during the last

5 years. Normally a development geographer studying

consumption and capitalism, he has made a serious

attempt to taste every dish (excluding dog and cat) offered

in the amazing variety of Hanoian street food.

Kjell Havnevik is currently senior researcher at the

Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala, and professor of

development studies at the University of Agder. His

has worked with Norwegian, Swedish and Tanzanian

universities and research institutions for four decades

developing and conducting research and education

relating to rural development, agrarian change, the role

of international financial institutions and development

assistance. He is currently developing cross-continental

and cross-cultural research networks (Latin-America,

Africa and the Nordic countries) addressing the critical

role of agriculture and rural development (production/

food security, environmental- and employment issues) for

an alternative sustainable development model.

Tex Hawkins is a retired conservation biologist from

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hawkins graduated

from the University of Minnesota in Wildlife Biology

and Mass Communication, and conducted post-graduate

fieldwork at Texas A&M. He was the North American

Representative to the Scientific and Technical Review

Panel of the International Treaty on Wetlands, known

as the Ramsar Convention, and reviewed draft reports

and proposals of related U.N. treaties, on biodiversity,

desertification and climate. He currently works at Winona

State University on interdisciplinary sustainability, climate,

and agriculture. Hawkins lives in Winona with his Costa

Rican wife Amalfi.

Cecilie Hirsch is a Phd fellow at the Centre for

Development and the Environment, and a PhD student

at Noragric at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Cecilie has worked with social movements in Latin

America the last 10 years, and has done both fieldwork

and organizational work in Mexico, Guatemala and

Bolivia. She is currently writing her PhD thesis about civil

society’s participation in environmental policy making in

Bolivia, REDD and socio environmental conflicts. Fan

of Latin American cuisine, such as beans, quinoa, maize

tortillas and hot chili-tomato-coriander sauce (aji), or a

real seafood ceviche made by her Ecuadorian partner.

114

Thale Lindstad is currently a Master’s student at the

Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo. She is writing

her thesis on the potential to prosecute environmental

crime. In addition to being a student, she is busy

juggling numerous other activities, such as fundraising,

coaching,teaching yoga, as well as being part of the

Integralt Forum and being a board member of the Bærum

permakulturforening. Thale appreciates organically

grown and quality food. She seeks to learn more about

permaculture by taking part in cooperative farming and

is a certified permaculture designer from the Patrick

Whitefield Associates in England.

Solveig Lyngre is a master’s student in political science

at the University of Oslo and is the coordinator of the

youth organisation Spire’s food committee.

Anna Milford is a researcher at the Norwegian Agricultural

Economics research Institute (NILF), where she is working

with projects related to organic and Fairtrade food

production, diets and climate change, and food waste. She

has a PhD in Economics from the Norwegian School of

Economics and Business Administration (NHH). She always

eats lovely dinner leftovers for lunch the next day, and makes

a big effort to try to make her three daughters finish all the

food on their plates.

Will Nicholson lives in Oslo and works as a food

sustainability consultant. His company IntoLife works

with restaurants, caterers and consumers to develop more

responsible approaches to food, through measurement of

carbon footprints, levels of sustainable consumption, and

reduced food waste. He previously owned restaurants and

cafes in both France and Norway, has worked for a long

time as a professional chef, and is currently completing an

MSc in Green Economy via Bournemouth University. He

can be contacted on will@intolife.no.

Andreas Færøvig Olsen studies computer science

at the University of Oslo and is a board member of

Kooperativet, a cooperative where the members may

purchase organic and biodynamic produce directly

from the farmers. He is interested in sustainable food

production and environmentalism in general.

Marije Oostindjer was born in the Netherlands. She

is a senior researcher at the Department of Chemistry,

Biotechnology and Food Science at the Norwegian

University of Life Sciences.

Jørgen Rafn is currently studying Development

Management at the University of Agder, and wrote his

bachelor thesis on rain forest management (REDD+)

in Indonesia. Jørgen is a part of Integralt Forum and

a board member of Bærum Permakulturforening, and

he has a special interest in regenerative agriculture and

agroecology - both in countries in the north and south.

