an opirg peterborough publication · acknowledgments writing, editing and research for the...

an OPIRG Peterborough Publication

DISCLAIMER: This book is free for individual use only. If you wish to order for your educational institution or in bulk, please contact OPIRG Peterborough by calling 705-741-1208 or sending an email to [email protected].

AcknowledgmentsWriting, editing and research for the Supermarket Tour was by Mike Contrast-Isaac, Sara Swerdlyk, Aimee Blyth, Rachel Gurofsky, Juby Lee, Jessi Dobyns and Nicole Leaver. Additional research was done by Ashley Minion, Patrick Gilhooly, Kierian Keele, Elisha Brodeur, Elaine Howarth, Nick Karavidas, Justin Morrison, Mathew Ferguson, Alice Bick-ele, Janal Ingram, Jennie Cartwright, Chris Stygall, Nicole McRae, and Tom Colucci. Ad-ditional editing was by Andrew Jobes. Design and layout was done by Riley Hoffman and Chantilly Barz at Ontario Public Interest Research Group Peterborough (OPIRG Peterbor-ough).

The project was coordinated by Yolanda Jones and Karen Sutherland at OPIRG Peterbor-ough.

Special thanks to OPIRG Ottawa, OPIRG McMaster, OPIRG Guelph, OPIRG Carleton and OPIRG Brock for their generous fi nancial support.

Illustrations by Gord Pullar.

For more information on OPIRG, or for an electronic PDF copy of this document, visit http://opirgpeterborough.ca.

If you would like to receive additional printed copies of the Supermarket Tour, contact OPIRG Peterborough.

The fi rst Supermarket Tour was produced in 1980 by The Ontario Public Interest Re-search Group - over 11,000 copies were sold in English and French across Canada. In 1990, an updated version of the Supermarket Tour was produced by OPIRG (Toronto). In 2001/2002 the Supermarket Tour was updated by OPIRG McMaster.

© 2010, 2011 by: OPIRG Peterborough751 George St. NorthPeterborough, OntarioK9H 7P5(705) 741-1208<[email protected]><www.opirgpeterborough.ca>

Printed in Canada in 2011

Table of ContentsCredits • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2

INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 Eaten Anything Lately? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6

Aisle 1: Going to Market • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7GOING TO MARKET • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 We’ve Come a Long Way • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 The Supermarket Tour • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9OUTSIDE THE STORE ENTRANCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9

Who’s The Boss • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9Vertical Integration • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10

INSIDE THE SUPERMARKET ENTRANCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11Consumer Manipulation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11The Lure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11Entrances • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11Shopping Carts • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12Music or Muzak • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12Product Placement • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13Advertising and Packagingv • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14

ALTERNATIVES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14

Aisle 2: Produce • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16PRODUCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17

Poison and Poverty • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17Food Miles: Jet Lagged Fruit? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17Global Agricultural Trade and the WTO • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18

PESTICIDES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18Why Worry About Pesticides? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19Government Standards • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19An Apple a Day May Not Keep The Doctor Away • • • • • • • • • • • • 20Health Effects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21Environmental Effects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21An Alternate Approach: The Precautionary Principle • • • • • • • • • • 21Case Study: Bananas • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22Produce in Canada - Migrant Workers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23Reinvisioning the Global Trade in Food: Food Sovereignty • • • • • 23

ALTERNATIVES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24

Aisle 3: The Meat Market • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 29THE MEAT MARKET • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30

What’s Your Beef? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30ANIMAL ABUSE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30

Crowding • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30Sick Animals • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 31

Avian Flu • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32To the Slaughter House • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32At the Slaughter House • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32

YOU ARE WHAT THEY EAT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33Antibiotics and Hormones • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33

ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33Animal Waste • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33The Walkerton Tragedy • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34Cows and Global Warming • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34World Hunger • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35Desertifi cation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35An Alternative? Organic Farming • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35

SUCCESS STORY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36ALTERNATIVES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36

Aisle 4: Dry Goods • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40DRY GOODS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 41

The Corn/Soybean Complex • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 42THE GREAT EXPERIMENT: GENETIC MODIFICATION • • • • • • • • • • • • 43

Why Do We Need Genetically Modfi ed Foods • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 45Claim #1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 45A Lesson Learned? The Green Revolution • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 46Claim #2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 46Spotlight on Monsanto • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 47

WHAT’S AT STAKE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 48Health Risks • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 48Environmental Risks • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49Ethical Risks: Food Security and Food Sovereignty • • • • • • • • • • 51

A STRANGE NEW WORLD: BIOTECHNOLOGY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 53ALTERNATIVES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 55

Aisle 5: At The Checkout - Coporate Control • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 60AT THE CHECKOUT - CORPORATE CONTROL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61COPORATE PROFILES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61

Nestlé • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61Pepsico, INC. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 63Kraft • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 64Unilever • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 65The Proctor & Gamble Company • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 66Increasing Concentration in Organic Food • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 67Cereal Wars • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 68Kellogg Company • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 68General Mills, INC. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 68

Aisle 6: The Food Donation Bin • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 71THE FOOD DONATION BIN • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 72

What is Food Security? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 72DIMENSIONS OF FOOD INSECURITY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 73

Economic Factors • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 73Social Factors • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 73Environmental Factors • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 74Political Factors • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 75

GLOBAL DIVISIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 75The Global South • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76Poverty • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76Land • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76Globalization • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76Confl ict • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 77Consequences • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 77The Global North: Canada • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 78

RESPONSES TO FOOD INSECURITY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 79A State of Emergency Relief • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 79Building Food Security • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 79Good Food Boxes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 80Urban Agriculture • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 80

Now What? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82Educate Yourself and Others • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82It’s the Little Things that Count • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82Get Active • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 84

Appendix: How To Lead a Supermarket Tour • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85FACILITATING A TOUR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85

Some Suggestions for Facilitating a Tour • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85Preparing for a Tour • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85

SAMPLE ACTIVITIES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 87Making a Banana Split • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 87Let’s Go Shopping! A Window on Coporate Concentration • • • • • • 89

Introduction: Eaten Anything Lately?What strikes you as you enter a supermarket? The clean aisles, the colourful arrays of fruits and vegetables, the bountiful shelves? What messages do these potential break-fasts, lunches, and dinners impart?

Over twenty-fi ve years ago, the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) pro-duced an educational booklet, the Supermarket Tour, which told a story about store-bought foods that many of us had never heard before. Making connections to larger food issues, the popular Supermarket Tour has since been updated three times to incorporate more recent developments in Canada’s ever-changing food system.

Using the supermarket as a classroom, the Tour asks questions about the products on supermarket shelves, providing a focus for discussion on a wide range of food issues, from labour to labelling, marketing to genetic manipulation, and pesticides to profi t. The information in this booklet is by no means complete or exhaustive; instead, it is meant to highlight some key issues and to serve as a starting point for further research and educa-tion.

The information presented here is arranged in more or less the same order you would move through the store on a tour. Each chapter is a self-contained unit, though, to give you the freedom to change the order, take the tour in several sessions, or leave sections out. If you are planning to take a group on a Supermarket Tour, please refer to the section entitled “How To Lead a Supermarket Tour” (Appendix 1) for some helpful guidelines.

There is a lot of information here, which may seem overwhelming at times - but don’t give up! Each chapter concludes with a list of alternative and realistic ways to protect yourself from the risks of the food system, to make your voice heard, and to help bring about local and global changes.

What follows is the latest rendition of the Supermarket Tour, a resource that anyone can use to educate themself and others about food. If you eat, the Supermarket Tour is for you!

The Supermarket Tour 8

Aisle 1: Going to MarketOur food system has changed tremendously in the past 50 years, keeping pace with tech-nological “progress.” These changes, for the most part been made without our approval or even our awareness. Yet they have signifi cantly affected our health, the environment, and our values.

In the not too distant past, a shopping trip would have included going to the butcher, the baker, the green grocer, and several other independent specialty shops. Shop owners knew their customers and were concerned about getting them the best quality food pos-sible. But things have changed. These days, we go to one-stop supermarket chains that offer everything from baked goods to TV dinners and even non-food items, such as pre-scription and photo development services. Although we can appreciate the convenience offered by supermarkets, one has to ask: what has been compromised? The food industry would like us to believe that the answer is nothing. This booklet, however, provides infor-mation suggesting that the system we have now is not a healthy one.

We’ve Come a Long WayIn a few generations, our relationship to food has radically changed. Many of the issues we will be looking at throughout the Tour relate to a phenomenon called distancing.1 This trend describes how consumers have become increasingly alienated from their food. Nowadays, most people live in cities, not knowing where their food was grown, how it was produced, or by whom. According to Feenstra, most people today:

Our relationship to food has become dictated by price, rather than by other values, such as nutrition, sustainability, equality, or even taste. This distance exists between consum-ers and their food as a result of a number of economic, cultural, and technological barri-ers, including:

have become disconnected from the sources of their suste-nance - the land, the people who grow and harvest their food and fi ber, and from the taste and quality of the food itself. They have become passive recipients in a rather homogenous sys-tem of nutrient distribution in which real food is almost consid-ered a luxury.2

• the physical distance between where food is grown andwhere it is sold and eaten;

• raw food that is processed into a different end-products;• food that is preserved and packaged for longer storage and

easier shipping and handling;• the loss of community-based food system and the rise of

brands as a way of knowing food; and• an increasingly urbanized population that has little connec-

tion to farming.3

Aisle 1: Going to the Market9

Distancing from fi eld to table creates opportunities to extract money from the food system. The Tour examines how multi-national corporations have taken advantage of this situa-tion.

The Supermarket TourThroughout the Tour we will be looking at these changes and how their related costs have been incurred.

This “aisle” (or chapter) examines the role of supermarkets in the food system. In par-ticular, it focuses on supermarket ownership, the loss of control in the food system by consumers and producers, and how supermarkets are designed to manipulate consumers into making unplanned, additional, and unnecessary purchases.

The second aisle takes a closer look at the produce section, the global trade in food, and the connections between poison and poverty.

The third aisle, the meat market, examines the ecological and ethical issues associated with the way livestock is raised.

Dry foods, aisle four, looks at the health, environmental, and ethical concerns associated with the widespread use of genetically modifi ed foods and the introduction of other new technologies in the food system.

Aisle fi ve takes a closer look at frozen foods and pseudo foods.

Aisle six recaps with a closer examination of corporate control, including profi les of Nestlé, Kraft, Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, and PespsiCo Inc.

But fi rst, we examine in greater detail one of the main ways that we negotiate the food system – shopping at the supermarket.

Outside the Store EntranceWho’s the Boss?Take a few moments outside the supermarket to review where you are shopping. Who owns the store? What other stores do they own? Where do they operate?

In most cities, there appear to be several choices about where to do your shopping. This choice, however, is largely an illusion. In Canada, there are hundreds of thousands of producers and millions of consumers. Between these two groups, however, there are surprisingly few intermediaries – only a handful of food processors, manufacturers, and retailers. Whether you are shopping at “no frills,” Fortinos, or Your Independent Grocer, for instance, you are shopping at a store owned by Loblaws, a division of George Weston


Ltd., a company that makes $29 billion annually in sales.4 With revenues going to a single corporation, consumer choice is more limited than it may initially appear. But this was not always the case.

Largely unknown until the 1920s, supermarkets have come to dominate food sales in Canada to such an extent that today we buy 80% of our food from them.5 It is a highly centralized marketplace, where fi ve food retailers – Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro, Canada Safeway, and A&P – have controlled the sector for decades. In the late 1990s these fi ve retailers accounted for 60% of national grocery sales.6 As a result, the food retailing sector is considered one of the most centralized in Canadian industry.7

The popularity of these stores parallels a number of trends in society: increased urban-ization, more women in the workplace, a more car-centered lifestyle, and fewer people directly involved in their own food production. Canadians have less time to prepare food and are therefore more willing to pay for processed foods made by familiar companies. Supermarkets carry aisle after aisle of familiar brands in stores that generally exceed 15,000 square feet. These stores offer a wide range of products, which, in addition to food, includes household goods, photo development, drugstore items, take-out food, and fi nancial services, among others. It is estimated that non-food sales account for 25-40% of overall sales in some stores.8

Operating on a large scale allows chains to take advantage of economies of scale by buying wholesale, by warehousing food and other retail goods, and by running national advertising campaigns.9 And over the past few decades there has been a consolidation of manufacturers, processors, and distributors in Canada. This concentration can put not only consumers at a disadvantage (from monopoly seller power), but manufacturers and producers, as well (from monopsony buying power).10 Research from the Canadian Com-petition Bureau suggests that profi ts in both the retailing and manufacturing sectors have gone up in recent years.11 Therefore, while these intermediaries enjoy relatively stable profi t margins, consumers and producers must deal with volatile commodity and food prices.12

* In 2005, this sector became even more centralized when Metro bought A&P. There is little information onthe sector following this merger, so the Tour deals with Metro and A&P separately.

Vertical IntegrationLack of diversity in the food system extends beyond grocery store ownership. There are surprisingly few companies producing the myriad products that line grocery store shelves. Many of these transnational corporations are “vertically integrated,” a structure in which a company control several levels of production. In the food system, this can include food production, the sale of farm implements and inputs (tractors, seeds, fertilizer, etc.), processing, distribution, marketing, and sales.13 The end result is that a few companies dominate the entire food system, a condition known as “oligopoly.” There is, therefore, the perception of consumer choice, without any of the benefi ts of true competition. Later on in the Tour, we examine in greater detail the companies that make up this oligopoly (see Aisle 6).


Inside the Supermarket EntranceConsumer ManipulationIt’s time to enter the store, feast your eyes on the abundance, listen to the Muzak…and pause to consider the environment you have just walked into.

As soon as you enter a supermarket, you are being manipulated.

After all, this is not a neutral space: it is designed to make it easy for you to spend money. Supermarkets are set up to move customers through the store in such a way as to expose them to as many products as possible. And a great deal of research is invested in examin-ing and manipulating consumer habits. If you’ve ever wondered how on earth you spent so much money on groceries when you only meant to buy a few items, here’s why: the following notable tricks of the trade are all designed to make you spend more money than you intended.

The LureWhy do you choose one supermarket over another? Many supermarkets go beyond low food prices to attract customers. Some strategies include:

EntrancesHow many entrances are there to your supermarket? Many stores have only one entrance so they can control where the consumer starts shopping. Once inside, you’ll likely fi nd specialty items near the store entrances. Plants, wines, gourmet food, and candy are often placed there, in the hopes that you will make an impulse buy.

• Promoting and rewarding customer loyalty with programs suchas Air Miles, Club points, and “free” groceries.

• One-stop shopping: This is especially characteristic of “hy-permarkets” such as Costco, but it is becoming increasinglypopular with other supermarkets. By making more productsavailable, supermarkets can eradicate smaller competitors andlure more consumers. Such stores sell a variety of non-fooditems, including clothing, prescription drugs, gasoline, banking,and fi lm processing.

“From the freshest produce, to toys and children’s wear, expansive Super-stores provide the ultimate in one-stop shopping.”– Loblaw Companies14

*This refers to the largest supermarkets, which are 150,000 square feet or more.


This trend is perhaps most notable in the produce section. No one likes their bananas bruised or their strawberries smushed, so it makes sense to buy produce at the end of a shopping trip, right? Why then are these items almost always displayed at the front of the store?

Produce is perishable, so supermarkets want to move it quickly. Consumers, however, tend to spend more money at the beginning of their shopping trip than at the end, and consequently produce sales are markedly higher when fresh fruits and vegetables are located in the fi rst aisle.

It might be nice, instead to have the milk, butter or bread near the door – those items that you most likely stepped into the store to purchase. Chances are, however, that staple items are strategically spread throughout your supermarket to encourage you to walk through the entire store, and in the process to buy more than you had originally planned.

Most consumers are right-handed and are therefore inclined to move in a right-handed direction, according to Design Forum. A good way to increase sales would therefore be to “put the store’s most frequently visited department furthest from the entrance and then build a right hand loop pattern that leads to it naturally, but passes through areas of specials and high-profi t merchandise.”15

Shopping CartsExtra large and deep shopping carts give the illusion that using the whole cart for a few items is a waste, thus encouraging the customer to purchase more items. Stores have also introduced junior shopping carts, giving children the opportunity to walk around and shop with their parents for school snacks or cereals. Stores further encourage these little consumers by placing products designed for children on shelves at their eye level.

Music or Muzak The entire supermarket is arranged to encourage you to spend more money: this includes the background music being played while you shop. Muzak Holdings LLC is the most successful company to market bland ambient music to companies. And they know that “sixty-six per cent of all buying decisions are made after the consumer enters the super-market,”16 which presents a unique marketing opportunity. Muzak’s website tells business owners:

Put simply, you have a tremendous opportunity to describe products or services to people who had no interest in them before they walked through your door. Muzak’s in-store mar-keting allows you to speak to your target audience subtly, yet convincingly. Blended seamlessly with appropriate music, our customized messages have been proven to increase sales.17


Music programmers choose popular tunes and analyze them according to beats per minute, style, chart position, emotional content, political content, and the age group to which a track will appeal.18 They then modify the songs by removing extreme dynamics, sudden key changes, and any other feature that might momentarily distract the listener. The new tracks are then played in a sequence that is intended to have a calculated effect on the mood of the listener.19 Designed to reduce stress, improve morale, and delay fa-tigue, muzak is not meant to catch the attention of the consumer. Rather, it is a subliminal anaesthetic made to relax the consumer and invite him or her to shop longer. This type of ambient music is so ubiquitous that muzak has come to be used as the general term for bland background music.20

Product PlacementMarketing strategies also come into play with product placement. Products placed at eye level tend to sell better than similar products placed higher or lower. Most people don’t even look at a product that is 40 cm (16 in.) or less from the fl oor.21 Competition for shelf space is therefore fi erce.

Thousands of new products fi ght to get onto supermarket shelves each year, so if you do see a new product, it’s likely that the manufacturer had to pay to get it there. Retailers don’t want to risk replacing a tried-and-true product with one new to the market.22 Ap-proximately 80% of new grocery products fail, so retailers protect themselves by providing shelf space in exchange for discounts, favourable payment terms, and a guarantee that the manufacturer will heavily advertise their product.23

“Slotting fees” are the cash payments that manufacturers pay to get their products on grocery store shelves. These can often be upwards of $30,000 per brand for a space on a grocery chains’ shelf.24 This practice only adds to the oligopoly of large corporations in grocery stores, as it is diffi cult for smaller manufacturers to pay these fees.

Furthermore, since the eye is trained to move from left to right, the more expensive prod-ucts are placed to the right of less expensive ones. The eye is more likely to stop at the right side of a shelf, resulting in increased sales for those products. And by encouraging consumers to scan the shelves looking for the product they intended to buy, it forces them to look through all the varieties, which increases the likelihood of impulse purchases.25

Stores also employ a “boutiquing” technique, where products like barbecue sauce are placed next to the meat section, or bread is found at the deli counter. More profi table items will typically be placed around staple items. End-of-aisle displays are also consid-ered prime selling locations, because consumers pass by them more frequently than they do items placed in the middle of an aisle. All these sale techniques are designed to en-courage you to impulse buy.


Advertising and PackagingConsumers used to choose food by the way it looked, smelled, tasted, and felt; however, with the introduction of industrial or processed foods, these senses are deceived.26 In-creasingly, North American consumers “eat with their eyes” and choose foods based on size and colour, rather than fl avour.27 Consequently, the dominant values in the North American food system have become cost, convenience, and appearance.28 And brands play a central role in this trend. A signifi cant part of your grocery bill includes the money spent by manufacturers on advertising and packaging. Below is the amount spent on ad-vertising in 2006 by a few of the world’s largest food manufacturers:

As a result, we currently pay more for advertizing and packaging than we pay farmers to grow food.30 And this is changing the way we shop. A typical supermarket carries over 45, 000 products.31 The decision to impulse buy usually takes about seven seconds, so eye-catching packaging plays an important role in food sales.32

AlternativesIf you are uncomfortable with the idea of being manipulated by the corporate food system, here are some practical suggestions for reducing its infl uence on you:

• Nestlé $2.1 billion US• PepsiCo $1.53 billion US• Kraft Foods $1.513 billion US29

Stick to a list

The best way to avoid impulse buying is to make a shopping list, and stick to it!

Step into smaller shops

Small shops and specialty stores generally cannot afford the strategies used by super-markets to boost sales. As a result, they are much more straightforward and customer-ori-ented, and tend to be more community-based.

Join a food co-op

There is likely a food co-operative in your area. A co-operative is an independent asso-ciation made up of people who want to achieve a common goal through a democratically controlled enterprise. All members of a co-op have a say in how the organization is run, so you are not reduced to being a nameless consumer. Buying from food co-ops usually also means that you are supporting smaller, local enterprises and sometimes organic food businesses.


