Consolidated Control of Food Chain

Consolidated Control of Food Chain
Oakland Institute USA, has released a New Policy Brief Reveals that Consolidated Control of Food Leads to Declining Food Security, Economic Health, and Labor Standards :

Facing Goliath : Challenging the Impacts of Retail Consolidation on our Local Economies, Communities, and Food Security
This new policy brief from the Oakland Institute exposes how corporate consolidation in food retail has put our access to a reliable supply of healthy and affordable food at risk.

The top five food retailers, which now control more than half of all grocery sales in the country, have gained unprecedented market power," said Katy Mamen, Oakland Institute Fellow and author of the Policy Brief. "As a result, cost savings garnered through increased bargaining power are generally not being passed on to the consumer, supermarkets are abandoning low-income communities where profit margins are lower, and labor standards are being forced down."

The shift from small and medium scale food stores to big box stores brings broader economic turmoil for many communities. When a retail mega-store enters a community, independent shops that serve the local community are often forced to close. New Wal-Mart stores in a community have been associated with increased poverty levels and a decline in locally owned and operated businesses.
"In the U.S., the independent business owner is held in high regard - but small businesses throughout the food supply chain, from farmers to processors to grocers are being forced out as consolidation continues, undermining the American Dream," said Mamen.

The Policy Brief teases out the architecture of change in the food supply chain, outlines some of the key impacts on local communities, and suggests strategies for bringing balance back to the food retail landscape, including:

* Developing successful and innovative regional distribution and retail models;

* Re-creating real retail diversity that includes both locally-owned outlets that source a majority of their products locally and products that are direct marketed by producers;

* Fostering locally-owned and operated retail outlets in low-income communities;

* Working to balance the public subsidy and support system, which currently disproportionately favors large supermarket chains over independent markets;

* Raising public awareness about the social, economic and environmental benefits of locally owned and operated grocery stores.

Facing Goliath : Challenging the Impacts of Retail Consolidation on our Local Economies, Communities, and Food Security is a publication of the Oakland Institute, a think tank for research, analysis, and action whose mission is to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic, and environmental justice issues.

Food Minister or Agriculture Minister ?

I recently read a statement by Shri Sharad Pawar in the course of a TV interview by Karan Thapar, asking him, what was his response to the powerless accusation made that the Indian Congress government, is much happier "importing wheat from an Australian corporation," than from local Indian farmers who are silently playing out the dance of death in the Indian killing fields, especially in the very states the Agriculture Minister represents.
The honourable minister referred to the peculiar difficulty of his situation. Maybe he does have a point. He referrred to his role as that of being burdened with the twin responsibilities of being the Food Minister as well as the Agriculture Minister of the second most populous country in the world - India.
India also happens to have the largest number of farm dependant population, that is, those who have no sources of income other than from farming, a fact often forgotten in global negotiations on tariffs and agricultural subsidies.
I quote his response - "As representative of the government, I know better than the papers. Suppose I purchase wheat from Punjab and Haryana and if I have to sell it to the entire South India, my yearly storage charges and my transport charges alone cost me Rs 1,150 to Rs 1,160 per quintal.
My import price from Australia in southern India is somewhat close to Rs 950.
It is my responsibility to protect the interests of the consumer, and for the sake of protecting the interests, I have to build up my buffer stock, and essentially in southern India. For the sake of building the buffer stock, in the case of an eventuality, I have no choice, I will import from anywhere..."
This is very interesting and maybe a precursor to the changed Indian position in the Doha talks.
Suddenly, the Indian minister is finding a conflict in his position as Food Minister and as Agriculture Minister.
While on the one hand he is happy that farmers have the option to "not sell" wheat to the government, he is also very concerned about the wheat consumers of South India.
Does it not make sense to relieve the minister of his dual responsibilities, so that there can be separate ministers for Agriculture and for Food ? He will then not have to play pick and choose and can truly represent his constituency more appropriately.
Afterall, the constituency of food growers is very large, and now, with farmers quitting agriculture, thanks to an undeclared farm exit policy, the constituency of urban food consumers is also very large.
Yes Minister, you do have a point. There needs to be some urgent action and the terrible burden on his shoulders must be released. He can choose which ministry he wants to keep and the other can be given to effect one more expansion of the Cabinet.
In case he chooses the Food Ministry, then he can the promote the ill fated Doha Round of WTO talks. The WTO Head, the EU Trade Commissioner and now the US Agriculture Secretary, have suddenly woken up to the need for progressing on the collapsed Doha talks. Many rapid fire visits have been made to Indian and Brazil capitals, in an attempt to rope in the shakers and the movers of the Indian trade and agriculture ministries.
Of course, the poor African farmers, the Indian farmers, and all those who are supposed to benefit from WTO revival, are still not aware that such hectic and back breaking efforts are being made " on their behalf " by such good intentioned folks.