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.