Endnotes1. Brewster Kneen, From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System (Toronto: NC Press Limited, 1989), 11.2. Gail Feenstra, “Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the fi eld,” Agriculture and Human Values 19 (2002):100.3. Philip White, The Supermarket Tour: A Handbook for Education and Action (Toronto: OPIRG, 1990), 1-2.4. Loblaw Companies Ltd., 2007 Annual Report, <http://loblaw.ca/en/inv_ar.html> (12 June 2008).5. M. Zafi riou, Food Retailing in Canada: Trends, Dynamics and Consequences, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, May 2005, <http://www.

pecc.org/food/papers/2005-2006/Canada/food-retailing-in-canada.pdf (30 May 2008), 2.6. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Components of the Agriculture and Agri-food System: Food Distribution (Retail, Wholesale,

and Foodservice), 28 March 2008, <http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display affi cher.do?id=1205781159471&lang=e> (8 June 2008); Jean-François Wen, Market Power in Grocery Retailing: Assessing the Evidence for Canada, Competition Bureau Canada, 25 September 2001, <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/pics/ct/wen_e.pdf> (30 May, 2008), 3.

7. Anthony Winson, The Intimate Commodity: Food and the Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex in Canada (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1993), 112.

8. Zafi riou, “Food Retailing in Canada: Trends, Dynamics and Consequences,” 12.9. Wen, “Market Power in Grocery Retailing: Assessing the Evidence for Canada,” 3.10. Ibid., 611. Ibid., 1712. Ibid.13. Prairie Public, “Vertical Integration: Farmers producing food rather than just commodities,” <http://archive.prairiepublic.org/features/

changing/presentvertical.htm> (29 January 2009).14. Loblaw Companies, Annual Report, 1994, 18.15. Lee Carpenter, “Eight Sure Ways to Drive Customers Out of Your Store,” Retail Merchandising 39, 10 (October 1987): 3.16. Muzak, Muzak is Messaging, 1999, <http://www.muzak.com> (19 June 2000).17. Ibid.18. Rick Poynor, “Muzak,” 2wice Magazine 2, 2(Winter 1997).19. Simon Jones and Thomas Schumacher, “Muzak: On Functional Music and Power,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication (June

1992): 156-169.20. David Owen, “The Soundtrack of Your Life,” The New Yorker 10 April 2006.21. Tom Eklor, “Triggering More Sales Through POP” Progressive Grocer 67, 9 (September 1988): 1922. Steve Brearton, “Grocery Store Confi dential” Toronto Life Magazine (September 1997): 1523. Oligopoly Watch, Slotting Fees and Oligopolies, 8 May 2003, <http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2003/05/08.html> (17 June 2008).24. Ibid.25. Pat Kendall, “Supermarket Psychology 101,” Colorado State University Extension, 7 April 2006, <http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/

columnnn/nn060407.html> (17 July 2008)26. Ann Vileisis, Kitchen Literacy: How We Lost Knowledge of Where Food Comes From and Why We Need to Get It Back (Washington:

Island Press/Shearwater Books, 2008), 87.27. Ibid., 93.28. John Ikerd, Small Farms are Real Farms: Sustaining People through Agriculture (Austin: Acres U.S.A., 2008.), 148.29. Advertising Age, 21st Annual Global Marketers, Crain Communications, 2007, <http://adage.com/dataventer/article_id=122068> (12

June 2008).30. Ikerd, “Small Farms are Real Farms,” 8.31. Food Marketing Institute, Frequently Asked Questions on the Retailing Industry, 2008, <http://fmi.org/facts_fi gs/?fuseaction=faq> (12

June 2008).32. Thomas Pigeon, Jean Pierre Lacroix, Steve Candib, Ed Shikatani, and Shelley Merchant “Marketplace Packaging Strategies (Special

Report)” Canadian Packaging 50 (November 1997): 13-16.

Aisle 2: Produce 17

Aisle 2: ProducePoison and PovertyIn most supermarkets, as soon as you walk through the door, you enter the produce sec-tion. Wander through it, and pay special attention to where the fruits and vegetables were grown. Is most of the produce imported or local? What sort of information is on labels? How fresh do you think the food is? Do you know what’s in-season? Is there an organics section?

Food Miles: Jet Lagged Fruit?Now more than ever, the food we consume is international: bananas from the Caribbean, tomatoes from Mexico, rice from India, beef from Brazil. No matter what food group you are eating, there’s a good chance that the food was grown thousands of miles away, and a full meal could easily contain food from several different continents.

Despite the centrality of food in all of our lives, most Canadians are vastly removed from the realities of modern food production. The term food miles refers to the distance that food travels to get from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Over the past few decades, food miles have increased dramatically due to the global trade in food commodi-ties. Thanks in large part to an abundance of cheap fuel, the average North American meal is said to travel approximately 2,400 km from fi eld to table.1 These imported foods create more than their own weight in greenhouse gas emissions during transport alone.2

As oil prices rise, however, the way we feed ourselves is becoming increasingly unreli-able. This has been demonstrated by the recent spike in food prices in 2008, which incited riots and civil unrest in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Guinea, Haiti, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Senegal, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.3

There is also concern that we may soon reach peak oil, if we haven’t already. Oil is a fi nite resource, and peak oil refers to the point where we reach maximum global petroleum extraction, after which oil production will begin to decline. This is particularly troubling for food security, as energy derived from fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and natural gas, is required in large quantities at virtually every stage of our food system. It takes 10 kilocalories to produce, package, and deliver one kilocalorie of food to consumers.4 The implications of this imbalance are signifi cant:

At any previous stage in human history, such a poor return on energy investment would have spelled disaster. For any other species, to consistently expend more energy to get its food than it got from the food would soon spell extinction. This only works for us today because we’re spending, very rapidly, this one-time gift of nature that took millions of years to accumu-late.5


Global Agricultural Trade and the WTOThe global trade in food commodities is extremely complex. A plethora of policies, institu-tions, and organizations shape the fl ow of food around the world. Agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and organizations such as the World Bank have encouraged countries worldwide to restructure their agricultural industries for export to the global market. One of the most important and infl uential global institutions is the World Trade Organization (WTO), which came into being in 1995 as a successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This organization oversees trade negotiations at the international level, with the goal of working towards a global free mar-ket where goods fl ow from country to country unimpeded by barriers such as tariffs, taxes, quotas, subsidies, or other impediments to free trade. While the rules of the WTO are supposed to be fair, and decisions are made by consensus, the system implicitly disad-vantages less-developed countries, which individually represent very small portions of the total market, making their economic activity insignifi cant when compared with much larger economies, and thereby reducing their bargaining power.6

It is argued that the shift towards an export economy is fi nancially benefi cial, as it takes advantage of effi ciencies of scale and the practice of comparative advantage.7 These changes have enabled a more abundant, affordable, and stable food supply, giving con-sumers in the developed world access to a greater variety of food year-round. The indus-trialization of agriculture and the liberalization of trade, however, have also led to the loss of local, independent businesses and to the reduction of regulations, known as “non-tariff trade barriers,” that protect consumers and the environment. This has resulted in an international division of labour, lower prices for agricultural goods and natural resources, reduced food security, and the centralization of market power among fewer and fewer corporations.8

This complex global interdependence means that the choices we make about the food we buy affect people all over the world. This section looks at the importance of knowing the conditions under which our food is produced, highlighting the consequences of our food choices to our health, the environment, and labour practices in developing countries.

PesticidesGrocery stores go to great lengths to make the produce on their shelves appear fresh and nutritious. Whenever you sit down to eat, however, you are likely ingesting synthetic chemicals.

Agricultural pesticides are man-made chemicals applied to food crops to kill unwanted insects, plants, fungi, moulds, and rodents. Pesticides indiscriminately kill insects and soil micro-organisms, including those that are benefi cial. Farms are the largest users of pesti-cides in Canada: in 1993 they applied 6,200 tonnes of pesticides to their crops.9

Aisle 2: Produce 19

Post Harvest Treatments: The shiny red apples in your supermarket disguise another toxic secret. Although we expect fruits and vegetables to be fresh and unaltered, pesti-cides are also sometimes applied to food after it leaves the farm to improve its appear-ance or to protect it from bruising and spoiling.10

Waxed and/or shellacked fruits and vegetables include apples, avocados, bell peppers, cantaloupes, cucumbers, eggplant, grapefruit, lemons, limes, melons, nectarines, or-anges, passion fruit, peaches, pineapples, and squash.12 The wax may contain fungicides, bactericides, colouring agents, and ripening inhibitors. Because these waxes are fat-soluble, they can accumulate in our bodies over time.13 The only safe method of removing all the wax is to peel your fruits and vegetables, thus sacrifi cing many of their nutritional value. A mild detergent or non-toxic soap can also remove most of the wax.

Pesticides are present in most non-organic foods, including those that have been directly treated and animal products (cheese, milk, meat, etc.) from animals that have been given feed treated with pesticides.

Why Worry About Pesticides?Pesticides are designed to be toxic. Nevertheless, government and corporate testing agencies assume that pesticide residues are present in such small doses that they will not have any signifi cant effect on human health or the environment. This section explores the limitations of this kind of thinking.

Government StandardsAround the world, over 100,000 synthetic chemicals are now on the market, with hun-dreds of new chemicals being introduced each year.14 At this rate, it is impossible to do the type of long-term testing that is necessary to ensure that all of these chemicals are safe. Toxicity tests are usually done on lab animals over short periods of time, and with chemicals in isolation. These test standards do not take into consideration:

The government assumes that synthetic chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. In many cases, discoveries that certain chemicals have negative effects have been quite accidental. Since governments have adopted these standards of testing, it is not surpris-ing that some pesticides, including DDT and Methyl Bromide, which were fi rst used in the

“By the time an ordinary apple reaches the fresh produce shelf, it has been dipped in fungicide, bathed in chlorine, scrubbed with detergent and polished with wax.”11

• The effects of long-term exposure to a chemical (many chemicals can be stored in body fat for years);

• Different sensitivities and safety standards for children or foetuses. Tests focus on the tolerance of the “average” adult; or

• The effects of pesticides in combination with other chemicals, as we are usually exposed to several chemicals at a time (i.e., from food, water, lawns, air, etc.).


1940s, were later banned.15

Furthermore, government standards vary throughout the world. You may, therefore, be exposed to banned pesticides in Canada when you bite into food from another part of the world! Many countries in the south use extremely dangerous chemicals that are either banned or strictly controlled in most developed countries.16

As we do not know the effects of these chemicals, we are all essentially participating in a large-scale experiment when we eat food, drink water, and breathe air that has been treated with or exposed to pesticides.

An Apple a Day May Not Keep the Doctor AwayA recent study of U.S. produce identifi es the twelve most contaminated and least contami-nated foods on the market:

Source: Environmental Working Group. Complied from USDA and FDA pesticide residue data 2000-2005.17

These rankings are always changing: consult the Environmental Working Group for up-dates at www.ewg.org.

Pesticides can be found lingering in almost any food product, from fruit, to bread, to meat. If you would like to fi nd out what chemicals you may have eaten lately, visit the Environ-mental Working Group Supermarket at www.foodnews.org.

Rank MOST Contaminated

FoodsLEAST Contaminated

Foods1 Peaches Onions2 Apples Avocados3 Sweet Bell Peppers Sweet Corn (frozen)4 Celery Pinapples5 Nectarines Mangos6 Strawberries Sweet Peas (frozen)7 Cherries Asparagus8 Lettuce Kiwi9 Grapes (imported) Bananas

10 Pears Cabbage11 Spinach Broccoli12 Potatoes Eggplant

Aisle 2: Produce 21

Health EffectsThe negative health effects of pesticides have been understood for a long time. Pesti-cides, in particular those that are fat soluble, can bioaccumulate in humans and other animals that are higher up on the food chain.18 As a result, it is believed that all Canadi-ans carry pesticide residues in their bodies.19 Pesticides have been linked to acute and chronic illnesses, including neurological problems, fertility and reproductive problems, brain and lung cancer, and immune system suppression (which creates environmental hypersensitivity).20 Risks from pesticide exposure are especially high for children, who consume more food, water, and air per kilogram of body weight than do adults. Further-more, pesticides have a greater impact on children, because their tissues and organs are still developing and growing.21

Environmental EffectsNearly forty years ago, Rachel Carson famously wrote about the harmful effects of pes-ticides in Silent Spring (1962).22 Pesticides indiscriminately kill insects and soil micro-organisms, including those that are benefi cial, as well as poison songbirds, as Carson alluded to in the title of her landmark book. Pesticides pollute the air, the soil, surface water, and groundwater. Atrazine (a common herbicide), for instance, is commonly found in water samples throughout Ontario.23 When pesticides are used, the natural checks and balances in ecosystems are disrupted. The increased use of artifi cial fertilizers and pes-ticides has resulted in signifi cantly fewer soil organisms and less soil organic matter, and therefore reduced soil fertility.24 The widespread use of pesticides has also been linked to increased pesticide-resistant insects.25 Paradoxically, these practices have created an environment where farmers have come to depend on ever-increasing amounts of artifi cial fertilizers and pesticides.

An Alternate Approach: The Precautionary PrincipleInstead of adopting an innocent-until-proven-guilty attitude to pesticide use, it seems wise to proceed with a greater degree of caution. The precautionary principle is one such approach that seeks to prevent damage, environmental or otherwise, before it occurs, by adopting a more holistic understanding of the effects of human activity. In practice, it reverses the burden of proof, such that those who are advocating a particular action or activity (such as using pesticides) must prove that what they are advocating will not cause harm to the environment, human health, or society, as opposed to the more traditional ap-proach of risk assessment, which seeks to determine “how much harm we can tolerate.”26 The precautionary approach is particularly useful when making decisions about complex systems (such as ecosystems) where there is often a lack of information and uncertainty about cause-and-effect relationships. This uncertainty has historically been misconstrued as evidence of safety.27

Increased pesticide use affects not only the natural environment, but also the people who work with them. The following case study takes a closer look at one of the most sprayed foods, bananas, and how the global trade in this commodity is connected to the plight of farmers, as well as environmental degradation in the south.


Case Study: Bananas* * * At this point, you will lead the participants through the Banana Split exercise (See Ap-pendix). * * *

In Canada, bananas are one of the most commonly eaten fruits. They are available year-round in the same shape, size, and colour. Nearly all of our bananas come from Latin America, and the vast majority of the market is controlled by fi ve large corporations.28 The distance between consumers in the North and the countries where bananas are grown makes it easy to keep us in the dark about the environmental and social impacts of the banana trade.

It’s rare that we connect those perfect yellow bunches of bananas in the supermarket with the plight of poor farmers and workers, yet it is precisely these people who bear most of the costs of the global banana trade.

Bananas are usually grown on huge plots of land with very little biodiversity. Tropical rainforests are naturally incredibly diverse areas; a single hectare of primary tropical forest contains 100 to 250 species of trees alone.29 When these forests are cleared to grow bananas, all of this plant, and the accompanying animal and insect, diversity is lost. Because of the soil and pest problems that arise from monocultured land, farmers rely heavily on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Central American banana plantations apply about 30 kg of active chemicals per hectare per year—more than 10 times the average for intensive agriculture in industrialized countries.30 Furthermore, for each ton of bananas exported from Latin America, three tons of waste is created in the forms of excess pesti-cides, pesticide containers, rejected fruit, tree stems, leaves, and plastic bags. The bags, infused with pesticides, are used to prevent rotting and to protect bananas from insects. Therefore, although bananas are on the least contaminated list (see Table X), it is due to their thick skin, rather than the conditions under which they are grown.

The workers in these fi elds are exposed to these chemicals daily and are often provided with insuffi cient safety training and protection. For instance, one of the world’s largest banana companies, Chiquita Brands International Inc., uses bags fi lled with the pesticide chlorpyrifos to protect bananas from rust thrips.31 This pesticide can cause nausea, lung congestion, chest pain, dizziness, and, at high exposure levels, respiratory paralysis and death.32 It is not only the plantation workers who are affected by the widespread use of pesticides on banana plantations, but also those who live nearby and are exposed to pes-ticides that leech into the soil and water.33

Despite these dangerous working conditions, plantation workers are often paid very low wages. The cost of the chemicals used in the growing process is signifi cantly higher than the cost of wages, yet because those prices are fi xed, it is the wages that often get reduced when companies make cutbacks. This trend is referred to as the cost-price squeeze, whereby the cost of farm inputs rises more quickly than does the price of food commodities. So when the price of bananas drops, it is the workers who pay the price. Banana corporations, for instance, often hire temporary workers to avoid paying them minimum wage or provide other legislated benefi ts (such as overtime).34 These compa-

Aisle 2: Produce 23

nies have also “frequently been involved in efforts to undermine the right of workers to unionize.”35

Produce in Canada - Migrant WorkersIt is not only workers in foreign countries, however, who are affected by the way that fruit and vegetables are grown. Right here in Canada, the greenhouse industry is guilty of many of the same injustices as those that occur in the global south.

Since the mid-1960s, seasonal agricultural workers have been working in Canada. Typi-cally from Mexico and the Caribbean, their numbers reached nearly 20,000 in 2004.36 Migrant workers spend, on average, 17 to 20 weeks in Canada, working predominantly in fruit, vegetable, fl ower, tobacco, and other labour-intensive farming operations.37 Migrant workers tend to be paid poorly for long hours of physically demanding work.38 Seasonal workers are exempt from the Ontario Employment Standards Act, which regulates maxi-mum hours of work, daily and weekly rest periods, statutory holidays, and overtime pay.39 These employment arrangements have also been criticised, because, through the imposi-tion of farm rules, employers can exercise considerable control over the movements of their workers, by barring them, for example, from leaving the farm or restricting the entry of visitors.40 Workers are usually only able to work on one farm, thus giving their employer signifi cant control over both their mobility and their working conditions.41 As of November 2008, however, migrant workers in Ontario won the right to collectively bargain and union-ize, a shift that may result in changes in their working conditions.42

Revisioning the Global Trade in Food: Food SovereigntyThe term “food sovereignty” was coined by the Via Campesina movement and refers to “the right of peoples, countries and state unions to defi ne their agricultural and food policy.”43 The seven principles of food sovereignty are:

• Food as a basic human right - Everyone must have access to safe, nu-tritious, and culturally appropriate food in suffi cient quantity and quality to sustain a healthy life with full human dignity.

• Agrarian reform - Land should be owned and controlled by those who work it, and territories should be returned to indigenous peoples

• Protecting natural resources - Land, water, seeds, livestock, and other agricultural resources should be managed in a sustainable way.

• Reorganizing food trade - Food is fi rst and foremost a source of nutrition and only secondarily an item of trade. National agricultural policies must pri-oritize production for domestic consumption and food self-suffi ciency. Food imports must not displace local production or depress prices.

• Ending the globalization of hunger - The control exercised by transnation-al corporations over agricultural policies and international organizations such as the WTO, World Bank, and IMF should be strictly controlled, and specula-tive capital should be taxed and regulated.

• Social peace - Food should not be used as weapon of oppression, displace-ment, or racism.

• Democratic control - Small-scale producers, farmers, and rural women should have direct input in formulating agricultural policies at all levels.44


The concept of food sovereignty goes beyond that of food security. Whereas food security strives to supply an adequate amount of food to all people, food sovereignty also seeks to address people’s right to determine, individually and collectively, what and how they eat, where their food comes from, and how it is grown. Therefore, although food aid may tem-porarily provide food security, it can depress food prices, diminishing a community’s ability to feed itself and thus erode food sovereignty.45 Food sovereignty takes a more holistic approach to the well being of the food system and the people who use it

For more information about Via Campesina, visit: http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/.

AlternativesAt this stage, you may feel overwhelmed by the many issues connected to the food you eat. Here is a word of advice — start small. Instead of trying to change your entire lifestyle, or ignoring the information here because the issues seem so big, make small changes, one step at a time. Be realistic about what you can handle for now, and stick with that decision for a while. Over time, as these changes become a part of your every-day lifestyle, they will not seem so overwhelming.

Here are some steps you can take to reduce your exposure to pesticides and to foods grown under exploitative working conditions.

Buy organic produce

In Canada, organic products are certifi ed by independent, third-party agencies. Although voluntary organic regulations have been in place in Canada for over a decade, Canada’s Organic Products Regulations became law on June 30, 2009. The new standards outline mandatory production and labelling regulations, including that:

Although buying organic food will reduce your exposure to pesticides, it does not neces-sarily address equity issues in the food system – see Aisle 3.

For more information on Canada’s new standards, go to: http://www.cog.ca/standards.htm.

• In organic operations the following products are banned: any genetically engineered seeds, materials and products; synthetic pesticides; artifi cial fertilizers or composted plant and animal material that contains a prohibited substance; sewage sludge; and synthetic growth regulators.

