Call for submissions: The politics of food

September 8, 2008 in Briarpatch Announcements, Uncategorized by Andrew Angus | 1 comment

“It may be the politics of food that has the greatest capacity for self-organization — more than resistance to surveillance, resistance to oppression, and struggles for better wages or health care. Nothing connects everything like food.”
-Stan Goff

From the outbreak of listeriosis in Canada to the eruption of food riots across the Global South, from the eating of mud cakes in Haiti to stave off hunger pangs to the growing of corn in Idaho to fuel our vehicles, there’s perhaps no more politically charged issue today than food – how it’s grown, who controls its processing and distribution, and who gets to eat it.

Briarpatch Magazine invites contributions to our February 2009 issue on the politics of food. We are looking for feature articles, provocative essays, investigative reportage, news briefs, reviews, interviews, profiles, poetry, humour, and artwork that explores issues related to the global food system and collective efforts to resist or escape it, both here in Canada and around the world.

In particular, we are looking to showcase highlights from the global movement for food sovereignty, which the International NGO Planning Committee defines as “the right of peoples, communities and countries to define their own agricultural, labour, fishing, food and land policies which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances.”

Possible topics could include (but are by no means limited to):

  • the work of progressive farmers’ movements such as the Landless Workers’ Movement, Via Campesina, the National Farmers’ Union, or others;
  • emerging grassroots alternatives such as agroecological farming, guerrilla gardening, the 100-mile diet, Community Shared Agriculture, urban farms and gardens, farmers’ markets, and community kitchens;
  • the state of food safety in Canada in the wake of the listeriosis outbreak;
  • the fight to preserve the Canadian Wheat Board;
  • the global food emergency – causes, prospects, responses;
  • the intersection of gender and food production;
  • the ethanol boondoggle.

Queries are due by September 30, 2008. If your query is accepted; first drafts are due by October 31, 2008. Your query should outline what ground your contribution will cover, give an estimated word count, and indicate your relevant experience or background in writing about the issue. Please provide a brief writing sample.

Please review our submission guidelines before submitting. Send your queries/submissions to editor AT briarpatchmagazine D0T com.

We reserve the right to edit your work (with your active involvement), and cannot guarantee publication.

This issue is to be produced in cooperation with the Saskatchewan Council for International Cooperation.

 • 

  1. Marcella Pedersen’s avatar

    Marcella Pedersen on September 13, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    On a recent trip to Belgium, I was on a quest to see how food labelling is dealt with over there in comparison to Canada. Having recently succeeded in getting a resolution passed on Greater Integrity and Transparency in Food Labelling at the Catholic Women’s League National convention, I am trying to make people more aware of food labels. As Honey producers, we have noticed Canada imports honey from Argentina and China. In Belgium at a Bakery I noticed a honey container on the shelf. As I was looking for honey that was produced in Belgium I asked to see it. The label said Made in Belgium, but it also said “origin – Canada”. Now if we need to import honey from other countries, why are we exporting it to Belgium? I also found Wild Salmon from Canada in a Belgium grocery store.

    Brief: Greater Integrity and Transparency in Food Labelling
    The issue of labelling concerns both consumers and farmers. Presently “Product of Canada” doesn’t always actually mean the food is from Canada. Chapter 11 Labelling Guide allows for packers to import food, to process it here and to label it “Product of Canada” with options whether or not it states the country of origin; and also misleads consumers to think that they are purchasing “Product from Canada” or ‘up to Canada standards’ when it is only the costs of processing, transportation, and labor on imported food that is over 51% that allows it to be labeled “Product of Canada”. This undermines all farmers globally by enabling corporations to pit one country against another depending on food and labor costs, transportation, and packaging. Furthermore, can the environment (re: green house gas) tolerate production being transported all over the world before it gets to our plates?

    The key words in this resolution are ‘grown and raised’, so that you know that food is genuinely ‘grown and raised’ in Canada. Farmers ‘produce’ food, but because processors also use the words ‘produce’ or ‘created’, using these words in the guideline is not adequate to inform Canadians of the source of the food. Presently the Act allows imported food to be optionally labeled as to where it originated. For example, labelling orange juice ‘Product of Canada’ is absurd.

    With current and proposed guidelines, Canada is at the brink of losing its Food Sovereignty, that is, control of its food. To understand the difference between food safety, food security, and food sovereignty, they are outlined below: Food safety is food that is subject to Canadian standards and inspections. Food Security is a right to food: food that is culturally appropriate; everyone has enough to eat, and environmentally sustainable. Food Sovereignty encompasses both Food Safety and Food Security but adds the element of control. Food Sovereignty allows Canadians through information, the market, and reasonable regulations to determine what is to be grown and eaten by farmers and consumers rather than corporations whose agendas aim to maximize returns to shareholders deciding what we ‘grow and raise’ and eat.

    The federal government has proposed new guidelines to be implemented December 31, 2008 that may help consumers decide that food is clearly identified as truly Canadian. In a survey, 90% of 1500 participants supported changing the guidelines. In their own document they admit 21% of consumer respondents did not feel the guidelines represented an improvement . Some encouraged the government to consider even more rigorous labelling requirements that would provide more information on the origin of imported ingredients. They encouraged the government to also require the origin and percentage of the imported ingredients on food labels. Consumers request the percentage of imported ingredients to reduce dependency on imports and more support for Canadian farmers. Some were unsure of the differences between Product of Canada and Made in Canada and expressed concern that confusion about label claims may still exist.

    Meat imported from Argentina and processed here would be labelled “Made in Canada from imported ingredients”. Whereas meat grown in Canada, exported to USA, processed and imported back into Canada would be labelled Product of USA. There is no truth here in either picture of where it is “grown and raised.” Just like the Toronto Star Potato advertisement, grown in Northern Sask. is Product of USA.

    We commend the federal government for clearly defining the label “Product of Canada”, however, calling it “Grown in Canada” would be preferable because of its clarity. The label, “Made in Canada” is confusing to the consumer because it is too similar to the label, “Product of Canada”. To establish Canada’s Food Sovereignty, that is, the farmers and consumers right to control food, we are asking the federal government to expand product descriptions by listing percentages of domestic and imported ingredients, as well as stating the country of origin. “Made in Canada from domestic and imported ingredients” simply is not enough information. “Made in Canada and Grown in Argentina” takes less printing room than “Made in Canada from domestic and imported ingredients”, but does give the “obvious truth”.

    For the final draft passed resolution check out the CWL website. Below is the original motion.
    2008.1 GREATER INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF FOOD LABELLING

    Whereas, a food product in Canada can be labelled as “Product of Canada” if 51% of the total cost is Canadian, including packaging, labour, and /or transportation and,

    Whereas, this can lead to misleading information and absurd situations, such as orange juice being labelled ‘Product of Canada’, therefore, be it

    Resolved that The Catholic Women’s League urge the Government of Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) to amend Canadian laws, regulations and guidelines to ensure that any food product labelled ‘Product of Canada’ must be 80% or more ‘grown or raised’ and packed in Canada and, be it further

    Resolved, that all food products must be labelled with “country or countries of origin” according to where they were ‘grown and raised’.

    Reply