Consumer Freedom?

So I actually wrote the blog about Greenpeace and other activist groups before I read and began the 5^th blog prompt. The topics are fairly similar, but this one will be a little more focused and guided compared to my previous venting episode. This blog is discussing some things said in a video about the Center for Consumer Freedom—virtually, a counter organization to PETA, HSUS, etc. The two minute clip said a few things that I did in my previous blog about these groups—for example, the hypocrisy of HSUS’s commercials—but I will try to direct this one in a different manner.

For those not in the class, we are currently reading a book entitled Stuffed and Starved by Raj Patel that discusses some of the issues within our food system. One major issue we have talked about is the idea of choice, or lack thereof, for the consumer and how there are ‘hour glass’ structures in markets that are confined in the middle by certain corporations who are capable of limiting the choice consumers have.

These “bottleneck corporations” are able to control the market above and below them because there are many producers (above) and consumers (below) them, but only a few of the companies in the middle. They can put specific requirements on the raw products coming into their operation and then put out and sell a different, specific product. They have power over both the consumer and the producer because, in a way, they can virtually say, “if you don’t like it, take your business somewhere else.” But because there are only a few corporations in the middle who can buy the inputs and sell the products, it is hard for both consumers and producers to do anything but meet the requirements. This is how the idea of consumers having no choice comes about. These companies can sell whatever they feel like, that will also sell.

But once upon a day, a consumer had to deny a variety of apples, forcing farmers to stop growing that variety. From there, the increase in consumer demand for apples (or any food product period) forced the limited options of crops grown now. Granted, those middle-man corporations now control what farmers sell, originally it was consumer’s demands and preferences that started the restriction in varieties and types of crops grown. In that sense, consumption very much can control a market. If consumers completely stop buying a product, those bottleneck corporations will eventually be forced to stop producing it and give the consumers what they want. Regardless of the fact that it rarely happens, consumers have that power if they want to exercise it.

But of course these companies do not only operate in a single country; they are massive, multinational companies. So if the consumers were to exercise their power of shaping a market, it would have to be an international effort. This brings into the issue another major factor, the politics of internationalism. I think this is where Raj Patel would stress the idea of true consumer freedom, more so than the short clip even does. The idea of consumer freedom really breaks down the typical politics of trade and food products. In the book, he discusses many international issues, from war, to food aid, and how food has been used politically to control other countries. True consumer freedom would throw that out the window, and allow consumers to eat what they want, not just what their governments are given in trade or as support. Like in the example of South Korea, students had to be taught how to eat bread because culturally they were not used to grain in the form of bread at all. Because the country, politically, started trading wheat, bread is now a much bigger part of their diet. And it is not only imports, but also because partially to the Green Revolution, Korea’s own production has increased dramatically as well. These international policies and trade agreements have reduced impacted consumer’s freedom of choice, for better as well as for worse.

This video clip wants people to understand the truth of their food and wants consumers to be free to make decisions for themselves. Patel, however, argues that our decisions are somewhat made for us before we even get to the store. Where you live is a huge factor, and that can be dependent on social class and race both. If you live in what is known as a food desert, you can be very limited on what is available at the store. Sometimes, it is just not feasible to truck high value goods to certain areas of the country if the population concentration is very limited. If only a small number of products are going to be sold, it takes extra transportation and higher costs to get specialty goods in less than bulk quantities. On top of that, if you cannot afford certain goods regardless of where you live, your choices are also limited. Not only are your options limited of products to buy, but also where you can buy them. If you know you can afford something better, but you are in a food desert, or just far from that product, you probably won’t spend the money on fuel and time to travel to get that good; you will settle for what is available and affordable. Unfortunately, there are still large food deserts in the country. The first map shows the areas where different amounts of the population live without a car and further than one mile to a grocery store. On a somewhat unrelated, but interesting side note, compare that to the second map that compares areas where there are more bars than grocery stores. Again this can point to not only location, but to race and social class as underlying issues.

Consumer freedom may be a noble goal, Patel would argue that at this point, it is nearly impossible to accomplish. There are too many factors impacting what consumers have available to them for them to be “free” to choose the food they want. I appreciate the efforts mentioned from the Center of Consumer Freedom, but ultimate freedom for the consumer, I would agree, will be very difficult to achieve.

Greenpeace destroys wheat crop

The illusion of choice.

Recently in class we have been discussing the illusion of “choice” as consumers when it comes to our food. The finger has been pointed only at big corporate agriculture and the process of our food between the farmer and the grocery store; how the middle men in between are controlling what is being produced below them in line, as well as what is being sold ahead of them in the chain. While I won’t deny that there is truth to the argument, I realized today in class when we watched a horrendous video similar to that above, that corporate agriculture is incredibly far from the only entity working to control our choice in the stores. My first reaction was literally, “What the hell?!” I was livid. Activists do this kind of garbage all the time. But the bigger issue is that these organizations who claim to have consumers’ best interest in mind obviously do not. Organizations such as Greenpeace, PETA, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), just to name a few, are political activist groups that have their own agendas to push and only give the impression they are working to better our lives as consumers. While I’m on my soap box, out of any donation to HSUS, a whopping 0% goes to any animal shelter or local humane society in the United States. Talk about propaganda! Airing those commercials with famous people and cute dogs and cats, claiming they help them!