• Only products that have at least 95% organic content are al-lowed to be advertised as organic or any other similar labels or abbreviations. Products with less than 95% organic con-tent but over 70% organic content must indicate the percent-age of their ingredients that are organic.46

Aisle 2: Produce 25

Grow your own produce

If you have access to a plot of land, whether it’s your backyard or a community garden, try growing your own organic produce. It’s a good idea to test the soils for toxins beforehand. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs maintains a list of accredited soil testing laboratories in Ontario at http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/resource/soillabs.htm.

Buy locally

Buying locally means that pesticides banned in Canada have never been sprayed on your produce. Also, local foods tend to use less preserving agents or fungicides, since they don’t have as far to get to the consumer. Buying locally can also allow you to get to know the people that grew your food and ask them directly about the practices they use on their farms.

Buy in season

In the same way, buying foods that are in season reduces the need for preservative chemicals. You can freeze or preserve fruits for use over the winter and get creative with the food that is available in your region.

Join a CSA

Community Supported or Shared Agriculture (CSA) is a direct marketing strategy where consumers enter into a contract with farmers at the beginning of the growing season to buy a share of the harvest. In practice, subscribers receive a box of farm-grown vegeta-bles every week of the growing season. CSA farmers tend to be good stewards and prac-tice ecologically sensitive farming, often using organic or biodynamic practices. Through these arrangements, CSA members get access to fresh, trustworthy food that usually costs less than it would at the grocery store, while gaining the opportunity to participate more intimately in the production of their food through farm visits and workdays, and by developing a relationship with their farmer.47 Farmers benefi t by getting much-needed capital in the spring when their expenses tend to be higher.48

See the Ontario CSA Directory http://csafarms.ca/ or the list of Canadian CSAs provided by the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association at http://www.biodynamics.com/csacanada to fi nd a CSA in your area.

Peel your fruits and vegetables

If you can’t make the switch to organic, you can peel your produce (sacrifi cing some nutrients) to avoid the extra chemicals, or at least wash produce thoroughly. Some people recommend washing fruits and vegetables in a mild solution of dish detergent and water or in commercial fruit and vegetable cleaners.


Eat fewer pesticides

If you’re eating conventionally produced fruits and vegetables, try to eat less of those that are highly contaminated. Especially if you are pregnant, and cannot switch to organic food, it is important to reduce your consumption of the more contaminated foods.

Buy fairtrade products

Fairtrade is an alternative approach to trade that, through independent third-party certi-fi cation, guarantees that producers are paid a fair price for their goods. This price cov-ers the cost of sustainable production and decent working conditions for hired labour.49 Thousands of fairtrade products are now available for sale in Canada, including tea, coffee, chocolate, fresh fruit, nuts, and even non-food products, such as fl owers, plants, sports balls, and seed cotton.50 And in addition to the fairtrade price, there is a Fairtrade Premium that producers within farmers’ organizations or workers on a plantation decide democratically how to spend.

For more information on fair trade products sold in Canada, go to: http://transfair.ca/ (TransFair Canada is a member of the Fairtrade Labelling Organization International).

This money goes into a communal fund for workers and farm-ers to use to improve their social, economic and environmen-tal conditions...The premium is invested in education and healthcare, farm improvements to increase yield and quality, or processing facilities to increase income.51

Aisle 2: Produce 27

Endnotes1. David Suzuki Foundation, Food That Needs a Passport, David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge, 2004, <http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Nature-

Challenge/newsletters/oct2004_buylocal/page3.asp> (25 June 2008).2. Marc Xuereb, “And Miles to Go Before I Eat: Home-Grown Hurrah,” Alternatives 32, 3(2006): 20. 3. International Fund for Agricultural Development, High food prices: Impact and recommendations, 2008, <http://www.ifad.org/opera-

tions/food/ceb.htm> (25 January 2009). 4. Mario Giampietro and David Pimentel, The Tightening Confl ict: Population, Energy Use, and the Ecology of Agriculture, 1993,

<http://www.npg.org/forum_series/tightening_confl ict.htm> (20 May 2008).5. Richard Heinberg, “The Green Devolution: Food, energy, and the fate of industrial agriculture,” Briarpatch 36, 1 (February 2007): 14. 6. Richard Steinberg, “In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO,” International

Organization (April 2002): 339-374.7. Philip McMichael, “Global Food Politics,” in Hungry for Profi t: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food and the Environment eds. Fred

Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick H. Buttle, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000), 131.8. Robert Schaeffer, “The Free Trade Agreements: Their Impact on Agriculture and the Environment,” in Hungry for Profi t: The Agribusiness

Threat to Farmers, Food and the Environment eds. Fred Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick H. Buttle, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000), 259; Brewster Kneen, From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System (Toronto: NC Press Limited, 1989); McMichael, “Global Food Politics,” 127.

9. Government of Canada, The State of Canada’s Environment (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1996), 16-15.10. Environmental Working Group, Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, 2006, <http://www.foodnews.org/> (20 May 2006).11. Katherine Davies, Pesticides and Your Child: An Overview of Exposures and Risks, (Ottawa: Campaign for Pesticide Reduction, 1998),

14.12. Pollution Probe, Additive Alert! What Have They Done to our Food? (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1994), 99.13. Philip White, The Supermarket Tour: A Handbook for Education and Action (Toronto: OPIRG, 1990), 17. 14. Theo Colborn, Dianne Dunamoski and John Peterson Myers, “Preface to Paperback Edition,” Our Stolen Future (New York:

Plume,1997), xvi.15. Environmental Protection Agency, The Phaseout of Methyl Bromide, 2008, <http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/mbr/> (10 July 2008).16. Richard Steinberg, “In the Shadow of Law or Power?”17. Environmental Working Group.Complied from USDA and FDA pesticide residue data 2000-2005.18. Sylvia Mader, Bioaccumulation & Biomagnifi cation, 2002, <http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/102/2bioma95.html> (10 August 2009).19. David R. Boyd, The Food We Eat, David Suzuki Foundation, 2006, <http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Publications/Food_we_eat.asp> (10

August 2009): 1.20. Sierra Club of Canada, Pesticide Factsheet: The Truth about Pesticides, <http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/health- environ-

ment/pesticides/pesticide- truth.html> (13March 2006); City of Toronto, Pesticides and Human Effects - Backgrounder, 2002, <http://www.toronto.ca/health/pesticides/health_effects.htm> (10 August 2009).

21. Davies, “Pesticides and Your Child,” 14.22. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (New York: Mariner Books, 1962).23. Government of Canada, The State of Canada’s Environment, 11-17. 24. Janne Bengtsson, Johan Ahnström, and Ann-Christin Weibull, “The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a

meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Ecology 42(2005): 261–262.25. Sierra Club of Canada, “Pesticide Factsheet: The Truth about Pesticides.”26. Carolyn Raffensperger, Ted Schettler and Nancy Myers, “Precaution: Belief, Regulatory System,and Overarching Principle,” International

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 6, 4 (2000): 267; Claudia Saladin, “Precautionary Principle in International Law,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 6, 4 (2000): 275.

27. Joe Thornton, “Beyond Risk: An Ecological Paradigm to Prevent Global Chemical Pollution,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 6, 4 (2000): 326.

28. Andrew Wheat, “Toxic Bananas,” Multinational Monitor 17 (September 1996): 11.29. George Cox, Conservation Ecology: Biosphere and Biosurvival (Dubuque, Iowa: William C Brown Pub, 1993), 6130. David Ransom, “Bananas—The Facts” New Internationalist (October 1999): 18.31. Michael Gallagher, Cameron McWhirter and David Wells, “Chiquita Secrets Revealed,” Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998.32. John Wilson and Tsunehiro Otsuki. To Spray or not to Spray? Pesticides, Bananas and Food Safety, World Bank Policy Research

Working Paper No. 2805, 2002 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=636088> (25 August 2009).33. World Health Organization, Childhood Pesticide Poisoning: Information for advocacy and action, 2004, <http://www.who.int/ceh/publica-

tions/pestipoison/en/> (16 July 2007).34. Douglas L. Murray and Laura T. Raynolds, “Alternative trade in bananas: Obstacles and opportunities for progressive social change in

the global economy,” Agriculture and Human Values 17 (2000): 66.35. Ibid.36. Maxwell Brem, Migrant workers in Canada: A review of the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, 2006, The North-South

Institute, <http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/pdf/MigrantWorkers_Eng_Web.pdf> (15 February 2009): 2.37. Ibid.38. Kerry L. Preibisch, “Local Produce, Foreign Labor: Labor Mobility Programs and Global Trade Competitiveness in Canada,” Rural

Sociology 72, 3 (2007): 431, 434. 39. Brem, “Migrant workers in Canada: A review of the Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program,” 9. 40. Ibid, 10.41. Preibisch, “Local Produce, Foreign Labor: Labor Mobility Programs and Global Trade Competitiveness in Canada,” 432.42. Justicia for Migrant Workers, Press Release, 2008, <http://www.justicia4migrantworkers.org/J4MWPRUnionize.pdf> (23 April 2009).43. Via Campesina, Via Campesina’s Seven Principles of Food Sovereignty, 2005, Family Farm Defenders, <http://www.familyfarmdefend-

ers.org/pmwiki.php/FoodSover-eignty/ViaCampesinasSevenPrinciplesOf FoodSovereignty> (5 June 2008).44. Ibid.45. Peter Rosset, “Food Sovereignty: Global Rallying Cry of Farmer Movements,” Food First Backgrounder 9, 4 (Fall 2003) <http://www.

foodfi rst.org/en/node/47> (25 August 2009).46. CBC News, “Canada-wide organic food standards kick in,” (June 30, 2009) <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/sto-


ry/2009/06/30/organic-certifi cation-canada536.html> (15 July 2009).47. Wayne Roberts and Susan Brandum, Get a Life! How to make a good buck, dance around the dinosaurs and save the world while

you’re at it (Toronto: Get a Life Publishing House, 1995), 262.48. Soil Association, A Share in Harvest: A Feasibility study for Community Supported Agriculture, a participatory approach towards sustain-

able agriculture in England, 2001, <http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Resources/research.html> (7 July 2007): 14.49. Fairtrade Labelling Organization International, What is Fairtrade? 2009, <http://www.fairtrade.net/what_is_fairtrade.html> (21 August

2009).50. Ibid.51. Ibid.


Aisle 3: The Meat MarketWhat’s Your Beef?Passing through the countryside, you have perhaps caught glimpses of picturesque farm scenes: cows lazily grazing in fi elds, carefree chickens walking around and pecking at the ground for food, or pigs happily eating from a trough in a large pen. These scenes are unfortunately exceptions to the norm.

Livestock farming has changed dramatically in the last few decades. With the rising popularity of meat, “factory farms,” also known as concentrated animal feeding opera-tions (CAFOs), have become the predominant way to raise livestock. Unlike traditional mixed farms, which might raise a few hundred animals at any given time, factory farms are large-scale intensive livestock operations. Each farm can house thousands of hogs, fowl, or cattle. Some egg farms in Canada, for instance, have fl ocks of more than 400,000 hens. The average, however, is a much smaller, although still astounding, 18,000 hens.1

Factory farming treats animals as commodities, an approach that has proven to be very fi nancially successful. The consequences of this shift in livestock husbandry, however, have largely been hidden from the public. This Aisle of the Supermarket Tour explores the three main concerns with modern-day factory farming: animal welfare, environmental, impacts and the effects on human health.

Animal AbuseCrowdingImagine being stuck in a crowded elevator, where everyone is packed in so closely that you’re all touching. Imagine living in that elevator for your whole life. In the name of effi ciency, factory farms attempt to cram in as many animals as possible. Animals are often confi ned to a space with barely enough room to take a few steps in any direction. In factory farms, four laying hens, for instance, will typically share a cage that measures 16 inches by 18 inches.2 Without suffi cient room to walk or stretch their wings, hens can become hysterical and violent. The suffering caused by crowding reduces egg production, but it still remains the most profi table way to produce eggs as “chickens are cheap [and] cages are expensive.”3

Broiler chickens (meat chickens) fare only slightly better. In Canada, they are not normally caged, although they do still experience crowding.4 The typical broiler shed is approxi-mately 150 meters long and 14 meters wide, and will often hold more than 30,000 chick-ens. This gives each chicken about the area of a sheet of standard letter paper.

Aisle 3:The Meat Market 31

Sick AnimalsIIn the past, livestock was raised to produce a wide variety of products, including eggs, fi bre, milk, meat, and/or manure. Animals were usually dual-purpose, meaning that they were raised for more than one thing, such as chickens being raised for eggs and meat. Animals would have also been selectively bred for a variety of valuable characteristics, such as high fertility, good maternal qualities, longevity, and adaptability to harsh condi-tions or poor-quality feeds.6 This range of sought-after attributes meant that there was a great deal of diversity in terms of the number of species that existed, as well as within breeds of livestock.

With the rise of factory farming, however, the main attributes sought in livestock have become much narrower. Productivity and docility (or, in other words, productivity under stressful living conditions) have become valued beyond any other characteristics. The most extreme situation is among dairy cattle, where 95% are Holsteins, 80% of which are sired by 20 bulls or their sons.7 As a result of our singular focus on a very narrow range of livestock characteristics, half of the breeds that existed in Europe at the turn of the cen-tury are now extinct.8

The way in which factory-farmed animals are raised increases farm profi tability, but at a great cost to the animals’ welfare. Factory-farmed animals live in overcrowded conditions, without access to the outdoors or the ability to exercise or express natural behaviour, such as foraging or scratching for grain, thus signifi cantly reducing their quality of life and making them prone to illness. Animals are packed in tightly and given cheap feed, which contains low levels of antibiotics to prevent disease outbreaks. Here are some conse-quences of the ways that factory farmed animals are raised:

• Factory-farmed animals are bred to weigh as much as possible. Mod-ern broiler chickens have been bred to grow twice as fast and twice as large as their ancestors. As a result, as many as 20% of the broiler chickens develop lameness during their short lifetimes.9

• In North America, 99% of turkeys are a single breed, the Broad-Breast-ed White.10 They are known for growing large, quickly. When they reach maturity, they can no longer fl y, forage, or mate, because they are so large11 As a result, virtually all turkeys must be artifi cially inseminat-ed.12

• In pig barns, the air is laden with dust and noxious gases from the animals’ urine and feces. As a result, three-quarters of pigs have pneu-monia when they are slaughtered. Similarly, about 60 per cent of farm workers in these environments experience breathing problems.13


Avian FluIn 2005, scientists warned governments and global leaders of the possibility that the recently re-emerged strain of avian infl uenza, or bird fl u, had the potential to develop into a pandemic. Originally, it was thought that the virus was spread through the contact of migratory birds with free-range poultry. A report published by a United Nations task force showed, however, that the root cause of the epidemic was not wild birds, but rather “rural poultry practices, the movement of domestic poultry, and farming methods which crowd huge numbers of animals into small spaces.”14 While the disease can be carried by wild birds, the possibility of transmission this way is very low. In factory farms, the birds are much less resistant to infection because of their weak immune systems. And since the birds are genetically similar, the virus can spread more easily, thus allowing it to mutate more quickly into a virulent form.15 The initial suspicion that small, backyard poultry farms were the source of the problem has had devastating effects on small-scale farmers. Since the outbreak, many countries have heavily restricted or banned raising poultry outdoors. In many cases, these small backyard operations are vitally important to the food security and income of rural farmers in poor countries.16

To the Slaughter HouseSome animals live well earlier on in their lives, grazing and roaming freely on small farms, yet few escape the stress of being transported to a central slaughterhouse. This is in part because of the centralization of the food system. In Canada, for instance, there are 15,000 cow-calf operations that, for the most part, raise their animals on pasture. About 70% of these animals (two-and-a-half million cows) when mature are sold to 400 feedlots in Alberta, where they are grain-fi nished.17 The feeders in turn sell the fi nished cattle to a dozen or so meat-packing plants.18 As a result, animals are born across the country and are then transported long distances to centralized feedlots and abattoirs. This is often done under crowded conditions, resulting in the injury and death of millions of animals each year from heat stress or extreme cold.19 And while millions of poultry die every year during transport (or nearly 50,000 every week), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) only investigates those incidents where over one percent of a truckload of animals being transported dies.20

At the Slaughter HouseOnce at the abattoir, the animals’ stress continues. Most animals are stunned uncon-scious before being killed while hanging from a conveyor belt. Sometimes, however, animals are not successfully rendered unconscious and are left hanging in pain, panicking until fi nally being killed. Concerns, therefore, have been raised about the humane treat-ment of animals in these facilities. In 2002-2003, an audit by Temple Grandin, a professor of livestock behaviour and facility design at Colorado State University, found that nearly half of the sixteen Canadian plants that were inspected failed for the overuse of electric prods, the hanging of conscious cattle, and other painful conditions caused to the ani-mals.21


You Are What They Eat Antibiotics and HormonesDue to the close contact that farm animals have with one another, it is very easy for dis-ease to spread, especially in extremely crowded environments where animals’ immune systems are already weakened. To help combat the risk of disease, farmers frequently give animals feed laced with antibiotics. Antibiotics, however, are not just used to fi ght bacteria and disease: most antibiotics are administered to animals for the sole purpose of promoting growth. Every year, U.S. farmers feed livestock 25 million pounds of antibi-otics.22 Cattle used for beef, dairy, or veal are given hormones to speed up their growth, increase milk production, and improve the selling weight of each animal. The most com-monly administered growth hormone is recombinant bovine somatotraphin, or rBST. It is banned in Europe and Canada, but it is used in 17.2% of dairy cows in the U.S.23

While most antibiotics given to animals are eliminated through urine or feces, it is possible for some of the drug to remain in animal products. This can cause problems for people who are allergic or hypersensitive to these drugs.

A more urgent problem, however, is that bacteria can grow resistant to antibiotics. The antibiotics you get from the doctor are often the same ones found in animal feed. Bacteria are known for their amazing ability to adapt and become resistant to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance has already developed to a signifi cant degree in Campylobacter and Salmonel-la bacteria.24 For this reason, the administration of antibiotics to animals for growth promo-tion is banned in Europe, but is still permitted in the U.S. and Canada. Despite fears of antibiotic resistance, we are currently feeding eight times more antibiotics to animals than to people who are unwell.25

Environmental Impact

Animal WasteWith tens of thousands of animals living under the same roof, dealing with all the waste produced is a major problem. In fact, factory farms in the U.S. alone produce six times the fecal matter of all the humans on earth.26 By raising animals in such large groups indoors, instead of in smaller groups on pasture, the manure nutrient cycle is broken. Uncompos-ted manure, rather than acting as rich fertilizer, contaminates the soil, air, and groundwa-ter, which then becomes our drinking water. In essence, what has developed is a pollution problem at one end of the food system (on factory farms) and a nutrient problem on the other end (where grain and feed are now grown with the help of artifi cial fertilizers). Fur-thermore, the manure from factory-farmed animals often contains heavy metals, pesticide residues, bacteria, parasites, and the remnants of medications fed to the animals, making it an inferior fertilizer.27 In Ontario alone, there are usually between 20 and 30 reported manure spills every year that are strong enough to kill fi sh.28 It is suspected that many more spills are not reported.


Most provinces have regulations concerning the management of animal waste. Large operations are prohibited from spreading manure during the winter, which can contami-nate rivers when the snow melts in spring. While these are positive steps towards making factory farming more environmentally sustainable, the programs are limited because there is inadequate enforcement or monitoring.29 Furthermore, changes to regulations such as these do not question whether the basic model of factory farming can ever be sustainable.

The Walkerton TragedyIn May of 2000, seven people died and 2,300 more became ill from bad water in the small town of Walkerton, Ontario. The culprit was a deadly strain of bacteria: E. coli 0157, which cannot be treated using conventional antibiotics. E. coli 0157 is present in cow manure, and Walkerton is in the middle of Ontario’s cattle country. Within fi ve miles of the town, there are fi ve cattle feedlots: four with about 200 animals each, and one with about 2,500 animals.

Manure laden with bacteria could have escaped a holding tank or simply been present in soil when heavy rains hit southern Ontario, contaminating run-off with E. coli and then fl ooding drinking wells with the bacteria. Furthermore, the chlorinating system in Walker-ton was faulty, and the provincial government had cut Ministry of the Environment staffi ng levels by more than 50 per cent in the fi ve years leading up to the contamination.30

The public outcry stemming from the Walkerton tragedy forced the Ontario government to change some of its policies regarding factory farms. Farmers also took action by writing Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) for their operations. EFPs are voluntary assessments that examine 23 areas of environmental concern on farms, including the storage, use, and management of manure. Farmers who create EFPs are then eligible for cost-share programs with the provincial government to help implement projects. For more information about EFPs, see http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/environment/efp/efp.htm.

