A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #361 - A food security system? - A strange idea. (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Food Security is a hot topic in many circles. The basic idea is 
appealing. With increasing poverty, more and more people are eating 
poorly. In developed countries, relatively few people go hungry every 
day. However, many eat an unbalanced diet; vegetables and meat are 
expensive, and these people are forced to eat the cheapest options-that 
is, the low end of the food industry, which we know is extremely harmful 
to health.

Food insecurity
According to INSEE (the French National Institute of Statistics and 
Economic Studies), between 2 and 4 million people rely on in-kind food 
aid each year in metropolitan France. This does not refer to monetary 
assistance, but rather to the distribution of meals and food parcels. 
The exact figure is difficult to estimate and only includes approved 
organizations. According to a 2014-2015 study by the French Agency for 
Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), 8 million 
people are considered food insecure, meaning they cannot afford to eat 
according to their tastes or preferences. This food insecurity increased 
significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, but more importantly, it 
became suddenly visible. Indeed, as part of the lockdown measures, the 
government saw fit to prevent the distribution of food parcels and meals 
(to "protect" volunteers). Suddenly, local authorities found themselves 
facing an influx of people who had previously been receiving more or 
less unhealthy food assistance from charities, without much public 
concern. Because the associations were doing the job.

Fighting against food insecurity
Perhaps by eradicating poverty? From a distance, raising wages and 
improving social benefits would seem the simplest solution. But it 
appears that this isn't the most widely recommended approach. Especially 
since we know that, in the eyes of social services and public health 
experts, the poor are poorly educated; if they're given money, they're 
likely to spend it in ways other than what was intended for them (for 
their own good, of course). For quite a few years, food aid operated 
first on charity, then on a fairly simple principle: the food industry 
has surpluses, and large retailers have unsold goods. Food aid thus 
allowed Europe to sell off its surplus stock, and retailers were 
encouraged to donate their unsold goods rather than throwing them away 
after destroying them to render them inedible. Basic stuff, really. It 
still took a few laws, though. But the result is that those on welfare 
eat products that are barely edible, and especially the ultra-processed 
byproducts of the agri-food industry. This makes for food that is 
neither healthy, balanced, nor very tasty, to say the least. Not to 
mention all the people who live in the gray area of food insecurity, 
meaning those who don't receive assistance but have to make do with the 
cheapest, lowest-priced options.
Yet another demand has begun to emerge in society: the right to food of 
decent quality, food that doesn't make us sick, and food that doesn't 
destroy the environment. How can we reconcile organic and social 
welfare? Here again, there's a systemic reason: if conventional 
agriculture weren't heavily subsidized at the expense of organic 
farming, the price differences would be much smaller.
All discussions around food security are in search of solving the 
squaring of the circle: how to fight food insecurity while circumventing 
the fact that we cannot fight against a capitalism that produces misery 
and organizes junk food.

How to combat food insecurity?
The entire history of the labor movement is punctuated by attempts in 
this direction. These have often relied on women, of course. The 
anarchists of the early 20th century had their canteens (often 
vegetarian) where they made do with very little to offer very cheap 
meals. During major strikes, they tried to feed the strikers. In May 
1968, there were exchanges between strikers and farmers who came to 
supply them. Much more recently, partly under the influence of squats, 
the practice of pay-what-you-want meals has developed to finance a 
particular cause or event. Unfortunately, we are living in an era of 
professionalization: "activist canteens" have specialized in supplying 
rallies and other "villages." Here, we are beginning to slide from 
self-management towards commerce and the division of labor between 
activists and foot soldiers. But in all these experiences, we're not 
really talking about fighting food insecurity; we're talking about forms 
of self-organized movements. There has long been the organization of aid 
to compete with the influence of churches. Secours Populaire (a French 
charity) is the best-known example. But we're still in the realm of 
assistance, that is, public charity. Neighborhood associations and other 
groups organized themselves during the Covid pandemic, particularly in 
student circles, and also led to the creation of the Secours Populaire 
Brigades, and so on. We can also mention the "Food Not Bombs" network, 
which developed in the 1980s, mainly in England and the United States.
In France, the question of how to ensure a decent standard of living for 
farmers while providing affordable food for citizens led to the creation 
of AMAPs (Associations for the Maintenance of Peasant Agriculture). This 
is based on a prepaid basket system with a contract between farmers and 
consumers. It is estimated that there were 2,500 AMAPs 
(Community-Supported Agriculture groups) in 2018, representing around 
100,000 baskets. Some consider AMAPs to be for the upper classes, a kind 
of bourgeois hobby. In fact, since each AMAP is completely self-managed 
as long as it respects the general principles, it varies greatly from 
one AMAP to another. They are certainly never the cheapest, but they are 
not necessarily very expensive. The value of AMAPs lies in the thought 
process involved in how to eat properly and affordably while 
contributing to the support of small-scale farmers.

