The Value of Food: Debate

One of our aims with TRJFP Edinburgh is to encourage people to “think differently about the value of food as a resource”, so we invited people to do just that at a discussion event after dinner at the Old School Café. Three Edinburgh-based critical food thinkers gave their responses to the theme, “The Value of Food”, before the floor was opened to what turned out to be some challenging debate.

On behalf of TRJFP, Charlie framed the discussion by highlighting the need we see for a social and environmental value to be attached to food rather than merely economic. With a purely economic bottom line, food is losing its unique importance, and in a profit-driven system waste often makes sense, if certain commodities go up or down in price, or distribution costs are greater than disposal costs, for instance. From a social point of view, we must aim to build people’s confidence to make their own food choices and better understand the provenance and impact of food. That impact is, perhaps above all, environmental and we are all ignorant of the exponential destruction intensive agriculture and corporate-led food systems are creating, to soils, animals, human health, the atmosphere but also social progress.

Elli Kontorravdis, policy and campaigns officer at Nourish Scotland, focused on this social aspect, outlining the idea of a ‘right to food’. A show of hands indicated those present generally felt such a right existed in the UK; Elli suggested it may not be so simple. The UN stipulates a right to food in its covenant on economic, cultural and social rights but the UK does not recognise it in law and this has repercussions. Those on low incomes cannot really access adequate food and welfare reforms continue to put up barriers to access. Nourish sees food banks as an immediate solution but symptomatic of a broken food system and is building a campaign monitoring the level of food insecurity in Scotland to highlight the need for better financial and geographical access, and a right, to food.

This includes, Elli said, valuing food producers more highly, and this was echoed by Fergus Walker from Common Good Food. He spoke of the need to build food sovereignty in Scotland, creating a food system that benefits people. Currently, food is a commodity and all value is based on transactions, making the people in the system commodities too. A focus on efficiency and convenience has led to food being a lonely experience, both to produce and to eat, and Fergus described his vision for a ‘community croft’ that would involve people working together and valuing food in all its forms. “If you produce food yourself, no-one has gone through the commercial system,” he said, which is empowering and creates a shared wealth. He claimed that the scarcity narrative is a myth purported for corporate control; really, “there’s plenty for everyone”.

Finally, we heard from Charlotte Maberly, organiser of the MSc in Gastronomy at Queen Margaret University, one of three university courses in the world “dedicated to studying the value of food”. She talked about the complexity of food – as a commodity, as a political tool, as an aesthetic – and how it is “one of the biggest stumbling blocks” for Scotland: we have a thriving export economy but at home we are not eating well enough and we are getting fat, described as the Scottish Paradox by Scotland’s Food Secretary, Richard Lochhead. For Charlotte, we haven’t lost the social element, “there is nothing more fundamental than sharing a meal; we haven’t lost it, we all crave it.” It is just a case of providing environments for it.

With such an environment available there and then, we opened up the discussion and empowerment continued to be an important theme. Debate was immediately sparked by a question from a biologist calling the Scottish government’s recent ban on GM production “stupid” when we are running out of space and populations are growing. It even helps small-scale producers, she claimed. While most people were in favour of the ban, and it was interesting to note the disagreement over the inherent value of GM production in optimising production and resisting climate change, against the need for maintaining biodiversity, there was greater consensus that it is the large companies behind GM production that are the problem, not the technology itself. Fergus referred again to food soveriegnty principles, proposing open source food production, where we can all access and control how food is produced. “If we are to be empowered collectively we need to realise we don’t have to rely on 10 varieties of crops,” he said. “We don’t have to stay within the confines of technological solutions; we can focus on social solutions, not just commercial viability.”

Which opened a bigger debate. Our current system was described as “a technological miracle” but concern was raised about how we rely too much on too few sources, such as a single distribution centre for Tesco providing one in five bites of food in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. Comparison was drawn with a failing crop causing starvation and that “200 small farms is better than one Tesco.” But of course we have to consider what is possible. “It is a political question, not one of supply,” Charlotte suggested. The only way to achieve such a shift is if the government invests a lot of money in small-scale farmers.

And the debate returned to poverty, central to the question of ‘value’. An economically-driven food system means “cheap food means cheap wages means more profit” within the system itself, and although people are now materially better off than 50 years ago, they are time poor and it is “unrealistic” to talk of connecting people with the food system.

We often talk at TRJFP about ‘joining the dots’, and though it seems a little nebulous, it really is what is lacking in our food system, not least between the inextricable problems of waste and poverty. When it comes to valuing our food in such a way that it works better socially and environmentally, founded on greater participation in food production, it is maybe about even more than food. It is about social expectations, political will, wealth distribution.

We asked if the food system in Scotland was working for us, in the room and as a nation. Charlotte summed it up with typical cogency: “It depends what you mean by working. It is working for our economy. If it means getting food into people’s mouths, then yes, generally it’s working. If it’s about feeding people nutritiously, then I’m not sure. But if it means creating happiness, valuing food, and encouraging people to spend time together and around food, then no.”

Is the food system working in Scotland? How can TRJFP help it work better? Let us know your thoughts.