Cows and Global WarmingCows may be peaceful, harmless creatures, yet they pose a huge threat to the environ-ment. The number of cows raised for livestock has increased exponentially over the last century, and they now number nearly one and a half billion worldwide.31 In recent years, this increase has been driven by economic growth in China, India, and other rapidly grow-ing economies.32 Greater wealth has led to changes in diet, in particular the consumption of more meat and other animal products. Over the last 15 years, meat consumption more than doubled in China and grew by 70 percent in Brazil and 20 percent in India.33

All of these cows release signifi cant volumes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the forms of methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide.34 According to the United Na-tions, the world’s livestock release over 85 million metric tons of methane into the atmo-sphere each year, which accounts for 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity – a greater share than the transportation sector.35 As we attempt to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, global meat consumption must therefore be taken into


account.

World HungerProducing animal-based foods, including milk, cheese, and meat, uses a lot more re-sources and creates more waste than does producing plant-based foods. It takes, on average, 5 kilograms of feed to produce 1 kilogram of meat.36 While in many parts of the world animals can help in food production by working as draft animals and providing fertilizer, this is not the case with factory-farmed livestock. And while we fatten up 2 billion cattle around the world for human consumption, an estimated 1.1 billion people worldwide are suffering from hunger and malnutrition.37

DesertificationOur seemingly insatiable appetite for beef is environmentally devastating. Millions of beef cattle deplete the earth’s resources by overgrazing. The result is desertifi cation: the spreading of deserts into areas that were once rich and fertile.

In Central and South America, cattle ranchers often slash and burn rainforests to create more grazing land. In just 20 years, for instance, Costa Rica burned over 80 per cent of its tropical forests for cattle grazing.38 This is especially tragic, because in only a few years the land is degraded, unsuitable for cattle, and almost irreversibly devoid of good soil.

It is estimated that each pound of Central American beef permanently destroys over 200 square feet of rainforest.39 In the mid-1980s, American consumers boycotted Burger King for its use of rainforest beef. Since then, Burger King, McDonald’s Wendy’s, Campbell’s Soup, Jack-in-the-Box, Taco Bell, White Castle, Sizzler, and Mariott all claim to not use rainforest beef. However, due to poor monitoring and a lack of control over the fl ow of Central American beef into North America, it is diffi cult to be assured of the truth of this claim.40

An Alternative? Organic FarmingThe realities of factory farming have caused many individuals to search for healthier and more humane alternatives. Producing and purchasing organic food is one way that farmers and consumers have responded to their concerns about the conventional food system. Organic farming aims to raise animals humanely in an ecologically sustainable way without the use of artifi cial pesticides or fertilizers. In Canada, organic products are certifi ed by independent agencies. New Canadian standards were recently implemented that ban administering antibiotics or hormones to livestock. When, in the case of illness, animals are given medication, they are removed from the organic stream.41

For some, however, organic is no longer enough. Large-scale organic farms have come to dominate organic food production, both in terms of acreage and in their share of the marketplace.42 Consequently, most of the organic produce and other high-value organic foods sold in North America come from large farms in California.43 It is estimated that 80% of organic products sold in Canada are imported, the vast majority of which come from the U.S.44 These farms tend to use industrial practices to support monocultures and, as a re-


sult, are criticised for employing unecological farming practices.45 Concern has also been expressed about livestock mortality rates in large-scale organic farms, which, because medications are not permitted, are higher than those for conventional farms.46 Finally, these operations have been criticised for their labour practices and their reliance on mi-grant workers (see Aisle 2). The infl uence of large-scale organic operations has resulted in the adoption of certifying standards that emphasize inputs rather than methods, which, as a result, dilutes the meaning of the label “organic”.47

Success StoryrBST

A synthetically produced version of BST, commonly known as recombinant bovine so-matotraphin, or rBST, is marketed by Monsanto under the brand name Posilac. Cows given rBST produce more milk. And although the FDA claims that there is no difference between the milk from cows given rBST and from those who are not, these unnaturally high levels of hormones take a signifi cant toll on the animals’ health and well-being.

Cows given rBST were 25% more likely to suffer from mastitis and were 40% less fertile.48 Despite this evidence, Monsanto continues to lobby against the practice of labelling milk from cows given rBST, claiming that it misleads consumers into think¬ing that milk from treated cows is inferior. In the decade following the use of Posilac, the demand for milk that hasn’t been produced using artifi cial hormones increased by 500%.49

Fortunately, consumers in Canada do not have to search for rBST-free milk. Bovine growth hormones have been banned here, despite lobbying by Monsanto. Furthermore, there is little American milk sold in Canada, because we have a Milk Marketing Board (MMB). The MMB is a supply management system in which all the milk produced in Canada is pooled and farmers are paid the same price. Farmers buy quota (a permit to produce a set amount of milk), so there isn’t an over-supply of milk, which would drive the price down. When the MMB was initially set up, quota were distributed to the produc-ers currently selling milk. Quota are now bought and sold as a commodity. The high cost of a milk quota (over the last two years, this price has fl uctuated between $25,000 and $35,000 per cow) is a major capital investment and contributes to keeping dairy farms in Canada small.50 Ontario dairy farms have an average of about 50 cows.51 Compare this to the U.S., were the average is 120, with more and more farms with over 1,000 cows – a very rare occurrence in Canada.52 The MMB, therefore, is largely responsible for making dairy farming one of the few farming operations in Canada that has remained viable in the last few decades.53 Egg and poultry production are also supply managed sectors in Canada.

AlternativesChanges in the meat industry will not be achieved unless the public demands it. As con-sumers, we can pressure the meat industry to be more humane, health-conscious, and environmentally responsible. Here are some avenues for affecting change:


Reduce or eliminate your consumption of meat products

Go vegetarian, include meat in fewer meals each week, or try eating smaller servings of meat mixed with vegetables. Reducing demand for meat decreases the need for large-scale feedlot operations, whose main motivation is profi t rather than animal and social welfare.

Know where your meat comes from

This may prove diffi cult in supermarkets, but many independent butchers will be able to tell you who their suppliers are, the conditions under which the animals were raised, what they were fed, and other pertinent information. There are also a number of farmer-run co-operatives in Ontario that sell organic, humanely-raised meat, including Rowe Farms (http://www.rowefarms.ca/) and Field Gate Organics (http://www.fi eldgateorganics.com/). Use your money to support more local, humane, and environmentally ethical businesses. Doing so sends a message to larger farms that there is a market for these products and may encourage them to adopt these practices.

Find out where your eggs come from

Due to pressure from the public, there are now several varieties of eggs available at most supermarkets. These include organic eggs, natural grain-fed hens, hens who have not been fed antibiotics, hormones or additives, or combinations of the above.

Learn the Laws

Find out about the laws pertaining to factory farms in your province, and put pressure on your provincial government to limit the sizes of feedlots/factory farm operations. With enough public pressure, the government must respond.

Support Genetic Diversity

Two organizations in Canada are at the forefront of the effort to preserve agricultural diversity: Seeds of Diversity (www.seeds.ca) and Rare Breeds Canada (www.rarebreeds-canada.ca). Their focus is on preserving heritage or heirloom varieties of vegetables and livestock and encouraging their use in agriculture. Heirloom or heritage seeds are open-pollinated, or non-hybridized, seeds that have been passed down from one generation to the next.54 Most of these varieties have been in cultivation for at least a hundred years. Similarly, heritage breeds are those that pre-date industrial agriculture. These cultivars and breeds represent the genetic diversity necessary for the stability and sustainability of agriculture. Diversity increases the adaptability of animals to resist disease and is a kind of insurance that, regardless of the stress or unique conditions, some individuals will sur-vive and likely thrive.55 Consider planting heirloom vegetables in your garden and encour-age farmers in your area to raise heritage breeds.


Endnotes1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Poultry Marketplace: Canada’s Egg Industry, April 2008, <http://www.agr.gc.ca/poultry/gleg_e.htm> (13 May

2008).2. Toronto Vegetarian Association, The Lives of Farm Animals, May 2005, <http://veg.ca/content/view/62/101/> (13 May 2008).3. Bernard Rollin, Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1995).4. Canadian Agri-Food Research Council, Chickens, Turkeys and Breeders from Hatchery to Processing Plant: Recommended code of practice for the

care and handling of farm animals, 2006, <https://obi.chicken.ca/app/DocRepository/1/Animal_Care/2006_Code_of_Practice_E.pdf > (14 May 2008).

5. Peter Singer and Jim Mason, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 2006).6. Hope Shand, Special: Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture - Farm Animal Genetic Resources, 1998, Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations, <http://ww.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EPdirect/EPre0042.htm> (24 June 2007).7. Canadian Farm Animal Genetic Resources Foundation. Whatever happened to all our Breeds? <http://www.cfagrf.com/pamphlet.html> (26

June 2007); D. L. Patterson and F. G. Silversides, Farm Animal Genetic Resource Conservation: Why and how?, 2003 http://www.cfagrf.com/Farm_Aniumal_Gentetic_Resrouce_Conservation_Why_and_How.htm (26 June 2007).

8. Shand, “Special: Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.”9. Joyce D’Silva, “Faster, cheaper, sicker: Chicken meat has never been more abundant, but at what cost to the birds?” New Scientist Issue 2421 (15

November 2003).10. Barbara Kingsolver, Stephen L. Hopp, and Camille Kingsolver, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life (New York: Harper Collins

Publishing, 2007), 90.11. Ibid.12. Ibid13. Bonnie Liebman and Glenn Morris, “When Antibiotics Stop Working: Magic Bullets Under Siege,” Nutrition Action Healthletter (Canadian Edition,

May 2000): 4.14. UN News Centre, UN task forces battle misconceptions of avian fl u, mount Indonesian campaign, 24 October 2005, <http://www.un.org/apps/news/

story.asp?NewsID=16342&Cr=birds&Cr1=fl u> (15 May 2008).15. GRAIN, Fowl play: The poultry industry’s central role in the bird fl u crisis, February 2006, <http://www.grain.org/briefi ngs/?id=194#_ftnref12> (15

May 2008).16. Ibid.17. Ian Maclachlan, Kill and Chill: Restructuring Canada’s Beef Commodity Chain (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001) 6, 7418. Ibid, 5.19. Toronto Vegetarian Association, “The Lives of Farm Animals.” 20. Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, Animals on the Farm: Transportation, 31 October 2008, <http://cfhs.ca/farm/transportation> (19 July

2009)21. Temple Grandin, Canadian Welfare Audits: 2002 and 2003 Audits of Stunning and Handling in Canadian Federally Inspected Beef, Pork and Chicken

Slaughter Plants, 2003, <http://www.grandin.com/survey/canadian.welfare.audits.html> (21 May 2008)22. Kristin Leutwyler, “Most U.S. Antibiotics fed to Healthy Animals,” Scientifi c American, 19 January 2001, <http.//www.scientifi camerican.com/article.

cfm?id=most-us-animals-fed-t> (19 July 2009)23. USDA, Dairy 2007 Part 1: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States, 2007, < http://www.aphis.usda.

gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/dairy/dairy07/Dairy2007_PtI.pdf > (21 May 2008)24. Katherine M. Shea, “Nontherapeutic Use of Antimicrobial Agents in Animal Agriculture: Implications for Pediatrics,” Pediatrics 114, 3(3 September

2004): 862-868.25. Leutwyler, “Most U.S. Antibiotics fed to Healthy Animals.”26. Kingsolver et al., Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, 91.27. Brian McAndrew, “Manure From Factory Farms Causes Concern,” The Toronto Star, 6 June 2000, <www.thestar.com> (27 June 2000) 28. Thomas Walkom, “Fatal Outbreak Exposes Something Rotten in the State of Farming,” The Toronto Star, 27 May 2000, <www.thestar.com> (27 June

2000)29. Joel Novek, “Intensive Hog Farming in Manitoba: Transnational Treadmills and Local Confl icts,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology

40, 1(2003): 3-26.30. Stuart Laidlaw and Richard Brennan, “Tories Flip-Plop on Factory Farms,” The Toronto Star, 29 June 2000, <www.thestar.com> (27 June 2000)31. Cattle Today, “Breeds of Cattle,” <http://cattle-today.com/> (4 June 2008)32. International Fund for Agricultural Development, High food prices: Impact and recommendations, 28 April 2008, < http://www.ifad.org/opera-

tions/food/ceb.htm> (25 January 2009)33. Ibid.34. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, November 2006,

<http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf > (14 May 2008)35. Ibid.36. International Fund for Agricultural Development. “High food prices: Impact and recommendations.”37. Worldwatch Institute, Chronic Hunger and Obesity Epidemic Eroding Global Progress, 4 March 2000, <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1672> (20

July 2009)38. Rainforest Action Network, The Hamburger Connection, 1999, <www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/04e.html> (23 June 2000)39. Ibid.40. Ibid.41. Canadian General Standards Board, Organic Production Systems General Principles and Management Standards, September 2006, < http://www.

tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/on_the_net/organic/index-e.html > (20 May 2008)42. Julie Guthman, “The Trouble with ‘Organic Lite’ in California: a Rejoinder to the ‘Conventionalisation’ Debate,” Sociologia Ruralis 44, 3(2004): 305.43. Ibid, 303.44. Matthew Holmes and Anne Macey, Canada’s Organic Market, 2007, <http://www.cog.ca/documents/CdnOrganicMkt2007.pdf > (22 July 2009): 1.45. Guthman, “The Trouble with ‘Organic Lite’ in California,” 311.46. Anne Fanatico, Organic Poultry Production in the United States, 2008, National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service of ATTRA, <http://attra.

ncat.org/attra-pub/organicpoultry.html> (9 October 2009).47. Ibid., 307; Nick Clarke, Paul Cloke, Clive Barnett, and Alice Malpass, “The Spaces and Ethics of Organic Food,” Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2008):


22048. I.R. Dohoo, L. DesCôteaux, K. Leslie, A. Fredeen, W. Shewfelt, A. Preston, and P. Dowling, “A meta-analysis review of the effects of recombinant

bovine somatotropin” Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 67, 4 (October 2003)49. Carolyn Dimitri and Catherine Green, Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Food Market, September 2002, USDA - Economic Research

Service, <http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB777/ > (22 May 2007)50. Canadian Dairy Commission and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, Ontario Dairy Farm Accounting Project: Annual Report 2008, October 2009

<http://www.milk.org/Corporate/pdf/Publications-ODFAPReport.pdf> (9 October 2009); Peter Andrée, Strategies for Agricultural Sustainability employed by Farmers in the Kawartha Bioregion of Ontario, Canada (Peterborough: Trent University, 1997), 40.

51. Dairy Farmers of Ontario, Dairy Cattle, 2009, <http://www.milk.org/corporate/view.aspx?content=Faq/DairyCattle> (9 October 2009). 52. James M. MacDonald, Erik J. O’Donoghue, William D. McBride, Richard F. Nehring, Carmen L. Sandretto, and Roberto Mosheim, Profi ts, Costs, and

the Changing Structure of Dairy Farming, September 2007, Economic Research Service of the USDA <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err47/> (9 October 2009), 2.

53. Andrée, “Strategies for Agricultural Sustainability,” 40.54. Suzanne Ashworth, Seed to Seed: Seed Saving and Growing Techniques for Vegetable Gardeners (US: Seed Savers Exchange, 2002), 225.55. Shand, “Special: Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.”

Aisle 4: Dry Goods41

Aisle 4: Dry GoodsIt’s Saturday morning, you hop into your ethanol-fuelled car to pop out and buy some cereal and milk for breakfast. You may be surprised, but everything you’ve just bought, not only the food, but also the gasoline in your car, and even the bag used to hold your purchases, likely contains soy or corn.

While grocery stores seem to sell an enormous variety of food – breakfast cereals, cook-ing oils, fl our, condiments, seasonings, and so on – much of this food often contains one of two agricultural products: corn or soy. And the more highly processed the food, the more likely it is to have ingredients that originated from at least one of these two plants.

Corn and soy are fed to cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, sheep, catfi sh, tilapia, and even to salmon, who are naturally carnivores, but are being bred to eat plant-based diets.1 Hol-steins are also fed corn, so most milk, yogurt, and cheese is corn based.2 Furthermore, corn and soy are commonly broken down and then reassembled into many ingredients found in processed foods. Some of the most prolifi c corn and soy derivatives are high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), dextrose, glucose, invert sugar, corn starch, vegetable oil, soybean oil, lecithin, and shortening. High fructose corn syrup and/or soybean oil are found in almost all types of processed foods, including, but not limited to, most condi-ments, soda, cookies, chips, crackers, breads, and baby food.3 Essentially, in processed foods, corn provides the carbohydrates, soybeans provide the protein, and either one can provide the fat.4

Not only are corn and soy found in food products, but there are many other grocery store items that contain them, including garbage bags, matches, batteries, and disposable dia-pers.5 According to Michael Pollan, even in the produce aisle:

Altogether, of the roughly 45,000 items for sale in the average supermarket, a quarter contains corn.7 For more information see “A Zillion uses for Corn,” http://www.ontariocorn.org/classroom/products.html#Products%20that%20use%20Corn.

These changes in the food system have dramatically altered the way that we eat. Al-though eating corn and soy in their whole form can be healthy, highly processed deriva-tives such as HFCS have been linked to obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.8 Furthermore, the consumption of corn- and soy-based products has risen so dramatically in the last two generations that it is affecting much more than our health. Pollan tells of the descendents of the Maya in Mexico, who sometimes refer to themselves as “the corn

on a day when there’s ostensibly no corn for sale you’ll nev-ertheless fi nd plenty of corn: in the vegetable wax that gives the cucumbers their sheen, in the pesticide responsible for the produce’s perfection, even in the coating on the cardboard it was shipped in. Indeed the supermarket itself – the wallboard and joint compound, the linoleum and fi berglass and adhe-sives out of which the building itself has been built – is in no small measure a manifestation of corn.6


people,” which is literally true as 40% of their diet comes from corn, mostly in the form of tortillas. “So when a Mexican says ‘I am maize’ or ‘corn walking,’ it is simply a statement of fact: The very substance of the Mexican’s body is to a considerable extent a manifesta-tion of this plant.”9 Based on comparisons of carbon isotopes in the fl esh and hair of North Americans and Mexicans, however, it would seem that we are now the true people of corn, or as Pollan more aptly puts it, “processed corn walking.”10

The Corn/Soybean ComplexSo, how did corn and soy come to dominate agriculture, the grocery store, and conse-quently our diets? After sugar cane, corn is the most commonly grown crop worldwide, and soybeans are not far behind, also making the top ten.11 This is in part because, to keep land in relatively good production, corn and soybeans need to be grown in rotation.• But the abundance of corn and soy has more to do with government policies than ecologi-cal or dietary necessity.

The price of a bushel of corn is about a dollar less than it costs to grow it.12 Despite this, 400,000 U.S. farmers planted 72.7 million acres of it (along with an equal amount of soybeans) in 2000.13 This is economically feasible in large part because of U.S. govern-ment subsidies, which pay farmers when the price of corn falls below the cost of produc-tion.14 Therefore, regardless of the market price of corn (a non-perishable crop that can be stored), farmers are encouraged to sell their harvests, resulting in a glut of cheap corn and thus explaining why it is found in so many consumer products.15 Since the U.S. gov-ernment started directly subsidising these crops in the mid-1970s, the amount per bushel that it pays has dropped consistently (encouraging corn farmers to plant more corn on larger acreages).16 Despite this, the U.S. federal treasury now spends about $5 billion a year to subsidize corn.17 And while these cheques are paid directly to farmers, “what the Treasury is really subsidizing are the buyers of all that cheap corn,” companies like Cargill and Coca-Cola.†18

• In agriculture, corn is referred to as a heavy feeder, because it requires a lot of nitrogen to grow well. Soybeans, on the other hand, like all legumes, replenish the soil with nitro-gen through a benefi cial relationship they have with the bacteria rhizobia. Legumes create nodules in their roots where the rhizobia live and fi x nitrogen (the process of converting atmospheric nitrogen into nitrogen that is usable by plants). These two plants are there-fore grown in rotation to help avoid depleting the soil of nutrients.† For a more complete history of farm subsidies in the U.S., see The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, by Michael Pollan.


Farmers, on the other hand, have been caught in what is called the cost-price squeeze, where the cost of farm inputs has consistently risen more quickly than has the price of food commodities.19 According to Qualman and Tait:

Therefore, while farm suppliers, distributors, processors, and other intermediaries have taken a growing percentage of the price of food, consumers must adapt to rising food prices and producers must deal with volatile and unpredictable commodity prices.21

Nowhere in the grocery store have these changes had a greater impact than in the dry goods aisle, which houses most of the processed foods for sale (and therefore a great deal of both corn and soy). This Aisle of the Supermarket Tour looks at these trends in greater detail, in particular the ways that corporations have increased their share of the price of food through the introduction of new farming technologies: biotechnology, geneti-cally modifi ed seeds (GMOs), nanotechnology, and pharma-crops.