Off my soap box (as much as I can…) for now and back to the idea of choice for a moment. We claim as consumers we are limited in our choices of what we can eat, but aren’t these group’s limiting them even more? PETA and HSUS both are trying to end animal agriculture for good. Not make it better, not improve the system, but end it. Period. So not only will we have to choose corn in everything else we buy, we will then be forced to become vegetarians. Now that’s a lack of choice. It won’t ever happen, but I’ll amuse my nonmeat consuming peers for a moment and hypothetically go down that road just, just briefly. At that point, there could be no fingers pointed at corporate agriculture for the lack of choice. At that point, those groups will have become even more powerful than those companies and will control everything we eat even more so than any single group does now.

Snap, back to reality, as I bite into my American grown hamburger. I suppose my main point here is that we cannot overlook the goals of these groups when we discuss the “illusion of choice.” They each have different goals, but ultimately, they want to limit the options of food for consumption we have available to us. Let the consumers decide if they want to eat GM wheat. In the video clip, the Greenpeace member says that they were trying to get CSIRO to be upfront and honest about the research they are doing. How can they do research to give factual information to the public about GMO’s if their plots are destroyed? These groups complain about a lack of long term research and trials of these new technologies, but then turn around and destroy the research plots and stations. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here? There’s no way to do research on these crops and calm the fears of consumers if these groups—who are “looking out for consumers”—run around and ruin the research in progress.

Choice, to some extent, may in fact be an illusion to consumers. But the idea that big bad corporate agriculture is the guilty party is a stretch. In fact, consumers need to look in the mirror when they complain about lack of choice. But that’s a-whole-nother can of worms to be opened later.

South Central Farmers' Struggle for Justice

This video is a trailer for a documentary called The Garden, but it shows perfectly not only the disruption the farmers caused, but also how they utilized even more tactics than discussed in this blog during these peoples' struggle for justice. Watch it now, or when you get through the blog, or even just watch it and not read the blog, but it is a great clip for this.

In 1994, 14 acres of South Central Los Angeles was purchased and converted into a community garden, or “urban farm,” which at the time was considered one of the largest in the nation. The some, 350 families that cultivated the land called themselves the “South Central Farmers” and were mostly Latin American Immigrants. Long story short, in 2006, one of the original land owners sued the city of Los Angeles and got the land back. He posted and notified the farmers that they had a specific day to be off the property. The farmers and their families fought back, trying to say the repurchase of the land was handled incorrectly. Not only did they fight legally, but they also fought by protesting, holding vigils, and continuing to grow their crops on the land.

Ultimately, the ground was turned back to the previous owner and the farmers were evicted off of the ground. Ironically, they land to this day has sat idle and nothing has been done on it except to doze under the estimated 150 different plant species that used to grow on the 14 acres (Picture above). The city later devoted just less than 8 acres for the farmers to relocate onto and only 3 acres have been actually made available to them to cultivate.

But looking back on their movement and struggle to try and keep the land, it is easy to see that they utilized many different tactics that they had available to them. One of the biggest things they had was their organization. The South Central Farmers were a self governed organization with positions and voting and leaders. Having this organizational structure to the group allowed them to keep their eye on the prize, if you will, and have all their members working toward their single, ultimate goal. They had people who were not the group’s actual leaders but who were very capable speakers who, during the struggle, stepped up and acted as the main voice for the farmers. Having not only talented people, but also having two main voices allowed the group to be consistent with what they say, and sound professional and prepared rather than having numerous people speaking at once that could be saying different things.

The organization also relied on their ability to connect to outside people and gain support from celebrities and people with a lot of influence. Leonardo DiCaprio, Danny Glover, Willie Nelson, and Ralph Nader are just some of the many well-known people who supported the groups struggle. To the left is a picture of Daryl Hannah who actually chained herself to a walnut tree in protest of the eviction. Not only did the farmers have numerous celebrities and people of power, but they also had a lot of themselves. They had power in numbers and they showed it when they protested and had their night time candle-lit vigils. The farmers all came out in support of their cause and made a huge showing in the area around the garden. Not only did they show their numbers there, but as the case went through the courts, a strong majority of the farmers also appeared outside the court rooms and legal buildings where the hearings and trials were taking place.