And what about this Food Social Security system?
It doesn't exist, except in the form of broad principles and a few 
experiments. Let's quote the Collective: "The Collective is working 
towards integrating food into the general social security system, as it 
was established in 1946: universal access, agreements with professionals 
managed by democratically run funds, and financing through the creation 
of a single-rate social security contribution based on actual 
value-added production." Well, first of all, these aren't exactly the 
basic principles of social security (see " Social Security, an Issue of 
Class Struggle," Courant Alternatif no. 358, March 2026 ). In 
particular, contributions were based on wages, not on value added. 
Hence, initially, the fund was managed by employee representatives. So, 
who would manage a democratically run fund? Who would elect them? On 
what principle would the agreements be based? Because for the national 
health insurance system (Sécurité sociale), from the outset, the 
agreement was accompanied by a sector with unregulated fees.
Above all, the principle cannot be the same. The idea behind social 
security is based on the fact that we can all get sick, that we can all 
be laid off, and that none of us wants to work ourselves to exhaustion. 
Hence the widespread acceptance of this principle (among the population, 
not among employers!). But here, we're providing a basic food basket. 
And we all eat every day. Those who can't afford it will pay less than 
it's worth. But those who are better off, why would they pay EUR200 for 
a EUR150 basket? In fact, the groups that have been created need 
subsidies to balance their funding. And they emphasize the tax 
advantages of paying more. That is to say, just like all charitable 
organizations, in fact. And the idea behind Social Security was 
precisely to move away from charity. I pay for others, certainly, but 
because I will in turn benefit from it. I contribute, so it's an 
acquired right, not aid.
Therefore, if we want this system to go beyond a few local initiatives, 
it needs investment from local authorities or mutual insurance 
companies. And then, we're no longer talking about Social Security at 
all; we're talking about assistance organized by the State. Or else, 
contributions must be mandatory. Is it so certain that obtaining 
mandatory employer contributions managed by the beneficiaries and 
without serving the interests of the agri-food industry or large 
retailers requires less of a power struggle than obtaining increases in 
wages and social benefits? Of course, agreements allow this money to 
finance small producers. But again, does that require less of a power 
struggle than reforming the agricultural subsidy system?
Currently, there are few initiatives, and they feed far fewer people 
than Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs. The amounts 
involved are small, which means the same problem will arise: quality 
food remains more expensive than the cheapest options. Finally, this 
voluntary approach can probably be implemented more easily in rural 
communities, where people know the producers. But what about large 
cities? How would agreements be established there? Regarding the 
solidarity aspect, many CSAs already offer solidarity baskets, meaning 
that members pay slightly more so that some can subscribe for free or at 
a reduced price. The criteria and scope vary from one CSA to another.

What is at stake politically?
Of course, the fight for decent food is an integral part of the class 
struggle, just like the fights for housing or healthcare. Of course, 
initiatives to establish concrete forms of solidarity must be 
encouraged. Of course, we must seek convergence between social struggles 
and the struggles against agribusiness and the demise of the peasantry. 
But on the other hand, talking about "Food Social Security" seems to me 
to be a classic example of a misguided idea.
First of all, it's based on a very distorted conception of the idea of 
Social Security from the outset. The aspect of proletarian liberation is 
erased in favor of the aspect of assistance, public or voluntary 
charity, which is not at all the same thing. We are defending rights. 
The right to a dignified life in all its aspects is a daily struggle, 
particularly in the workplace. Can there be a dignified life in a system 
based on exploitation? The fight against food insecurity cannot avoid 
criticizing capitalism.
Behind Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), Food Security, community 
kitchens, and so on, lies the idea of creating a non-market space within 
a capitalist system we are forced to endure. This might be viable on a 
small scale, as a marginal phenomenon. But we cannot prove the 
superiority of a non-market system within a capitalist framework. And 
the power dynamics necessary to establish a genuine Food Security system 
are significant, to a level that should allow us to consider overturning 
this system. We always come back to the same question: the possibility 
of creating autonomous zones to circumvent our failure to abolish this 
system, or to demonstrate that our utopia is possible.
On the other hand, we must participate in and encourage everything that 
recreates a sense of community in this increasingly atomized society. 
This means participating in community kitchens, self-sufficiency 
initiatives, common funds, and so forth. may make sense. Provided we 
remain vigilant about the risks of drifting towards a cheap good 
conscience, of a type of action reserved for a certain milieu, about the 
risks of illusion that small gestures and individual lifestyles would 
have an influence on the general functioning of the system.

Sylvie

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4729
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en