The Great Experiment: Genetic ModificationFor centuries, farmers have bred plants for myriad desired qualities. Genetic modifi ca-tion (GM), however, has dramatically altered the practice of plant breeding. Using ge-netic engineering techniques, scientists can manipulate an organism’s DNA—its genetic blueprint—to block or add certain traits. Genetic modifi cation usually involves isolating a desired gene—the segment of DNA that causes a particular trait—from animals, insects, bacteria, or plants, and adding it to the DNA of an entirely different species, such as in-serting a bacterial gene into corn or an anti-frost fi sh gene into a tomato.

From a few test plots planted in 1996, ten years later 12 million farmers in 23 countries had planted 114.3 million hectares (282.4 million acres) in GM crops (see Figure 4.1).22 Genetically modifi ed organisms, or GMOs, were once touted as the answer to world hunger. Despite increased yields, however, the extra crops grown have, for the most part, not been used to feed people. In particular, GM crops are primarily marketed for three main uses: animal feed, biofuels, and, as we have already seen, as components of highly processed foods.23

Net income fell in the 1940s when many farmers were buy-ing their fi rst tractors and electrifying their tools, pumps, and barns. It fell as farmers doubled and redoubled their fertilizer use. It fell as farmers adopted new chemicals to control in-sects and weeds...while farmers retained...about one dollar out of every two that they generated in the late 1940s, today farm-ers retain just one dollar in ten...While new technologies and inputs have helped farmers increase production by about $18 billion (from about $17 billion in the 1940s to about $35 billion today), the corporations that sold those inputs and technolo-gies to farmers swallowed up not only the entire $18 billion in increased production revenue, but an additional $8 billion as well—driving farmers’ net income down (emphasis in origi-nal)20


Figure 4.1: Global Area of Biotech Crops, 1996-200724

In Canada, the following GM crops, or as the government calls them, plants with novel traits (PNTs), have been approved for use in agriculture: alfalfa, canola (13 varieties), corn (25 varieties), cotton (10 varieties), fl ax, lentils, potatoes (5 varieties), rice (4 varieties), soybeans (6 varieties), squash (2 varieties), sugar beets (2 varieties), sunfl owers (2 varieties), tomatoes (4 varieties), and wheat (8 varieties).↕25

The widespread use of GM crops in agriculture raises numerous health, ecological, and ethical concerns, and, as a result, many citizens are demanding proper labelling of GM foods. Even more troubling is that genetic modifi cation has made it possible for companies to transform living organisms into intellectual property. Through patents, these companies are exerting control over our food system, from fi eld to table, like never before. In this section, we examine some of the myths and risks associated with our cavalier approach to GM foods.

↕ Although rice and cotton cannot be grown in Canada they have been approved by Health Canada for use as livestock feed.


Why Do We Need Genetically Modified Foods?Biotechnology companies claim that genetically modifi ed foods will solve many of the world’s food problems. According to Monsanto:

However, in many cases, genetic modifi cation causes more problems than it solves. Let’s take a closer look at the claims made by Monsanto.

Claim #1: Biotechnology will allow us to grow more food to feed our growing population.

More than 80 per cent of agricultural biotechnology research focuses on developing her-bicide-resistant and pest-resistant crops.27 The other primary areas of GM research focus on delaying fruit ripening, thus enabling food to be transported longer distances or ex-tend its shelf life; increasing the solids content of tomatoes for improved processing; and producing oils with lower saturated fat content.28 None of these “enhanced” food products are directed at increasing food production or improving the quality of foods, nutritional or otherwise. Furthermore, the underlying premise that by simply increasing crop yields, people will be well fed is problematic. People are hungry because they are poor. Currently, there is enough food available for every human being to receive at least 3,500 calories a day, well over the daily requirements.29 In addition, food production in the past 40 years has grown faster than the world’s population by about 16 per cent.30 A more responsible use of land and the world’s abundance of food would be a better way to address malnutrition.

Demand for food is increasing dramatically as the world’s population grows. Biotechnology contributes to our meeting this growing demand without placing even greater stress on our scarce farmland. It can help us to grow better quality crops with higher yields while at the same time sustaining and pro-tecting the environment.26


A Lesson Learned? The Green RevolutionGM technology is not the fi rst way that modern science has promised to end world hun-ger. During the 20th century, many new farming technologies were introduced, among them fossil fuels and tractors, artifi cial fertilizers, and pesticides.31

Most signifi cant, however, was the introduction of hybrid seeds during the “Green Revo-lution,” a term coined in the 1960s. Hybrid seeds are crosses between two cultivars of the same species. This type of breeding often creates hybrid vigour, or the expression of desirable characteristics in the second generation of seeds. The seed of hybrids (or third-generation seeds), however, do not breed true. That is, they will not reproduce those desirable characteristics. With the introduction of hybrid seeds, a dependence on seed companies began, as farmers who planted hybrid seeds could no longer dependably save their own seed. And although these varieties increased yield, they required more irrigation and fertilizer to do so.32 As a result, during this era, agribusiness fl ourished and a more industrial approach to agriculture was generally adopted.33

And while yields defi nitely did go up, the number of hungry people in the world remained more or less the same. During the 1970s, 942 million people worldwide were suffering from malnutrition; today that number has barely changed at 923 million.34 According to Moore Lappé et al., the reason for this is that producing more food does not ensure better access to food:

Claim #2: Biotechnology will reduce to ecological footprint of agriculture.

It has been claimed that higher crop yields from GM crops will reduce our need to clear farmland or to farm in marginal areas. But despite the assertions made by some seed companies that GM crops results in higher yields, the evidence is inconclusive. This is in part because, instead of developing varieties of GM crops for higher productivity, drought-tolerance, or other qualities that improve the crops themselves, the vast majority of GM crops are manufactured for one of two traits – herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.36 Following the introduction of biotech varieties, no crop, with the exception of corn, has shown consistent yield increases.37 Some yields have even dropped. Most notably, GM soybeans yield 5 to 10 percent less than otherwise identical varieties grown under compa-rable fi eld conditions.38 Furthermore, although yield per acre for most crops has risen dur-ing the 20th century, instead of reducing the amount of land used for agriculture, we have instead used the glut of cheap crops in everything from manufactured goods and biofuels to animal feed and food additives.

Thanks to new seeds, tens of millions of extra tons of grain a year are being harvested... Introducing any new agricultural technology into a social system stacked in favor of the rich against the poor – without addressing the questions of social access to the technology’s benefi t – will, over time, lead to an even greater concentration of the rewards from agriculture...the tragic result will be more food and yet more hunger.35


There are also other ecological concerns associated with the use of GM seeds. A large proportion of GM seeds on the market are made to be herbicide resistant – most notably the Roundup Ready seeds manufactured by Monsanto. Roundup is a broad-spectrum herbicide that kills nearly everything green, except, of course, Roundup Ready plants. Although this may sound good, what it means in practice is that farmers end up spraying their plants more. Most soybeans, for instance, are sprayed at a rate of 0.1 pounds per acre. Roundup Ready soybeans, on the other hand are sprayed at a rate of 0.75 pounds per acre.39§ As a direct result of the adoption of herbicide resistant GM crops between 1996 and 2004, an additional 122 million pounds of pesticides were used in the U.S.40 During this time, the area planted in Roundup Ready crops increased from 0 to 102 mil-lion acres – an area larger than the state of California.41 According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Glyphosate (the main ingredient in Roundup) is now the most com-monly used herbicide in the U.S.42

Monsanto benefi ts greatly from this arrangement, as they profi t from the sale of both the seeds and the herbicide. Furthermore, the genes in these seeds are patented, and when farmers purchase Roundup Ready seeds they must sign a contract promising not to sell, give away, or save seeds.43 Given these limitations, one must ask: why do farmers plant these crops in such large quantities? One reason is that GM crops reduce farmer labour (because fi elds can be sprayed hazardly due to herbicide resistance) and therefore facili-tate the shift towards larger and larger farms. We are beginning, however, to see weed and pest resistance among GM crops, and therefore an erosion of this so-called “conve-nience effect.”44

As we call into question the legitimacy of the claims made by Monsanto and other compa-nies that manufacture GMOs, there remain other health, environmental, and social con-cerns associated with the widespread cultivation of GM crops.

Spotlight on MonsantoMonsanto Company is the largest and most controversial corporation in the “life sciences” industry. Founded in St. Louis in1901, Monsanto has marketed everything from aspirin to aspartame (NutraSweet). Some of the more notorious products introduced by Monsanto and its subsidiaries include:

Polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs are persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which are highly stable compounds that do not degrade quickly and as a result can persist in ecosystems and bioaccumulate in humans and animals. PCBs have been found to cause cancer and reproductive, developmental, and immune system disorders.45 PCBs have myriad applications and were used as coolants, insulating fuels, lubricating oils, hydraulic fl uids, sealants, and adhesives. PCBs were banned in North America in 1977.

§ This is largely because Roundup Ready seeds are usually used in no-till systems. Instead of using cultivation to control weeds, farmers do not till their land (to avoid soil erosion) and instead plant seeds directly into untilled soil. In no-till systems, weed control depends entirely on herbicides. For more information on no-till and other cultivation meth-ods go to: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/pub75/1use.htm#conservation.


Agent Orange is an herbicide used extensively during the Vietnam War. Monsanto’s Agent Orange had concentrations of dioxin several times higher than those of other chemical companies.46

Posilac is the trade name for recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBST (See Aisle 3).

In addition to these products, Monsanto has been blamed for countless other injustices, including dumping toxic waste in the U.K., bribing government offi cials in Indonesia, false advertising in France, and indirectly causing farmer suicides in India.47

What’s At Stake?Genetic engineering is a new technology for which we still do not understand the long-term health or environmental effects. What is considered safe now may have unforeseen long-term consequences. Although it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that food is safe, the research on GM foods is performed almost entirely by the biotech industry, posing a serious confl ict of interest.48 The government’s stance on GM foods is that they are safe until proven otherwise. Concern has been raised, however, about the potential risk of GMOs to our health, to the environment and to society at large.

Health RisksAllergic Reactions

In 1996, a disaster was narrowly averted when it was discovered that a Brazil nut gene spliced into soybeans could cause fatal allergic reactions in people with nut allergies49 Considering the ubiquity of soybeans in our food, had these soybeans been introduced into the food supply, hundreds of people could have died and a recall on an unprecedent-ed scale would have been necessary. Furthermore, an unknown risk exists as most food allergens are to proteins, and genetic engineering often involves the production of novel proteins that have never been in food before.50

Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotic resistance markers (ARMs), used to identify genetically modifi ed organisms, are present in nearly all the GM food we eat. To see whether or not a gene-splicing procedure has worked, scientists often attach a marker to the “new” gene. If a plant cell survives antibiotic treatment, it means that the antibiotic resistance marker and the attached “new” gene have successfully been incorporated into the new cells. There is concern that the presence of ARMs might encourage the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Scientifi c studies have shown that ARMs in food could jump to bacteria in the gut during digestion, potentially creating bacteria that are resistant to current antibiotics.51 While it is highly unlikely that genetic materials would transfer from food products to pathogens in the wild, the seriousness of the risk requires special attention.


Potential for Toxicity

The creation of new genetic codes can create new and poorly understood health haz-ards. In 1989, thirty-seven people died and over 1,500 were permanently disabled after taking a genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan (a health supplement).52 In 1999, geneticist Dr. Arpad Pusztai found that GM potatoes are poisonous to mammals.53 That same year, Cornell researchers found that pollen from GM corn could kill Monarch butter-fl ies. Although this outcome is unlikely, as Monarch caterpillars only eat milkweed, these fi ndings demonstrate the unexpected consequences of introducing a new technology into complex and highly interconnected ecosystems. All of these toxic effects were missed by our regulatory systems and were discovered only after the GM products had been sold to consumers.

Environmental RisksCreation of New Weeds

“Weed” is a term we give to plants that grow where they are not wanted. As many of the genes added to genetically engineered plants improve the plants’ ability to survive in non-native environments, the potential exists for these new plants to become invasive species. This is particularly true of herbicide-resistant GM crops. Farmers have already reported having diffi culty removing GM crops from their fi elds in subsequent years or once the original crop has been harvested and the fi eld has been rotated to a new crop.54

There have also been reports of other weeds evolving resistances to herbicides as a result of the heavily sprayed GM crops. Since Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1995, the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the U.S. has increased from one (rigid ryegrass) to at least eight: amaranth, common waterhemp, common ragweed, giant ragweed, horseweed, Italian ryegrass, rigid ryegrass, and hairy fl eabane.55 Five additional weeds species have demonstrated glyphosate-resistance overseas.56 As a result, farmers have had to increase the amount or number of herbicides they apply to their fi elds to deal with the same weed population.

Super Pests

Pest-resistant GM crops contain a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is poisonous to many pests. Organic farmers have used Bt sprays sparingly for decades as a last resort option for pest control. GM crops, such as Bt corn or Bt potatoes, however, express this pesticide in every cell. Although Bt is a naturally occurring pesti-cide, its expression throughout the plant is unnatural, which raises several serious con-cerns. First, that the pests that are currently susceptible to Bt (which includes the larvae of many agricultural pests, such as cabbage butterfl ies, Colorado potato beetles, and Euro-pean corn borers, as well as other non-target species, such as Monarch butterfl ies), will evolve much more quickly and become resistant to Bt. To–date, eight species of insect have become Bt resistant.57 Second, there may be unknown long-term health implications associated with ingesting plants that have pesticides incorporated in every cell. Finally, as


Bt is a naturally occurring pesticide, one must ask if using it in this way is ethical. Do seed and pesticide corporations have the right to take advantage of and essentially waste this gift of nature?

Loss of Diversity

Have you ever wondered why supermarkets always sell the same variety of foods? Three kinds of rice, fi ve kinds of apples, one kind of banana, three kinds of potatoes… You may be surprised to learn that some food species consist of thousands of different varieties. But if we keep seeing the same varieties in each supermarket, what has happened to all the others?

For 10,000 years, millions of growers saved their own seed.58 In the last hundred years, there has been a marked decline in the number of seed savers worldwide. First, with the adoption of high-yielding hybrid varieties made popular by the Green Revolution, then with the introduction of GM seeds, there has been a signifi cant decrease in the vegetable varieties available (particularly open-pollinated), as well as a troubling loss of genetic diversity among those varieties that remain.59

The popularity of GM crops has led to greater genetic uniformity in the rural landscape.60 The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) estimates that in the last hundred years about 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost, including 95% of the genetic diversity of cabbage, 91% of fi eld corn, and 81% of tomatoes (see Table 4.1).61

This loss of genetic material is directly related to the corporate concentration of seed companies. Between 1984 and 1999, 125 seed companies in North America went out of business, while many more were bought by pharmaceutical and chemical companies.62 As a result, by 2006 the top ten seed corporations worldwide accounted for 57% of the global seed market, up from 37% in 1996.63 Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, controls 20% of the world’s commercial seed market.64 According to Wildfong, “there is a clear correlation between the concentration of seed company ownership and the number of varieties that fall out of production each year.”65

Table 4.1: Reduction of diversity in vegetables, 1903-1983.66


Agricultural biodiversity is central to global food security. Diversity increases the adapt-ability of plants and animals to pests, diseases, and different climatic conditions, such as drought, storms, or larger shifts such as global warming.67 Genetic and cultivar diversity is a kind of insurance that, regardless of the stress or unique conditions, some individuals will survive and likely thrive. Other benefi ts of cultivar and breed diversity include better taste, historical or cultural signifi cance, and the potential to develop new varieties that may be valuable for research and/or in responding to changes in climate or consumer preference. For generations, farmers have pooled their knowledge by selectively breed-ing seeds to provide us with some of our most nutritious and durable crops. When these cultivars are lost, centuries of farmer ingenuity and plant adaptation are lost with them.

Ethical Risks: Food Security and Food SovereigntyIn addition to the environmental and health risks associated with the widespread use of GM technology, there are other ethical and social concerns about the increased corporate control of food. This section explores some of the risks of GM seeds to consumers and producers.

The Right to Save Seeds

Wind, birds, and insects carry pollen. In order to keep the genetics of seeds pure, farmers and gardeners isolate vegetable varieties from one another. This can be done by hand-pollinating and bagging fl owering plants, using cages, or ensuring isolation distances. Isolation distance, the space required to keep different varieties of the same family of plants (for instance melons and cucumbers) from cross-pollination by wind or insects, varies considerably from one type of plant to another. Some vegetables, such as leeks or peas, are self-pollinating and require very little distance from their neighbours.68 Other vegetables, however, need more space: broccoli and caulifl ower need 800 metres, corn needs 3.2 kilometres, and beets and spinach need a considerable 8 kilometres.69

Given the widespread cultivation of GM plants, their pollen can drift into neighbouring fi elds, contaminating the crops of organic and non-GMO farmers. This issue was fi rst brought to light in 2001 by Quist and Chapela, who reported the presence of GM corn DNA in native maize landraces growing wild in the remote mountains of Oaxaca, Mex-ico.70 Since this time, GM contamination has been found in corn in eight other Mexican states.71 Mexico is part of the Mesoamerican centre of origin and diversifi cation of corn, which makes the presence of these genes in landraces even more troubling. Some of the contaminated plants contain the DNA of four different GM varieties – all patented by transnational biotechnology corporations.72 Furthermore, scientists are worried that corn stored in the maize gene bank at the International Center for Maize and Wheat Improve-ment (CIMMYT) is also contaminated with GM material.73 The presence of these genes is particularly notable because from 1998 until the fall of 2009 Mexico had a moratorium on planting GM corn.


It has, therefore, become increasingly diffi cult for seed savers to ensure that their plants do not contain the genetic material from genetically modifi ed plants. This not only com-promises the rights of seed savers to use non-GM seeds, but puts seed savers at risk of being sued by seed companies, who have patented the genes in GM crops.

David and Goliath Fight Over Seeds

Monsanto signs Technology Use Agreements (TUAs) with the farmers who buy their seeds. TUAs are annual contracts that report when and how much seed a particular grower has purchased. The TUA requires the farmer to pay a per-kilogram technology fee for Roundup Ready seeds purchased.74 In 2001, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan, for patent infringement, accusing him of illegally saving seeds and planting the company’s Roundup Ready (RR) canola without paying the required “technology fees.” Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower, had never bought RR canola seeds and claimed that his fi elds were contaminated by Monsanto’s product through seeds that had blown in from another fi eld or from seeds that had fallen off another farmer’s truck.

Monsanto won their suit by successfully arguing that it was irrelevant if Schmeiser ob-tained the canola seeds unknowingly, that the very presence of RR canola in his fi eld still broke Monsanto’s patent. After a long appeal process, the Supreme Court of Canada fi nally ruled that, while Schmeiser did violate Monsanto’s patents, he would not be forced to pay Monsanto for lost revenue, because he didn’t profi t from the presence of the GM seeds. Although the decision was a token victory for Schmeiser, it set a precedent that the rights of corporations in Canada take priority over those of seed savers and individual farmers, while absolving companies such as Monsanto of any responsibility for crop contamination. As of 2003, there were 2,000 similar lawsuits fi led by Monsanto and other biotech companies against farmers in both Canada and the United States.75

Biopiracy: The Enola Bean – A Cautionary Tale

The Enola bean is a small yellow bean, originally from Mexico. In 1999, Larry Proctor, an executive from the Pod-Ners seed company, was awarded a patent for the bean based on its yellow colour and consistency over several seasons. Proctor planted out beans that he had purchased in Mexico and allowed them to self-pollinate. He then bred them to create a bean that consistently displayed a specifi c shade of yellow. His patent, however, cov-ered all beans of that colour76

In 2001, Proctor sued 16 small companies who sold yellow Mexican beans in the U.S. Consequently, imports of yellow beans from Mexico dropped by 90%, devastating many Mexican farmers.77 Although Proctor’s Enola beans were genetically identical to yellow beans that had been growing in Mexico for centuries, at the time he had a monopoly on all Mexican yellow bean sales in the U.S. The patent was challenged in 2000 by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture and has gone through a lengthy series of re-examinations and appeals. In 2008, the patent was fi nally struck down by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Offi ce. There is, however, no legal recourse for the farmers and seed sellers


who lost eight years of business while the patent was still valid.78

The actions of Proctor and the Pod-Ners seed company have been called biopiracy, or the appropriation and unauthorized commercial use of biological resources and/or the as-sociated indigenous knowledge through patents and copyrights.79 There exist three types of biopiracy: natural resource, including both food and medicinal plants; intellectual; and cultural.80 In recent years, multinational companies have become interested in the profi t-making potential of these resources. Intellectual property rights (IPR) are meant to reward intellectual creativity. IPR, however, tends to only recognize knowledge and innovation when it generates profi t.81 The patent system devalues local and indigenous knowledge, while creating monopoly rights through the claim of novelty.82 Unfortunately, the Enola bean is only one of a number of other instances of biopiracy, others include, but are not limited to, confl icts involving basmati rice, neem, and tumeric.

