The Food Systems Summit’s Failure to Address Corporate Power

Clapp, Jennifer; Noyes, Indra; Grant, Zachary

doi:10.1057/s41301-021-00303-2

Cited by 31 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…52,57 The recent UNFSS, for example, was described as 'strategically silent' on the problem of market concentration and corporate power within food systems, mentioning this issue only infrequently, and advanced innovation and technology-based solutions over transformative structural change. 58 At the national-level, the Australian government established the Healthy Food Partnership, an MSP with a highly-circumscribed focus on the reformulation and labelling of packaged foods. 59 At the same time, businesses have increasingly claimed new spaces of governance by establishing private consortia and multi-stakeholder alliances to set private sustainability standards, in many cases in unison with civil society groups and completely outside of government involvement (eg, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil).…”

Section: Levels Of Power: a Shift Upwards And Downwards Away From The Nationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 52 , 57 The recent UNFSS, for example, was described as ‘strategically silent’ on the problem of market concentration and corporate power within food systems, mentioning this issue only infrequently, and advanced innovation and technology-based solutions over transformative structural change. 58 At the national-level, the Australian government established the Healthy Food Partnership, an MSP with a highly-circumscribed focus on the reformulation and labelling of packaged foods. 59…”

Section: Understanding Power Within Food Systems and Challenges To Fo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

Baker

Lacy-Nichols

Williams

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today’s food systems are contributing to multiple intersecting health and ecological crises. Many are now calling for transformative, or even radical, food systems change. Our starting assumption in this Special Issue is the broad claim that the transformative changes being called for in a global food system in crisis cannot – and ultimately will not – be achieved without intense scrutiny of and changes in the underlying political economies that drive today’s food systems. The aim is to draw from diverse disciplinary perspectives to critically evaluate the political economy of food systems, understand key challenges, and inform new thinking and action. We received 19 contributions covering a diversity of country contexts and perspectives, and revealing inter-connected challenges and opportunities for realising the transformation agenda. We find that a number of important changes in food governance and power relations have occurred in recent decades, with a displacement of power in four directions. First, upwards as globalization has given rise to more complex and globally integrated food systems governed increasingly by transnational food corporations (TFCs) and international financial actors. Second, downwards as urbanization and decentralization of authority in many countries gives cities and sub-national actors more prominence in food governance. Third, outwards with a greater role for corporate and civil society actors facilitated by an expansion of food industry power, and increasing preferences for market-orientated and multi-stakeholder forms of governance. Finally, power has also shifted inwards as markets have become increasingly concentrated through corporate strategies to gain market power within and across food supply chain segments. The transformation of food systems will ultimately require greater scrutiny of these challenges. Technical ‘problem-solving’ and overly-circumscribed policy approaches that depoliticise food systems challenges, are insufficient to generate the change we need, within the narrow time-frame we have. While there will be many paths to transformation, rights-based and commoning approaches hold great promise, based on principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination, alongside coalition building and social mobilization, including social movements grounded in food sovereignty and agroecology.

show abstract

Section: Levels Of Power: a Shift Upwards And Downwards Away From The Nationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Understanding Power Within Food Systems and Challenges To Fo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

Baker

Lacy-Nichols

Williams

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Outcomes and resources derived from multistakeholderism forums that do not recognize these imbalances can continue to reinforce old agricultural models that have negatively impacted biodiversity, climate, and community. A recent example is the United Nations Food Systems Summit of 2021 (the Summit) [40][41][42]. Called for by the Secretary General of the United Nations in 2019 [43] and delivered in the middle of a global health pandemic, the Summit generated significant attention from a broad audience.…”

Section: Hyper-multistakeholderism: the Case Of The Governance Struct...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconnecting with Nature through Good Governance: Inclusive Policy across Scales

Wilkes

2022

Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are disconnected from nature, surpassing planetary boundaries at a time when our climate and social crises converge. Even prior to the emergence of COVID-19, the United Nations and its member states were already off track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and fulfil climate commitments made under the Paris Agreement. While agricultural expansion and intensification have supported increases in food production, this model has also fostered an unsustainable industry of overproduction, waste, and the consumption of larger quantities of carbon-intensive and ultra-processed foods. By addressing the tension that exists between our current food system and all that is exploited by it, different scales of governance can serve as spaces of transformation towards more equitable, sustainable outcomes. This review looks at how good governance can reconnect people with nature through inclusive structures across scales. Using four examples that focus on place-based and rights-based approaches—such as inclusive multilateralism, agroecology, and co-governance—the author hopes to highlight the ways that policy processes are already supporting healthy communities and resilient ecosystems.

show abstract

“…These concerns featured in the run-up to three significant global meetings in the last quarter of 2021 (see Table 2). In September 2021, a one-off meeting of the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) was held (89) ; some hoped this might generate a reset but critics from civil society and academia argued this goal was unlikely to be met, as its direction was being set by 'Big Food' interests (90) . It met for a single day, barely time for the politicians' set speeches, let alone serious decision making.…”

Section: Food System Stress Is Now At a Critical Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

UK food policy: implications for nutritionists

Lang

2022

Proc. Nutr. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implications of the ‘changing world’ for nutrition and nutritionists are considered, using the UK within a global context as an illustration. The first section summarises the slow recognition by policy makers of the significance of the changing world of food and nutrition. The second section ‘Food system stress is now at a critical level’ considers the present scale of global food system stress and the failure so far sufficiently to narrow the gap between evidence and policy change. The year 2021 was earmarked when three major UN conferences had the opportunity to chart food changes ahead. The third section ‘Multi-criteria analysis helps frame 21st century nutrition science’ proposes that multi-criteria analysis is an essential methodology for nutrition within this more complex policy world; nutrition studies can no long exclude social and environmental criteria. The penultimate section ‘Nutrition science can reconnect its life science, social and environmental nutrition traditions to contribute to new paradigm formation’ suggests that nutrition science can now recombine three traditions within its own history to address this complexity: social nutrition, environmental nutrition and life sciences. The final section ‘Priorities ahead’ concludes that this multi-criteria approach to nutrition offers new routes for science and policy influence. Five priorities are identified: (1) clarification of the features of a good food system; (2) new sustainable dietary guidelines which integrate different determinants of sustainability; (3) helping consumer engagement with change; (4) developing improved policy frameworks and (5) contributing to professional channels in these processes. In the UK, while the challenge of narrowing the gap between evidence, policy and change remains daunting, the risks of not attempting to improve the transition to an ecologically sound public health nutrition are even greater.

show abstract

The Food Systems Summit’s Failure to Address Corporate Power

Cited by 31 publications

References 21 publications

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

The Political Economy of Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: An Introduction to a Special Issue

Reconnecting with Nature through Good Governance: Inclusive Policy across Scales

UK food policy: implications for nutritionists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About