He is a certified permaculture designer from the Patrick

Whitefield Associates in England.

Eric Sannerud is a graduate of the University of

Minnesota. He is a farmer, thinker, and entrepreneur

in Ham Lake, Minnesota. Among many other things,

Eric is the Director of Sandbox Center for Regenerative

Entrepreneurship and a member of the Minneapolis Hub

of the Global Shapers.

Aksel Tømte works as project coordinator at the

Indonesia Programme of the Norwegian Centre for

Human Rights, University of Oslo. He has held

this position since 2009. Currently, he manages the

programme’s portfolio within the thematic area of

’business and human rights’. This portfolio consists of

human rights trainings for civil society actors, as well

as research on the human rights impact of the palm

oil industry. Before working with NCHR, he lived in

Indonesia for four years, working at the Norwegian

Embassy in Jakarta as well as Peace Brigades International’s

Indonesia project.

Andreas Viestad is a Norwegian home cook and

food writer. He has been the host of New Scandinavian

Cooking for 6 seasons, and co-host of Perfect Day.

Andreas also started the non-profit organization, Geitmyra

Culinary Center for Children in 2011. Andreas’ passion

for food is not about making the “right” kind of food, or

fancy food, rather about nurturing family, friends – and

finding out more about the world we live in.

About the Contributors

115

Despina Gleitsmann (1987) from Stuttgart, Germany

studies Culture, Environment and Sustainability at SUM

and has a master’s degree in Politics and Government of the

European Union from the London School of Economics.

Charlotte Lilleby Kildal (1988) from Asker, Norway

studies Culture, Environment and Sustainability at SUM

and has a bachelor’s degree in Development Studies from

University of Bergen.

Natia Chkhetiani (1988) from Kutaisi, Georgia, studies

Culture, Environment and Sustainability at SUM, and has

a bachelor’s degree in International Relations from Akaki

Tsereteli State University (Georgia).

Piper Donlin (1991) from Minneapolis, Minnesota studies

Culture Environment and Sustainability at SUM, and has

a bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota in

Environmental Policy, Sustainability Studies and Art.

About the Contributors

Editorial Board

Marcela Oliveira (1985) from Cabo Frio, Brazil, studies

Culture, Environment and Sustainability at SUM.

She has a bachelor’s degree in Social Communications

from the Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing,

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and a post-graduation degree in

Environmental Management from the Universidade

Federal do Rio de Janeiro.

Stephen Bell (1990) from Waterloo, Canada studies

International Environmental Studies at NMBU and has

a bachelor’s degree in Geography and Environmental

Management from the University of Waterloo.

Jonathan Frænkel-Eidse (1981) from Kelowna, Canada,

studies Culture, Environment and Sustainability at SUM.

He has a bachelor’s degree in Sociology from Athabasca

University.

116

We accept contributions in Norwegian and English in two categories:

Op-ed style (2,000-5,000 characters)

Academic style (10,000-20,000 characters)

If you have a finished text, an old exam paper that can be edited, or simply a

good idea for an article, send us an e-mail. We promise you fair feedback and

help in the editing process before publication.

We are also looking for illustrations, drawings, photos, for our texts.

Please contact us if you have a finished work, a sketch or an idea.

tvergastein@sum.uio.no

Do you want to contribute to Tvergastein?

117

Tvergastein is grateful for all the help and support of:

118

Tvergastein bears the name of Arne Næss’ cabin retreat in the mountains of

Hallingskarvet. It was there that Næss, an activist and one of the most wide

ranging philosophers of the last century, wrote the majority of his work. These

writings, his unique ecophilosophy, and his life of activism continue to inspire

environmentalists and scholars in Norway and abroad. In making this journal its

namesake, we aim to similarly join academia with advocacy for the environment.

We aspire to the ”enormous open views at Tvergastein” and the perspective

Næss found there.

© 2014 Tvergastein

www.tvergastein.com

ISSN 1893-5605