Labelling GMO’s

Roughly 30,000 different products found on grocery store shelves in Canada contain genetically modifi ed ingredients.83 This includes anywhere between 60% and 70% of pro-cessed foods, in large part because they often contain soy or corn.84

In North America, GM foods are not labelled as such, thus preventing consumers from choosing whether or not to eat them. Although Health Canada requires that foods be labelled if they are pasteurized, irradiated, or contain allergens such as nuts, they have taken the position that GM foods are as safe as their non-GM counterparts and conse-quently do not need to be labelled.85 Food companies can choose to voluntarily label their food, but over 90% of Canadians feel that these labels should be mandatory.86 Certifi ed organic food does not contain GM ingredients.

More than forty countries worldwide legislate mandatory labelling, including the U.K., France, China, and Japan. In the European Union, all products containing more that 0.9% GM ingredients must be labelled. As a result of this pressure, both Nestlé U.K. and Uni-lever U.K. have dropped GM ingredients from their products, but their North American divisions have not.87

A Strange New World: BiotechnologyWhile genetically engineering plants to contain the genes of other species may seem highly advanced, science moves so quickly that this can now almost be considered a ‘traditional’ form of biotechnology. Technological advancements have created new fi elds of research and potentially limitless possibilities to alter food. In this section we discuss just a few of these newer technologies.


Terminator Technology

To protect the fi nancial interests of corporations, the “terminator” gene has been devel-oped, which renders the seeds that carry it sterile. This obligates farmers to buy new seeds each year, strengthening their dependence on multinational seed companies.88 In 1998, a joint patent for terminator technology, also referred to as “genetic use restriction technology,” was awarded to the Delta and Pine Land Company (a subsidiary of Monsan-to) and the United States Department of Agriculture.

As with other GM technology, there is serious concern over the risk of gene transfer to both non-GM plants and the wild relatives of agricultural crops. Although this transfer may be unlikely, the risks associated with terminator genes spreading to other plants are of particular concern. Should this gene transfer, remain dormant, and be spread through a seed supply or ecosystem, it could have serious consequences to both agricultural diver-sity and the food security of the 1.4 billion farmers worldwide who save their own seeds.89

In response to these concerns, there has been global protest against the development and use of this technology. In response to this outcry, the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a global moratorium on the sale of terminator technology.90 While this technology is not available for commercial sale, fi eld-tests are being conducted in green-houses in the United States.91 Furthermore, there is concern that Monsanto will re-intro-duce this technology once public reaction has died down.92

Pharmaceutical Crops

In 2000, researchers announced that they had successfully vaccinated a group of test subjects against the Norwalk virus with an edible vaccine grown in potatoes.93 These po-tatoes are pharmaceutical crops, or pharma-crops, and they have been genetically engi-neered to produce chemicals as part of their biological make-up.94

Industrial and pharmaceutical crops are one of the new waves of genetically engineered plants bred to produce medicines such as vaccines or industrial compounds such as plas-tics. Already, plants have been genetically engineered to produce antibodies that can treat malignant tumours, curb tooth decay, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases, as well as vaccines for hepatitis B, rabies, cholera, HIV, and the Norwalk virus.95

Antibodies and vaccines are either consumed directly as part of the food or distilled from the plants and made into pills. As is the case with other GM plants, there are a number of concerns about the effects of these plants on human health and the environment. These substances are being produced in corn and other food crops that are “visually indistin-guishable from their non-industrial counterparts.”96 There is the possibility, therefore, that pharma-crops could contaminate other food crops and become mixed into the regular food stream, which could result in pharmaceuticals being accidentally consumed.97 There are also similar concerns that genes from these plants could cross-pollinate with wild rela-tives, thus exposing animals, pollinating insects, and soil microorganisms to the pharma-ceuticals or industrial products.98


Pharmaceutical and industrial food crops are not currently being commercially grown, but they are being grown in a number of outdoor test plots, prompting a number of organiza-tions, including Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists, to call for a ban on their outdoor production.99

Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of materials on an atomic level, or on the scale of the nanometer (one billionth of a metre). A human hair, by comparison is 80,000 nanometres wide. This technology allows scientists to have unprecedented control over the properties of materials, from steel to food. There is strong interest in this technology, because at the nanoscale materials exhibit different properties: “stable materials turn combustible (aluminum),” for instance, and “insoluble materials become soluble (gold).”100 At present, nanotechnology is in its infancy and has mostly been used to make materials stronger and more durable.101

The future, however, seems nearly limitless. Imagine encouraging children to drink their milk by making it taste like cola or improving the effi ciency of supermarkets by encoding “nanobarcodes” into the cellular structure of the produce for sale.102 These are possibilities being discussed in this fi eld of research.

Nanotechnology makes “possible the fusing of the biological world and the mechanical” and creates a relationship with nature unlike any we’ve ever had before.103 Financially, there is much to be gained from this new technology, which is why by 2006 nearly $3.5 billion had been spent on nanotech research in the U.S. alone (including both private and public funds).104 It is estimated that by 2015 nanotechnology will be incorporated into $1 trillion worth of manufactured goods.105

It is generally believed that nanotechnology will make it easier to synthesize and deliver medicines, and, due to its “exact manufacturing,” there will be less waste and pollution.106 There is good reason, however, to be wary of this technology. Carbon nanotubes, an important building block in nanotechnology, have been observed penetrating cell walls and have the potential to damage DNA or provoke an immune reaction.107 There is also a risk that nanoparticles will bioaccumulate.108 Other potential health effects of nanotechnol-ogy are far from understood. A number of organizations, including the ETC Group, believe that, as a society, we need to take a step back and critically evaluate the social implica-tions of nanotechnology.109

AlternativesAt present, there is a growing body of consumers who feel that the introduction of geneti-cally modifi ed products into our food system is an infringement of our right to choose. The movement in Europe has been an encouraging one—more and more supermarkets, producers, and retailers have banned GM ingredients in their foods. Canadian companies and governing bodies should likewise value consumer concerns over corporate interests. If you object to being unknowingly exposed to GM foods, here are some ways to make your voice heard:


Go to the Manager

Speak or write to your grocery store manager, telling them you don’t want to buy GM foods.

Call 1-800 Numbers

Call the numbers found on food packages, and ask for proof that the items do not contain any GMOs. Ask the company to label those products that have no GM ingredients with “Does Not Contain Genetically Modifi ed Organisms.” In Europe, 10 companies, including Nestlé, Kellogg’s, Kraft, and Unilever, sell GM-free products. Why shouldn’t they do the same in Canada?

Contact the Government

Phone or write to your federal MP, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Agriculture to demand mandatory labelling or a moratorium on GM crops. Contact for Members of Parliament is available at: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCom-pleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E.

Raise Awareness

Education is the key to bringing about change. Learn about the issues surrounding bio-technology and raise awareness among your family and your community.

Avoid GMOs

Avoid products that are highly suspect for containing GMOs. Try to eat organically grown foods. You might fi nd the following resources useful in negotiating the grocery store:

The Centre for Food Safety’s “Pocket Shoppers’ Guide to Avoiding GE Foods” http://true-foodnow.fi les.wordpress.com/2009/06/web_new-ge-booklet.pdf

Or

“How to Avoid Genetically Engineered Food: A Greenpeace Shoppers Guide”http://gmoguide.greenpeace.ca/shoppers_guide.pdf

Support Genetic Diversity

Explore the variety of vegetables that are out there. Find your favourite, and encourage local growers to sell it at the farmers’ market. Or better yet, plant a kitchen garden and buy heirloom seeds from small-scale seed companies.


Endnotes1. Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History in Four Meals (New York: Penguin Press, 2006), 18.2. Ibid.3. Sanjay Gupta, If we are what we eat, Americans are corn and soy, No Date, <http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fi tness/09/22/kd.gupta.

column/index.html> (5 June 2008).4. Pollan, Omnivore’s Dilemma, 91.5. Ibid., 19.6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Gupta, “If we are what we eat, Americans are corn and soy.”9. Pollan, Omnivore’s Dilemma, 19.10. Ibid., 23.11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Top Production – World – 2007, <http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx> (21 July

2009).12. Pollan, Omnivore’s Dilemma, 48.13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Major Crops Grown in the United States, 2000, <http://epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html> (21 July

2009).14. Pollan, Omnivore’s Dilemma, 52.15. Ibid.16. Ibid., 54.17. Ibid.18. Ibid., 55.19. Anthony Winson, The Intimate Commodity: Food and the Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex in Canada (Toronto: Garamond Press, 1993),

90.20. Darrin Qualman and Fred Tait, The Farm Crisis, Bigger Farms, and the Myths of “Competition” and “Effi ciency” (Ottawa: The Canadian Centre for

Policy Alternatives, October 2004), 15.21. Ibid., 8.22. Clive James, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application

(ISAAA), <http://www.isaaa.org/Resources/publications/briefs/37/executivesummary/default.html > (2 June 2008).23. Friends of the Environment International, Who benefi ts from GM crops? The rise in pesticide use, January 2008, <http://www.centerforfoodsafety.

org/pubs/FoE%20I%20Who%20Benefi ts%202008%20-%20Full%20Report%20FINAL%202-6-08.pdf> (17 August 2009), 39.24. James, “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007.”25. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Plants Evaluated for Environmental and Livestock Feed Safety, 26 October 2008, <http://active.inspection.

gc.ca/scripts/database/pntvcn_submitdb.asp?lang=e&crops=all&company= all&trait=all&events=all> (17 August 2009).26. Monsanto Company, Biotech Basics: Why Do We Need This Technology? 2000, <http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/question3.

html?OpenPage> (20 July 2000).27. Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000), 98.28. The CornerHouse, UK, Ten Reasons Why GE Foods Will Not Feed the World, 2000, <www.purefood.org/ge/tenreasons.cfm> (18 July 2000);

Monsanto Company, Biotech Basics: Plant Biotechnology Basics, 17 June 1999, <http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/basics.html?OpenPage> (20 July 2000).

29. Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, World Hunger: Twelve Myths, 2nd ed. (New York: Grove Press, 1998), 8.30. Ibid.31. L.T. Evans, Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and population growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 115.32. Ibid. 136; 143.33. Ibid., 115.34. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of Food Insecurity in the World (Rome: FAO, 2008), 2; Moore Lappé et al., World

Hunger, 61.35. Moore Lappé et al., World Hunger, 59-60.36. Friends of the Environment International, “Who benefi ts from GM crops?”6.37. Ibid., 12.38. Charles M. Benbrook, “Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans: Glyphosate Effi cacy is Slipping and Unstable

Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defenses and Yields,” Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, Sandpoint Idaho, AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 4, (3 May 2001).

39. Ibid.40. Friends of the Environment International, “Who benefi ts from GM crops?” 8.41. Ibid.42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000-2001 Pesticide Market Estimates: Usage, 20 January 2009, <http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/

01pestsales/usage2001_2.htm#3_6> (17 August 2009).43. Mark Arax and Jeanne Brokaw, “No Way Around Roundup: Monsanto’s bioengineered seeds are designed to require more of the company’s

herbicide,” January/February 1997 Issue, <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1997/01/no-way-around-roundup> (17 August 2009).44. Friends of the Environment International, “Who benefi ts from GM crops?” 41.45. Health Canada, PCBs: It’s Your Health, October 2005, < http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/pcb-bpc-eng.php> (1 June 2010).46. Brian Tokar, “Monsanto: A Checkered History,” The Ecologist 28 (September/October 1998): 256.47. John Vidal “The wasteland: how years of secret chemical dumping left a toxic legacy,” The Guardian, 12 February 2007, <http://www.guardian.

co.uk/environment/2007/feb/12/uknews.pollution1>; “Monsanto fi ned $1.5m for bribery,” BBC News, 7 January 2005, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4153635.stm>; “Monsanto guilty in ‘false ad’ row,” BBC News, 15 October 2009, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm>; Shiva, Stolen Harvest, 101.

48. William Freese and David Schubert, Safety Testing and Regulations of Genetically Engineered Food, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 21, November 2004, <http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/safefood/gefood/testingregbackgrounder.pdf> (6 July 2008).

49. Ben Lilliston, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Know: The Biotech Regulatory Vacuum,” Multinational Monitor 21 (January/February 2000): 9.50. Council of Concerned Scientists, Risks of Genetic Engineering, 6 June 2008, <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineer-

ing/risks-of-genetic-engineering.html> (15 June 2008).


51. “Antibiotics: Dutch Study casts doubts on genetically modifi ed food,” Reuters, 27 January 1999, <http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gegut.cfm> (26 July 2000).

52. Ingeborg Boyens, Unnatural Harvest: How Genetic Engineering is Altering Our Food (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 1999), 105.53. Ronnie Cummins, Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need a Global Moratorium, Organic Consumers Association, 2000,

<http://www.organicconsumers.org/GEFacts.pdf> (17 August 2009), 2.54. Philip Geerston, What is Wrong with Roundup Ready Alfalfa? Geerston Seed Farm Position Paper on the Release of Roundup Ready Alfalfa, 20 May

2008, <http://www.geertsonseedfarms.com/pdfs/rr%20hand%20out%205.20.08.pdf> (17 August 2009).55. Friends of the Environment International, “Who benefi ts from GM crops? 9-10.56. Ibid. 10.57. Shiva, Stolen Harvest, 107.58. Bill Wildfong, “The Chain of Seeds: Biodiversity and Agriculture,” in Biodiversity in Canada: ecology, ideas and action, ed. Stephen Bocking.

(Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999), 140.59. Hope Shand, Special: Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture – Crop Genetic Resources, 1998, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, <http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EPdirect/EPre0040.htm> (24 June 2007).60. Miguel A. Altieri, “Ecological Impacts of Industrial Agriculture and the Possibilities for Truly Sustainable Farming,” in Hungry for Profi t: The

Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food and the Environment, eds. Fred Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster, and Frederick H. Buttel (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000) 81.

61. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Crop Genetic Resources, February 1998, <http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EPdirect/EPre0040.htm> (25 October 2007); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, June 1996, <http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPS/Pgrfa/pdf/swrshr_e.pdf> (24 June 2007), 14.

62. “Wildfong, “The Chain of Seeds,” 140.63. James, “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007.”64. Ibid.65. “Wildfong, “The Chain of Seeds,” 140.66. Lori Ann Thrupp, “Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture,” International

Affairs. 76, 2(2000): 271.67. Seeds of Diversity Canada, “What is Genetic Diversity?” 2006, <http://www.seeds.ca/library/doc/WhatIsGeneticDiversity.pdf> (24 June 2007). Hope

Shand, Special: Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture - Farm Animal Genetic Resources, 1998, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, <http://ww.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/EPdirect/EPre0042.htm> (24 June 2007).

68. Suzanne Ashworth, Seed to Seed: Seed Saving and Growing Techniques for Vegetable Gardeners (US: Seed Savers Exchange, 2002), 38, 137.69. Ibid., 48, 69, 197.70. David Quist and Ignacio H. Chapela, “Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico,” Nature, 414 (29 November

2001): 541.71. ETC Group, Nine Mexican States found to be GM contaminated, October 2003, <http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/145> (14 December 2009).72. Ibid.73. Ibid., The Fight Over Mexico’s GM Maize Contamination, January 2003, <http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/515> (14 December 2009).74. Monsanto Company, Technology Use Agreement, October 2006, <http://www.monsanto.ca/seeds_traits/tua/default.asp> (1 June 2010).75. ETC Group, “Nine Mexican States found to be GM contaminated.” 76. Danielle Goldberg, “Jack and the Enola Bean,” Trade and Environment Database Case Studies, December 2003, <http://www.american.edu/TED/

enola-bean.htm> (2 June 2008).77. Ibid.78. ETC Group, Hollow Victory: Enola Bean Patent Smashed At Last (Maybe), April 2008, <http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/683> (3 June 2008).79. Ikechi Mgbeoji, Global Biopiracy: Patents, Plants, and Indigenous Knowledge (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006), 13.80. Vandana Shiva, “Biopiracy: The Theft of Knowledge and Resources,” in Redesigning Life? The worldwide challenge to genetic engineering, ed. Brian

Tokar (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 283.81. Vandana Shiva, Biodiversity: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge (Cambridge, Massachusetts: South End Press, 1997), 10.82. Ibid., 68.83. CBC, Genetically Modifi ed Foods: a primer, May 2004, <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modifi cation/> (22 December 2009).84. Ibid; Greenpeace, Mandatory labelling of GE foods in British Columbia: Greenpeace launches petition demanding that the BC government introduce

mandatory labelling before next election, March 2007, <http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/latest-developments/mandatory-label-ling-of-ge-food> (22 December 2009).

85. CBC, “Genetically Modifi ed Foods: a primer.”86. Consumers’ Association of Canada, Consumers Want Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Modifi ed Foods, December 2003, <http://www.consumer.

ca/1626> (22 December 2009)87. CBC, “Genetically Modifi ed Foods: a primer.”88. Brewster Kneen, Farmageddon: Food and the Culture of Biotechnology, (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1999), 13.89. ETC Group, Communiqué, Issue # 95 – Terminator: The Sequel, May/June 2007, <http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/635/01/etcomm95_

tsequel_11june07.pdf> (8 June 2010), 3.90. Ibid.91. Ban Terminator, An Introduction to Terminator Technology, <http://www.banterminator.org/The-Issues/Introduction> (8 June 2010)92. Chaia Heller, “McDonald’s, MTV and Monsanto: Resisting Biotechnology in the Age of Information Capital,” in Redesigning Life? The worldwide

challenge to genetic engineering, ed. Brian Tokar (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 413.93. University of Maryland Medical Centre, Potato Vaccine could Fight Stomach Virus, say University of Maryland School of Medicine Researchers, July

2000, <http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/potato.htm> (8 June 2010)94. Hope Shand, “Gene Giants: Understanding the “Life Industry” ” in Redesigning Life? The worldwide challenge to genetic engineering, ed. Brian

Tokar (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 227.95. Michelle Allsopp and Janet Cotter, Pharm crops - a super-disaster in the making, April 2005, Greenpeace, <http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/

canada/report/2007/2/pharm-crops-a-super-disaster.pdf> (8 June 2010), 3.96. Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS Position Paper: Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops, October 2006, <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricul-

ture/solutions/sensible_pharma_crops/ucs-position-paper-on-pharma.html> (8 June 2010).97. Michelle Allsopp and Janet Cotter, Pharm crops, 4.98. Ibid.99. Ibid., 3; Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS Position Paper.100. ETC Group, Occasional Paper Series - No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium Size Matters!, April 2003, Vol 7, No. 1, <http://www.


etcgroup.org/upload/publication/165/01/occ.paper_nanosafety.pdf> (8 June 2010).101. ETC Group, Nanotechnology, 2010, <http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/nanotechnology> (8 June 2010).102. Paul Moss, Future foods: friend or foe? BBC News, 6 February 2007, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6334613.stm> (28 May 2008); H. C. Warad

and J. Dutta, Nanotechnology for Agriculture and Food Systems – A View, 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Food Processing Technology and Engineering, January 2005, <http://www.nano.ait.ac.th/paper.html > (28 May 2008), 6.

103. ETC Group, “Nanotechnology.”104. Rickey Y. Yada and Lorraine Sheremata, An Overview of Food Related Nanoscience in the Advanced Foods and Materials Network (AFMNet) and in

Canada, 2009, <http://www.worldfoodscience.org/cms/?pid=1004074> (8 June 2010).105. M.C. Roco, “Broader societal issues of nanotechnology,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5 (2003): 182.106. Ibid., 184-185.107. Paul Moss, “Future foods: friend or foe?”108. Roco, “Broader societal issues of nanotechnology,” 184.109. ETC Group, “Nanotechnology.”

Aisle 5: At the Check out 61

Aisle 5: At the Checkout - Corporate ControlStrolling through the supermarket, you pass shelves stocked with thousands of different products. It may surprise you to learn, however, that most of these products are made by fi ve or six companies. So what does this mean for the consumer? Among other things, that there exists an illusion of choice in grocery stores. And as we have already seen, large corporations are often responsible for many social and environmental injustices that occur throughout the world. Corporate power, furthermore, is becoming more and more concentrated, as the pace of mergers and buy-outs speeds up. This section explores some of the primary corporations in the global food industry.