With their protests and vigils they brought awareness to the situation. They changed the status quo of people’s thoughts of south central Los Angeles, and shed light on a situation most people left “out of sight and out of mind.” As this came about, people had to take note; their movie stars and political leaders were engaged in some issue that they all of a sudden started to follow as well. This disrupted the norm of the time for that area, and for anybody who followed. And beyond disrupting the mindset of people, they also caused actual disruption throughout their struggle. They challenged the idea of eviction from the beginning; many farmers climbed the fence and continued to farm and take crops off the land. They ignored the posted signs and chains and locks, and even when authorities came, they did everything they could to stay farming the land. Then when the demolition crew finally arrived, as mentioned before, people were in the trees, sitting in the garden with their tools, and lining the fence. They also surrounded the garden on the street and police had to create a line in order to keep the farmers and protesters away from the destruction.

I had heard of this situation before now from another CES class, but we looked more at the situation itself and what was happening, and less of the movement and how it worked. I think the entire situation left a bigger impact than we may consider. Most people probably have not heard of the South Central Farmers, but they may have heard about Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), farmers markets, or possibly even community gardens—Pullman has two. The unfortunate situation in LA, I think, has caused a ripple throughout the local agricultural movement itself. I think that people who start, or are involved in such gardens or markets are definitely aware of what happened and have taken strides of preventative care, if you will, to protect them from the same thing. I also think that they realize that the SCF organization had an actual business structure with positions and policies, and that these things can also help the existing organizations function in a way that will help them if a similar situation arises.

Regardless of people like the land owner in this story and other people who are actually against agriculture (because I won’t say that the land owner here is), people will always farm the land. People will always look to better their community. And at times, those two will merge together as one.

Farm Workers

In the book Roots of Justice by Larry R. Salomon discusses multiple movements throughout history and how organization of the people involved happened. When deciding what group or movement to focus this blog on, I chose the Filipino Farm workers because I felt like I could relate best to them. I hope being able to relate to this group will allow me to better understand their side of the issue and focus on why and how their movement was or wasn’t successful.

Without spending too much time discussing the idea of ‘success’ in movements, I think for argument’s sake, we can say that, for the most part, the Filipino farm laborers’ movement was successful. They faced serious adversity, and change was far from quick. But at the end of the day (figuratively speaking), they got “better than the union’s original demands” (Salomon, 2003, pg 18).

But why were they successful, and how did they accomplish what they wanted to? First off, why did they feel the need to try and make change? The Filipino workers were being shorted wages, poor working conditions, and were thought to be best suited for the “stoop” jobs because of their short build. Long story short, they demanded better pay, better work conditions, and equal rights as their white bosses and land owners—to end the discrimination against them. The movements in California started years after similar movements arose in Hawai’i and that gave these movements one of their biggest advantages; experience. Many farm workers had migrated to the main land looking for more work after they had partaken in the work stoppages and strikes in Hawai’i. When they were faced with similarly poor conditions on the main land, and after seeing success on the islands of strikes, etc, there was only one sensible thing to do.

Another part of the success of the Filipinos in California was that they were led by Larry Itliong and other very capable leaders. Some of these men had participated in the movements in Hawai’i and they were able to use those experiences to organize the people and lead them through the struggle. They struggled against white mobs and local police who would attack the picket lines and people involved in the movement. But what the Filipino’s did in response was a huge tactic in their favor. They stood up to the mobs. They decided that they had to become militant in order to not get pushed around and show that they were very serious about their demands and strikes.

It took multiple tries at organizing the labor force before they were able to create the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee. This was yet another advantage in the movement’s repertoire of tactics. The union grew large and quickly. A strike or work stoppage with all the union’s members caused a huge disruption and halted crop production and the growers were unable to successfully replace the workers and still make profits on their land. Salomon says that during the largest strike, lettuce growers lost up to $100,000 per day. Having the huge power in numbers, even in the face of attacks against them, they were able to put a lot of pressure on the land owners and growers. Because the Filipinos were truthfully good at working in the fields, the growers had to meet (and exceed) their demands for working conditions, pay, and equal rights as Americans.  

Eventually the movement joined forces with Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Association, which strengthened the entire movement for all races and their struggle against racism and the rich white land owners. When the two merged, a new union was formed; The United Farm Workers of America. This union still remains today, and is still very active in working for better working conditions and fair pay for its members.  But besides the remaining union, this movement left an impact and ideals that can still be applied today. In agriculture now, migrant labor is a huge part of the labor force in fresh food production; tree fruit, vegetables, grapes, etc. In Washington, that labor is Mexican migrant workers. I think that movements like these have forced land owners and growers to pay fair wages to those migrant workers. These foods are usually grown in specific regions, so the workforce is centralized and close, making it easier to organize if they felt a need to. Granted, some people still do take advantage of them and pay them much lower wages, but that is changing. Credit should be given to the Filipino movement in that now growers are aware of what organized labor can do, and rather than try and suppress them and prevent them from organizing, most farmers treat them fair so that they have no reason to organize.

In certain parts of this state, migrant labor makes up not only the majority of the labor force, but also of the population. I would guess that in those areas, this—and other—agricultural movements have been taught and discussed much more than in Eastern Washington where I grew up. I had never heard about this particular movement before now, but I think looking back on the struggles and everything involved, it is clear to see that an impact has been left in agriculture today.