Corporate ProfilesThe following profi les are not meant to condemn specifi c companies. Rather, they are meant to illustrate some of the dangers of concentrating power into the hands of a few, in particular when profi t is the bottom line. Let’s take a look at some of the corporations that supply our food.

Nestlé

Nestlé is the largest food company in the world. Its products range from milk to frozen din-ners, from soap to dog food. One of its more notorious products is its infant baby formula. Nestlé is the largest producer of breast milk substitute products in the world, but the his-tory of the product has been the subject of controversy.

Baby Milk Action, a U.K. group co-ordinating the Nestlé boycott, advocates breastfeeding. Although most mothers are able to breastfeed, they are often misled to think that formula is better for their babies. Nestlé has been criticized for publishing misleading promotional literature that encourages mothers to bottle feed.3 Without breast milk, however, babies do not benefi t from the passive immunity of a mother’s milk, thus making formula-fed ba-bies at higher risk of contracting serious diseases.

In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF drew up the International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes, a voluntary code. Nestlé and other compa-nies agreed to follow the code. And although the Nestlé boycott was called off in 1984, it started up again in 1988, because of repeated violations of the code.4

• Avenue Nestlé 55, CH-1800 Vevey, Vaud, Switzerland <www.nestle.com> • 2009 Sales: $ 109.9 billion (USD)1 • Number of Employees in 2008: 283,0002


Nestlé Brand NamesBeveragesCarnation Caro Libby’s Milo Nescau Nesquick Nestea

CerealsClustersCookie CrispNesquick

CoffeeBonkaInternational RoastNescaféNespressoRocoffyRicoréTaster’s ChoiceZoégas

Coffee Creamers Coffee-mate

Cosmetics L’Oréal

Culinary Products (bouillon, soup, canned food, pasta, sauces) Buitoni Crosse & Blackwell Libby’s Maggi Thomy

Chocolate & Confectionary Aero After Eight Baby Ruth BaciBig Turk

Butterfi nger CaillerChips Ahoy!Chokito Coffee CrispCrunch FrigorFun Dip Galak/Milkybar Gobstoppers KitKatNerdsNestlé Nuts Oh Henry! Oompas Pixy Stix Polo Quality Street Rolo Runts Smarties Tart N Tinys Turtles WonkaYes

Dairy Gloria Milkmaid/La Lechera Neslac Nespray Nido

Food ServicesChef-MateDavigel Santa Rica

Frozen Foods Buitoni Hot PocketsLean CuisineMaggi Stouffer’s

Ice Cream Camy Frisco Häagen-DazsParlour

Infant FoodsBebaCarnationCérélacGood StartGuigozNanNestum

WaterAberfoyleArrowhead Calistoga Contrex Perrier Poland Spring Quézac San Pellegrino Santa Maria Valvert Vera Vittel

Pet CareAlpo Dog ChowFancy Feast FelixFriskies Gourmet Mighty Dog Purina ONERefrigerated Products Buitoni Vismara


Pepsico, INC.

The world’s #2 soft-drink maker (after Coca-Cola), PepsiCo is also the second largest food company in the world. PepsiCo has been strongly criticized for operating in countries with oppressive regimes. Due to public pressure and concerns about human rights abus-es, however, in 1997 PepsiCo pulled out of Burma, a country under military rule.7

Pepsico Brand Names

NOTE: This list is not exhaustive. To fi nd more complete lists of Pepsico products, visit www.pepsico.com

• 700 Anderson Hill Rd., Purchase, NY 10577-1444 <www.pep-sico.com>• 2009 Sales: $43 billion5 • Number of Employees in 2009: 203,0006

Frito-Lay Brands Baken-ets Fried Pork Skins Cheetos Chester’s Popcorn Cracker Jacks Doritos Fritos Funyuns Grandma’s Cookies Lay’s Muchos Rold Gold Pretzels Ruffl es Sabritas Santitas Smartfood Smiths Sunchips 3D’s Tostitos Walkers

Pepsi-Cola BrandsAquafi na WaterFrappuccino Coffee DrinkLipton (partnership with Unilever) Mountain Dew Mug Root Beer Pepsi-Cola 7UP Slice

Quaker Oats BrandsAunt JemimaCap’n CrunchChewy Granola BarsLifeQuaker OatmealQuispRice-A-RoniSugar Puffs

Tropicana Brands Copella Dole Juices Tropicana


Kraft

Kraft Foods is the third largest food corporation in the world. Formerly a division of Philip Morris, the world’s leading cigarette maker, it was sold off in 2007 and became a separate entity.

Kraft Brand NamesAll Kraft and Nabisco foods, in addition to the following:

Beverages Capri Sun Country Time Crystal Light Kool-Aid Tang

Cereals 100% BranAlpha-Bits Grape-Nuts Honey Bunches of Oats Honeycomb Nuts’n Crunch PebblesRaisin BranShreddies Sugar-Crisp

CheesesCasinoCheez Whiz Cracker Barrel Darifarm Delissio Easy CheeseExtra Cheddar De Luxe Party Snack Philadelphia P’tit Québec Singles Velveeta

CoffeeBourbon Carte NoireChase & SanbornMaxwell House Melrose Nabob Starbucks (U.S.) Swiss

Condiments & SaucesA-1Bull’s-Eye Claussen Grey PouponMiracle Whip

Cookies & CrackersCheese Nips Chips Ahoy!Dad’s Flavor Crisps Fudgee-OHoney Maid Newtons Oreo Premium Plus PretzelsRitz SnackWell’s Teddy Grahams Triscuit Wheat Thins

Desserts & Snacks Baker’sBreathSavers Certo Cool Whip Cote D’Or Dream Whip Handi-Snacks Jell-O Life Savers (Nabisco) Planters (Nabisco) Mozart Terry’s

Main/Side Dishes Kraft Dinner Shake ’N Bake Stove Top

MeatsOscar Mayer

• 3 Lakes Drive, Northfi eld, IL 60093 <www.kraft.com>• 2009 Sales: $40 billion8 • Number of Employees in 2009: 97,0009


Unilever

Unilever is an Anglo-Dutch company and one of the world’s largest manufacturers of packaged goods, including food, home and personal care products. These products are sold in over 170 countries worldwide and comprise more than 400 brands.13 Though no country legally requires animal testing of cosmetics, toiletries or household cleaners, Uni-lever has been charged by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) for testing their products on animals.14

Unilever Brand Names

• PO Box 68, Unilever House, Blackfriars, London EC4P 4BQ, UK <www.unilever.com>• 2009 Sales: $62 billion10 • Number of Employees in 2008: 174,00011

160 million times a day, someone somewhere chooses a Uni-lever product. From feeding your family to keeping your home clean and fresh, our brands are part of everyday life. Unilever12

Butter/MargarineBecelCountry CrockI Can’t Believe It’s Not ButterRama

Cosmetics andFragrancesBrutQ-Tips

Culinary ProductsCalvéColmans

Deodorant andAftershaveAxeDegreeDoveLynxRexona/SureSuave

Diet FoodsSlim-Fast

Frozen FoodsFindus KnorrPopsicle

Ice CreamBen & Jerry’sBreyersHeartbrandMagnumSikera

Household Cleaning CifDomestosWisk

LaundryAll ComfortOmoSkip

Sunlight SnuggleSurf

Oral CareClose-UpMetadentPepsodentSignal

ShampooCream SilkDimensionFinesseHele CurtisPearsSalon Se-lectivesSunSilkThermaSilkVibrance

SoapDove

Lever 2000LuxPond’sVaseline

Tea/CoffeeBriskLiptonsLyonsRed Rose

CulinaryArgoBovrilKnorrMaizena

DessertsAlsaAmbrosia\

DressingsBest FoodsHellmann’s

Lesieur OilBertolliGalloMazola

Pasta and SaucesRagúMeuller’s

SpreadsKaroMarmiteSkippy Pea-nut Butter


The Procter & Gamble Company

Procter & Gamble is the top maker of household products worldwide.17 They have been criticized for using unsafe environmental practices and for operating in oppressive re-gimes, including South Africa during apartheid. P&G has generated a lot of controversy over the development and marketing of Olestra, a fat substitute used to make “fat free” snacks. Olestra molecules are too large for the body to digest, so all the “fat” material leaves the body without being absorbed. It can, however, cause severe abdominal cramp-ing and indigestion in some people. As well, Olestra binds to fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) and takes them out of the body along with it. As a result the FDA requires that manufacturers to add these vitamins to products containing olestra to counter this effect.18 Olestra has not yet been approved for use in Canada.

Procter & Gamble Brand Names

• One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, OH 45202 <www.pg.com> • 2009 Sales: $76.7 billion15 • Number of Employees in 2009: 135,00016

Coffee & TeaFolgersMillstone

CosmeticsCover GirlMax Factor

Deodorants/AftershaveOld SpiceSecret

DiapersLuvsPampers

Feminine HygieneAlwaysTampax

FragrancesGucciHugo BossLacoste

Hair CareClairolHead & Sholders

PhysiqueRejoy/RejoiceVidal Sassoon

Health CareDayQuil/NyQuilMetamucilPepto-BismolPrilosecVicks

Household Cleaning CascadeDownIvory DishJoyMr. CleanSpic and SpanSwiffer

LaundryArielBoldBounceCheerDownyDreftDryel

EraGainIvoryTide

Oils & Fats SubsCriscoOlean (Olestra)

Oral CareCrest ToothpasteFixodentGleemOral-BScope

Pet CareEukanubaIams

SnacksPringlesSoap & Skin CareCamayIvoryNoxzemaOlaySafeguar

Soap & Skin CareCamayIvoryNoxzemaOlaySafeguardZest

Tissues/TowelsBountyCharminPuffs

Water FiltrationPUR


Increasing Concentration in Organic FoodIt is not only the mainstream food system that is becoming more concentrated. The larg-est food companies worldwide are buying up more and more small organic food com-panies. The chart below details the main acquisitions that took place between 1997 and 2007.19


Cereal WarsCompeting neck and neck for the top of the U.S. ready-to-eat cereal business, Kellogg’s and General Mills each control about 32% of the market20

Kellogg Company

Kellogg Brand Names

General Mills, INC.

• One Kellogg Square, Battle Creek, MI 49016-3599 <www.kelloggs.com> • 2009 Sales: $ 12.6 billion21 • Number of Employees in 2009: 30,90022

CerealsAll-BranApple JacksBran BudsCocoa KrispiesCompleteCorn FlakesCorn PopsCracklin’ Oat BranCrispixCrunchFroot LoopsFrosted FlakesHealthy ChoiceJust RightMini-WheatsProduct 19

Raisin BranRice KrispiesSmacksSmart StartSpecial KSnack PakVector

Meat Alternatives & Vegetarian FoodsLoma Linda Morningstar FarmsNatural TouchWorthington

Other ProductsCorn Flake Crumbs

Croutettes Stuffi ng MixEggo Waffl esNutri-GrainPop-TartsRice Krispies TreatsSnack ‘Ums

• 1 General Mills Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55426<www.generalmills.com> • 2009 Sales: $ 14.7 billion23 • Number of Employees in 2009: 30,00024


General Mills Brand NamesCerealsBasic 4CheeriosChexCinnamon Toast CrunchCocoa PuffsCookie CrispCount ChoculaFiber OneFrench Toast CrunchGolden GrahamsHoney Nut ClustersKixLucky CharmsOatmeal CrispReece’s PuffsRice ChexSunriseTotalTrixWheaties

DessertsBetty Crocker MixesFlour & Baking MixesBisquickGold MedalRobin Hood

Meals & Side DishesBetty CrockerChicken HelperFarmhouseGreen GiantHamburger HelperTuna HelperPillsbury

Snacks & BeveragesBuglesChex MixDunkaroosFruity by the FootFruit GushersFruit Roll-UpsGolden Grahams TreatsNature ValleyOld El PasoPop SecretColomboYoplait


Endnotes1. Nestlé, Financial Statements 2009, February 2010 <http://www.nestle.com/InvestorRelations/Investor+Relations.htm>, (20 April 2010).2. Hoover’s, Nestlé S.A. – Company Overview, 2010, <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Nestl%E9_SA/crxrhi-1.html> (20 April 2010).3. Baby Milk Action, Tell Nestlé you are joining the boycott..., 2009, <http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html>, (20 April 2010).4. ---, Campaign for Ethical Marketing, 2009, <http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/campaign.html> (20 April 2010).5. PepsiCo, Inc., 2009 Annual Report, 2010, <http://www.pepsico.com/Investors/Annual-Reports.html> (20 April 2010).6. Hoover’s, PepsiCo, Inc. – Company Overview, 2010, <http://www.hoovers.com/company/PepsiCo_Inc/rrrjji-1.html> (20 April 2010).7. Cooper, Reid, A Historical Look at the PepsiCo/Burma Boycott, 1997, <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/Hx_PepsiBurmaBoy.html> (20

April 2010).8. Kraft Foods, 2009 Annual Report, February 2010, <http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/Investor/sec-fi lings-annual-report/annual_reports.aspx> (20

April 2010).9. Hoover’s, Kraft Foods – Company Overview, 2010, <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Kraft_Foods_Inc/rfyysti-1.html> (20 April 2010).10. Unilever, Annual Report and Accounts 2009, 2010 <http://annualreport09.unilever.com/>, (20 April 2010).11. Hoover’s, Unilever – Company Overview, 2010, <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Unilever/crxhif-1.html> (20 April 2010).12. Unilever, 2010, <http://www.unilever.com/> (4 April 2010).13. Ibid.14. PETA, Animal Testing 101, <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx> (4 April 2010).15. Procter and Gamble, Fundamentals – Snapshot, January 2010, <http://www.pginvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=104574&p=irol-fundSnapshot> (20

April 2010).16. Hoover’s, Procter & Gamble – Company Overview, 2010, <http://www.hoovers.com/company/The_Procter__Gamble_Company/rrtrri-1.html> (20

April 2010). 17. Ibid.18. Associated Press, FDA removes Olestra warning: Study concludes side effects of fake fat are mild and rare, October 2003, < http://www.msnbc.msn.

com/id/3076965/ns/health-fi tness/> (20 April 2010).19. Howard, Philip H., Organic Processing Industry Structure, 2007, <https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html> (18 April 2010).20. Russell Mokhiber, “The Cereal Trust,” Multinational Monitor 20 (April 1999): 28.21. Kellogg’s, 2009 Annual Report, 2010, <http://investor.kelloggs.com/annuals.cfm> (20 April 2010).22. Hoover’s, Kellogg’s – Company Overview, 2010, <http://www.hoovers.com/company/Kellogg_Company/rfxcri-1.html> (20 April 2010).23. General Mills, 2009 Annual Report, 2010, <http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=74271&p=irol-reportsannual> (20 April 2010).24. Hoover’s, General Mills – Company Overview, 2010, <http://www.hoovers.com/company/General_Mills_Inc/rfjysi-1.html> (20 April 2010).


Aisle 6: The Food Donation BinNow that you’re done your shopping, you grab your bags and head for the door. The last act of your shopping trip might be to leave something in the food donation bin, which is likely collecting food for a local soup kitchen, food bank, or women’s shelter.

What is Food Security?Regardless of where you live and how you interact with the food system, food security is an issue that affects each one of us. What comes to mind when you hear the term food security? A ‘secure’ supply, safe ingredients, affordable food?

The defi nition from the U.N. World Food Summit in 1996, states that:

This is the internationally recognized defi nition outlined in the Rome Declaration on Food Security, where U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) member countries reaf-fi rmed their commitment to the ‘right to food’ and pledged to work towards the common goal of food security.2

The defi nition is straightforward, but comprehensive food security means taking into ac-count food security from a number of perspectives. Those of...

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physi-cal and economic access to suffi cient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.1

• The Individual

• Agricultural and Food Workers

• The Earth

• Communities

Food security is a situation in which everyone has assured access to adequate, appropriate, and personally acceptable food in a way that does not damage one’s self respect.

People are able to earn a living wage by growing, producing, pro-cessing, handling, retailing, and serving food.

The quality of land, air, and water are maintained and enhanced for future generations.

Food is celebrated as central to community and cultural integrity.3

Aisle 6: The Donation Bin73

Dimensions of Food Insecurity

Food security is not just a question of cost; it also includes social and environmental con-siderations, along with political will and government policies.

Economic Factors

With around half the global population living in cities and fewer and fewer people directly involved in food production a growing number of people are purchasing most of their food. These trends are part of a shift in the food economy towards more concentrated and globalised food production and distribution systems, which not only distance people from growing food, but make income an increasingly signifi cant determinant of food security.

The FAO’s defi nition of food security identifi es the need for ‘physical and economic ac-cess’ to food. Accessibility includes both of these factors. For example:

In terms of economic access, food insecurity is often part of a larger problem of income insecurity. If you have a limited income, it can be easier to change your food purchases than to change your rent or utility bill. Economic access to food, then, needs to take into account larger questions of security that can have major impacts on people’s food choic-es.

In Canada, while there is no offi cial government poverty line, one widely recognized crite-rion is that spending more than 30% of income on necessities classifi es a household as low-income.

Social FactorsWe can measure food in cups and teaspoons, and we can calculate the calories and vita-mins required for adequate nutrition, but food extends beyond numbers and nutrients. It is also a deeply social experience, from sharing food, to food traditions and cultures. You may be able to satisfy the strictly physical requirements for food, but that doesn’t neces-sarily mean you will be able to choose the foods you want to eat. Thus, the FAO defi nition includes not just dietary needs but also ‘food preferences.’

Food is an important part of a balanced diet. Fran Lebowitz

• In 2010, urban residents will make up 50.8% of the global popu-lation.4

• In Canada in 2001, farmers represented only 2.4% of the total population.5

• How much money do you spend on food?• What foods are most affordable?• Where do you do most of your shopping?• What kind of transportation do you use?


Another social dimension of food security relates to who is most vulnerable to food inse-curity. The Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA) identifi es the nutritionally vulnerable as:

Poor people, children, people with disabilities or illnesses, elderly, aboriginal, and refu-gees.6

Women, who bear most social responsibility in raising children and care-taking, can also be especially vulnerable to food insecurity when they have limited access to resources and are trying to ensure that others’ needs are being met.

Environmental FactorsAs explored in other Aisles, there is a wide range of environmental impacts of the cur-rent global food system: distancing, excessive use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, genetic modifi cation, additives, and packaging.

Food security, at its core, relies on our ability to produce food in perpetuity without de-grading the resources upon which farming relies. The health of the soil, nutrient cycling systems, energy supplies, and suitable climate are parts of a host of conditions required for food production. Also, more energy is needed to transport, process, and distribute food that travels an average distance of 2,400 kilometres (1,500 miles) from fi eld to table in North America.7

Environmental food security includes questions of both availability and appropriate-ness:

The question of available resources and suffi cient food production is a highly debated one. For the last 50 years, increases in food production have outstripped population growth, and some argue that agriculture is still far from reaching its maximum potential.8 But others argue that scarcity is becoming a reality, with population growth and increased consumption reaching the natural limits of the earth’s resources.9 But given currently ad-equate supplies and the persistence of major food insecurity, availability is not a suffi cient reason; we need to address questions of access and distribution as well.

• What are some of your food traditions?• Can people access culturally appropriate food in grocery stores?• What about in hospitals, schools, and restaurants?

Acceptability is an indicator of whether foods meet people’s social and cultural criteria.

• How does the ecological sustainability of the food system en-sure food security?

• Are there suffi cient supplies of food to meet the needs of the global population?

• Are production methods safe and sustainable today and for future generations?


Political Factors

At its root, we need to think about who is responsible for ensuring food security and whose interests are being represented in the structures of the food system.

Food security can be either promoted or neglected in political policy and food system regulations. From urban planning to ecological agriculture, political actors play a signifi -cant role in encouraging certain types of food economies, from globalized trade to local sustainability. The last component of food security then, is agency; how much power do individuals, communities, and states have over food choices and structures? What kind of political will is there to create a democratic and equitable food system

Global DivisionsThe causes and consequences of food insecurity differ around the world, with stark divi-sions between the highly industrialized countries of the Global North and the semi-indus-trialized and agricultural countries of the Global South.

With a conservative estimate of 820 million undernourished people in the Global South,11 and a population growth rate three times that of the Global North,12 the Global South rep-resents the majority of the world and the majority of the food insecure, both now and into the future.

POPULATION 2000 2005 2010 2015More developed regions (in billions)

1.19 1.22 1.23 1.25

Less developed regions(in billions)

4.93 5.3 5.67 6.05

The FAO counts another 34 million as not having enough food, bringing the global fi gure to 854 million.14 However, this only measures hunger, or undernourishment, not broader issues such as acceptability, appropriateness, and security.

Therefore, while the Global South suffers from the vast majority of food deprivation, we cannot ignore the food insecurity that still persists in Canada and other industrialized

How is it that Canadians proclaim their right to health care, indeed see it as a distinguishing hallmark of Canadian iden-tity, when basic human needs are left unmet and rights to food security, adequate incomes and freely chosen work are not addressed?

Graham Riches10

• What kind of food production and distribution systemsshould governments foster?

• Does the government ensure people’s access to basic rightsand food security?

World Population Prospects, 200613


Countries.

Globally, we share food insecurities of inequitable distribution, environmental degrada-tion, household shortages, and undernutrition. What we need to keep in mind is the sheer number of food insecure in the South and the severity of food insecurity, from hunger to widespread micronutrient defi ciencies to acute malnourishment that can lead to death.

The Global SouthThe Global South is also incredibly diverse and differentiated in terms of food insecurity trends. For example, of the 820 million estimated hungry, over half of them are concen-trated in two regions: India, with 212 million, and Sub-Saharan Africa, with 206 million.15 But these countries and communities still share some common causes and consequenc-es of food insecurity. These are by no means complete, but hopefully provide an illustra-tion of some key issues.

PovertyThe depth and prevalence of poverty in the Global South is a major contributor to food insecurity.

Poverty is linked not only to hunger, but also to people’s access to resources, basic needs, and opportunities for education and improvement, all part of the broader determi-nants of food security.

LandHistorical patterns of unjust distribution of land ownership often result in the concentration of ownership by a small elite. Peasants can be evicted from land if they do not have a le-gal title, and attempts at agrarian reform and redistribution of land resources can become protracted and diffi cult struggles.17

Indigenous groups, women, and other marginalized groups bear the brunt of this exclu-sion. Lack of access to land can also lead to over-exploitation of resources, soil exhaus-tion, and environmental degradation.19

GlobalizationControl over resources also extends to an increasingly globalized food system. Global-ization calls for specialization and economic integration across the world. Countries that specialize in one or two raw commodities, such as cocoa or coffee, are especially vulner-able to fl uctuating market prices. Combined with this trend, many countries in the Global South are net food importers.20 If a country’s currency weakens, the value of its exports

More than 1 billion people live on less than $1 per day, and in Sub-Saharan Africa alone over 40% of the population live on less than $1 per day.16

In Colombia, 0.4 % of the landowners, about 15 000 people, control 61 % of the registered land in the country. La Via Campesina18


falls, or food prices go up, its ability to purchase food imports can be drastically affected. Globalization has also contributed to corporate concentration, with mergers and buyouts leading to oligopolies in many food and agricultural products. See the aisle on corporate concentration for more information on this. For example:

ConflictFood insecurity can be both a cause and consequence of confl ict. Scarcity and food insecurity can contribute to confl ict as people compete for resources or protest against inequitable food distribution. Regardless of the cause of confl ict, the results are always devastating:

ConsequencesHealthFood insecurity has major consequences for social, economic, environmental, and politi-cal stability, but one of the most direct impacts of food insecurity is on health. Some of the key health problems related to, or exacerbated by, inadequate nutrition are low birth weight, underweight children, child malnutrition, inadequate iodine, vitamin A defi ciencies, HIV/AIDs, and Malaria.23

FamineFamine is the most publicized and dramatic form of widespread food insecurity, with lack of access to food resulting in social and economic collapse, mass migration, and sharply increased mortality rates due to severe malnutrition and susceptibility to disease. While ‘natural’ factors, such as drought, can contribute to famine, political, social, and economic forces that structure people’s access to food play a key role in determining people’s en-titlements and rights to adequate food.24

Chronic hungerWhile famine garners media attention, more people die from complications due to chronic hunger than from acute crisis and food deprivation. The long-term effects of sustained nutritional deprivation can range from listlessness, susceptibility to illness, lack of energy, and disability, to premature death.25 Without adequate nourishment, people’s growth, reproductive health, physical stamina, and ability to concentrate, learn, and work, are compromised.26 Coping strategies to deal with food insecurity can be equally stressful, as people have to make choices for the immediate future rather than for long-term invest-

In 2005, ten companies controlled half of the world’s commer-cial seed sales.21

Armed confl ict leads to the destruction of crops, livestock, land, and water, and disrupts infrastructure, markets, and the human resources required for food production, distribution, and safe consumption. Combatants frequently use hunger as a weapon: they use siege to cut off food supplies and produc-tive capacities, starve opposing populations into submission, and hijack food aid intended for civilians. from Confl ict: A cause and effect of hunger, IFPRI22


TICKET: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION------------------------------------------------------ Issued to: Canadian Federal Government of Ontario

Charged with: 1. failure to provide basic human rights 2. governing under the infl uence of greed

Number of violations

• In 2006, 753,458 people in Canada used a food bank each month

• 43.5% of those were in Ontario. That’s 330,491 people.

• 8-10% of Canadians are estimated to be hungry or at risk of hunger.28

Discrimination and marginalization

• The most vulnerable to food insecurity are people on social assistance, families with children, the working poor, women, children, people with disabilities, First Nations, immi-grants, and people of colour.29

• Of the people using food banks in 2006, 53.5% were on social assistance, 13.4% were employed, 11% were on disability, and 6% had a pension.

• Children accounted for 41.0% of food bank clients in 2006, though they only make up about a quarter of Canada’s population.

Years of neglect

• The fi rst food bank opened in Edmonton in 1981 as ‘emergency relief.’ More than 25 years later, food banks have become a seem-ingly permanent fi xture in Canada.

• Food bank use has gone up 13.4% since 1997 and 99.3% since 1989.

• In 1995, Ontario cut welfare rates 21.6%, leading to a signifi cant rise in food bank use.30

Crime Scene

• Highest provincial per capita food bank use: Newfoundland (5.6%)

• First Nations communities• Province assisting largest share of food bank

recipients: Ontario (330,491)

Sentence

• Raise social assistance rates and minimum wage

• Guarantee the right to housing, food, and a living wage

• Foster food security and food democracy• Community service

*Statistics from CAFB HungerCount 2006

The Global North: Canada1 in 7 people in Ontario live in poverty.31 Why, in a rich country, is there still widespread pov-erty and food insecurity?

Graham Riches, an expert on food security, argues that government social transfers, a hallmark of the welfare state, have been under attack, while people’s rights and entitlements have been eroded.32 A single person on social assistance in Ontario only receives $548/month for all their expenses, someone on disability $979. The low-income cut-off (LICO) is calculated at $1,489, leaving welfare and minimum wage way below the poverty line. 16.9% of the people using food banks in Ontario in 2006 are part of the work-ing poor.33

While the numbers of people using food banks are high, they do not represent the full picture of the food insecure; only those who are getting some emergency relief. There are many barriers to using food banks that prevent people from getting the food they need, not the least of which is the stigma and stereotyping to be overcome.

The stigma of poverty extends beyond food banks. Teachers in Ontario are concerned about social isolation and low self-esteem of poor students in the classroom.34 Along with marginalization, poverty and food insecurity have major consequences for overall health, nutrition, and well-being.

Poverty and poor nutrition lead to a greater risk of heart disease, diabetes, malnutri-tion, obesity, and low birth weight infants. The costs to the healthcare system are not insignifi cant, and the prevention – access to a healthy and nutritious diet – is clear. For example, studies estimate that for every $1 spent on preventative nutrition for mothers and children, up to $4 can be saved in related health costs.35


Responses to Food InsecurityA State of Emergency ReliefGiven the lack of government attention to food insecurity, food banks, soup kitchens, and charity have emerged as the frontline emergency responses to hunger. Globally, disaster relief and food aid have become standard fare for acute crises, representing a similar band-aid solution to a structural problem. Although governments do contribute to some of these efforts, private charity and non-governmental organizations also play key roles in the provision and distribution of emergency relief, along with projects aimed at increasing agricultural production and food security.

While community initiatives are an important stop-gap measure and involve countless hours of volunteer contributions, they have become institutionalized as a replacement for actually building food security, and they often lack the resources to meet the demand for food. For example, in 2006, almost 2/3 of food banks in Canada limited people to access-ing food only once a month.36

Some argue that humanitarian efforts and private charity can depoliticise hunger, taking away the government’s obligation to social justice and equity.37 On the other hand, the Ca-nadian Association of Food Banks, in their 2006 HungerCount, calls their volunteer work a “debt of justice,” not to be mistaken as an act of mercy.38 Either way, food banks have historically tended to focus on emergency relief, rather than on addressing food insecurity at its root.

Building Food SecurityHumanitarian responses can go beyond emergency relief to become anti-hunger orga-nizations, using tools like education, advocacy, and community mobilization to push for change.39 If organizations collaborate to analyze options and propose solutions to food insecurity, they can play a larger role in pushing for political change.

Many food security initiatives do extend beyond humanitarian assistance and are involved in creating and fostering more sustainable and accessible food production and distribu-tion systems. From policy work to community gardens and educational initiatives, diverse programs are working towards building food security in our communities.

How can we work to eradicate hunger and build food security?

• Respect, promote, and ensure the right to food, livelihoods, and basic needs

• Foster food sovereignty and food democracy• Support sustainable agriculture and rural development• Build local, equitable, and accessible food economies• Increase representation of marginalized people in public

policy formation• Raise minimum wage and social assistance rates


Food security is a complex and multi-dimensional issue that requires concerted action in social, economic, environmental, and political arenas. It can seem daunting and insur-mountable, so below are a couple of examples of creative and growing movements in food security work.

Good Food BoxesGood food boxes, similar to Community Shared/Supported Agriculture programs, dis-tribute food boxes on a regular schedule to participants, who usually receive fresh fruits and vegetables, including what’s seasonally available, at subsidized or wholesale prices. FoodShare in Toronto delivers over 4,000 boxes per month through their non-profi t dis-tribution system, not only increasing access to fresh foods but supporting regional agri-culture, promoting healthy eating, and fostering community development. Along with the good food box, FoodShare advocates for policy reforms, provides nutrition education, and runs a diversity of programs related to sustainable agriculture and equitable access.

Urban Agriculture (UA)

Given rapid urbanization and increasing rates of urban poverty, there is a strong case for encouraging food production in cities as a way to build food security. Right now, the United Nations’ Development Program (UNDP) estimates perhaps as many as 800 mil-lion urban farmers produce about 15% of the world’s food.41 Women, who are among the most vulnerable to food insecurity, do much of this urban agriculture, bringing in additional income, providing extra food, and working close to home.

Beginning Join a community garden, scatter seeds, do backyard or window box gardening

Building Blocks Municipal support, encouragement, recognition in policy and planning

Benefi ts Food security, greening the city, reducing air pollution, composting and nutrient cycling

One of the key characteristics of food security initiatives is the broad perspective they take to the food system as a whole. The conceptual depth of food security, which encom-passes questions of access, distribution, social relations, environmental considerations, and political will, requires holistic responses to widespread and persistent insecurity. By acknowledging and responding to systemic and structural problems, food security initia-tives can work towards multiple goals, shifting the food system towards more diverse, equitable, and ecological paths. Educating, raising awareness, teaching nutrition and cooking skills, and growing food are all part of building a local food economy and nurtur-ing community development. But community responses are not enough on their own; they also need to leverage the political will to create trade policies, agricultural extension, and social safety nets that foster and encourage these processes.

the growing, processing, and distribution of food and non-food plant and tree crops and the raising of livestock, directly for the urban market, both within and on the fringe of an urban area. Mougeout, Growing Better Cities40


Endnotes1. United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Special Programme for Food Security, www.fao.org/spfs (20 March 2007)2. Rome Declaration on Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, FAO 19963. British Columbia Food Systems Network. (n.d.) Food Security. [Online] Available http://www.fooddemocracy.org/security.php4. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision Population Database, Population Division, Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs,

<http://esa.un.org/unup> (21 March 2007)5. 2001 Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada, <www.statcan.ca> (20 March 2007)6. Ontario Public Health Association, as cited in Riches, Graham, First World Hunger, Food Security and Welfare Politics, 19977. 100 Mile Diet, http://100milediet.org (17 March 2007)8. Brunel, Silvia, “Are there still natural famines” in The Geopolitics of Hunger, 2000-2001: Hunger and Power, Action Against Hunger-USA,

Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, Boulder, CO, USA. 20019. Brown, Lester, Tough Choices: Facing the Challenge of Food Scarcity, WorldWatch Institute 199610. Riches, Graham, First World Hunger, Food Security and Welfare Politics, 199711. FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2006, www.fao.org (15 March 2007)12. According to the UN’s World Population Prospects (2006) more developed regions’ population growth rate from 2000-2005 is .36%,

which is estimated to fall to .20% by 2010-2015. In contrast, less developed regions growth rate from 2000-2005 is 1.44%, expected to fall to 1.28% by 2010-2015. World Population Prospects,

13. Regional Profi les, World Population Prospects: the 2006 revision, UN Population Division, <http://esa.un.org/unpp>14. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2006, FAO <www.fao.org>15. ibid.16. The Millennium Development Goals Report, 2005, UN Statistics Division.17. La Via Campesina, Annual Report: Violation of Peasants’ Human Rights, 2006 <www.viacampesina.org>18. ibid.19. Brunel, Silvia, in The Geopolitics of Hunger, 2001-2002, Action Against Hunger20. Mougeot, Luc J.A. “For Self-Reliant Cities: Urban Food Production in a Globalizing South” in For Hunger-Proof Cities, Edited by Mustafa

Koc, Rod MacRae, Luc J.A. Mougeot, and Jennifer Welsh, IDRC, 199921. 18 ETC Group, Global Seed Industry Concentration, 2005 <www.etcgroup.org>22. Confl ict: A Cause and effect of hunger, A draft review by IFPRI, compiled by Ellen Messer, Marc J. Cohen and Thomas Marchione.,

Washington, DC, USA23. 5th World Nutrition Report: Nutrition for Improved Development Outcomes, Standing Committee on Nutrition, UN, 200424. Devereux, S. Famine in the 20th century, 2000.25. Rod McRae, CFNY, Food Security 403 notes, 200726. Spasoff, 1987; Surgeon General (US), 1988. in Is food: the next public health challenge? Toronto Food Policy Council, 199727. Maxwell, Simon, Alternative Indicators28. Riches, Graham, First World Hunger, Food Security and Welfare Politics, 199729. ibid.30. Husbands, Winston, “Food Banks as AntiHunger Organizations” in For Hunger-Proof Cities, IDRC, 199931. Statistics Canada, 2001 <www.statscan.ca>32. Riches, Graham, First World Hunger, Food Security and Welfare Politics, 1997 33. CAFB HungerCount 200634. Income Security Advocacy Centre, Toronto, 2007 Pre-budget submission (www.incomesecurity.org> (March 22, 2007)35. Is food the next public health challenge? TFPC36. HungerCount, Canadian Association of Food Banks, 200637. Riches, Graham, First World Hunger, Food Security and Welfare Politics, 199738. Greg deGroot-Maggetti, HungerCount, CAFB39. Husbands, Winston, “Food Banks as AntiHunger Organizations” in For Hunger-Proof Cities, IDRC, 199940. ibid.41. Mougeot, Luc J.A.Growing Better Cities, Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development, IDRC 2006


Now What?Thank you for taking the Supermarket Tour. We hope you found it interesting and informa-tive, but, most of all, we hope it has inspired you to put what you’ve learned to work and take positive steps towards improving the food system.

Much of the information provided during the Tour can seem overwhelming at times. It’s easy to wonder what you can do about multinational corporations and the economic ap-proach of the World Trade Organization. While it’s true that resolving these issues will take the concerted efforts of a lot of people over a long period of time, there are many things you can to today to start the process:

Educate Yourself and OthersTaking the Tour is an excellent fi rst step towards understanding how the food system operates. We would encourage you to take it again, but bring a friend or family member along with you next time. There is also an ever-increasing number of books on the food system, courses at local colleges and universities, and information on the internet. To get you started, we suggest:

It’s the Little Things That CountWe’re all familiar with the adage, “Think globally, act locally.” Nothing could be more true when it comes to food. This is the area where you can feel the most immediate satisfac-tion that your actions are making a difference. Why not:

• The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan• The 100-Mile Diet by Alisa Smith and J.B. Mackinnon• The End of Food by Paul Roberts

• Plant a garden: Nothing tastes better than a tomato picked right off the vine; once you’ve tried one, you’ll never want to buy one from the grocery store again. Start small if you’ve never gardened before, go organic, and be sure to try heritage breeds: they tend to be more fl avour-ful than conventional varieties, and using them maintains diversity.

• If you don’t have space for gardening, get a plot in a community garden: Many Ontario cities have commu-nity gardens, which provide the benefi t of turning garden-ing into a social experience through which you can meet like-minded people, as well as the opportunity to save money by sharing tools. No community gardens where you live? Perhaps you could make an arrangement with a friend or neighbor who has space in which they let you grow vegetables in their yard in exchange for a share of the harvest.


• If gardening’s not your thing, join a CSA and/or shop at your local farmer’s market: Much of food security is about keeping small-scale, local farmers in business. Joining a CSA will provide a local farmer with some guar-anteed income. Shopping at the farmer’s market allows you to get to know your food producers and ask ques-tions about how the food was produced. Buy organic or ecologically grown whenever possible: doing so will send a message to conventional farmers that they will have a market for these products if they switch practices.

• Go vegetarian: A vegetarian diet based on locally grown organic foods resolves many of the issues identifi ed in the Tour, while providing nutritious, socially- and environmen-tally-sound food. If you’re already vegetarian, why not try vegan for a while?

• Eat less meat: The word “vegetarian” still sets of warn-ing bells for many people. If vegetarianism seems too extreme for you, try reducing the amount of meat you eat. You could start by eating smaller portions at each meal, and then by enjoying one or two meat-free dinners a week. Not sure how to cook a vegetarian meal? Any book store will have a selection of vegetarian cookbooks, and the internet put literally thousands of recipes at your fi ngertips.

• Eat local, organic, pasture-raised meat: While it’s true that meat raised this way is more expensive than the meat you can buy in the grocery store, your meat bill may not change much if you’re eating less meat. Organic, pasture-raised meat is also healthier for you and for the animals involved.

• Try your hand at canning and preserving: Whether you buy local produce or grown your own, canning and preserving allow you to enjoy the fresh tastes of summer in the middle of winter and reduce your reliance on the large grocery stores. Canning and preserving can seem intimidating at fi rst. As with gardening, start small, and why not make it a social event by inviting friends or family members to help out?


Get ActivePolitically active, that is. Though the political decision making process can feel pretty inac-cessible, here are a few things you can do to make your voice heard:

• Write letters: Writing intelligent letters can lead to sur-prising outcomes. Find out who’s responsible for the issue you are writing about (i.e., Federal, provincial, or municipal government), fi nd out who the best person is to receive your letter (e.g., your local counselor, your town mayor, your local Member of Provincial Parliament, your Member of Parliament, a Minister, the Premiere, the Prime Minister), and take the time to craft a well-thought-out explanation of the issue and your concerns around it, as well as your proposed solution or solutions to the prob-lem. Most politicians (or their staff) will respond to letters of this type. You could also try writing letters to the editor of your local or regional newspaper.

• Go to local council meetings: Get to know how your local government works by attending town council meet-ings. This could also provide an opportunity for your voice to be heard and considered when decisions are made.

• Become a politician: The world needs more politicians who care about issues such as those described in the Tour. If you’ve got the drive, go for it!


Appendix: How to lead a Supermarket Tour

Taking a group of people for a guided tour of a supermarket is one of the best ways to highlight the issues in this booklet. Anyone should be able to go on a tour, including students, seniors, neighbours, parents and religious community members. The two-hour Supermarket Tour is designed for small groups; a group of about eight people, including tour guides, works well. Larger groups can be disruptive in the supermarket, while smaller groups might miss out on benefi cial group discussions. If you do have a large group, try splitting the group into two or more smaller groups.

rfFacilitating a TourYou don’t have to be an expert on all the issues in this booklet to lead a tour. As a tour guide or facilitator, your job is to raise questions for discussion and to direct the process of learning. Chances are the people going on the tour already know several different things about the food system, and everyone on the tour is there to exchange information and ideas.

The following are some suggestions for facilitating a tour:

• Although the tour can be led by one person, it is easier managed by two so that subjects can be divided. Also, while one person talks, the other can prepare for the next section of the Tour.

• Alternatively, if you are working as a group, you might divvy up the sections ahead of time and have each participant facilitate a different discussion or activ-ity.

Preparing for a Tour

• Become familiar with the material in this booklet. You may fi nd that you need to update information based on signifi cant current events.

• There is too much information in here for a single tour, so decide which themes you’d like to stress. Covering all the subjects could leave participants over-whelmed. If they want to fi nd out about certain topics in more detail, they can follow up later by reading The Supermarket Tour. Ask the supermarket manager for permission.

• Ask when is a good time to come in so as not to disrupt customers. Explain that you would like to take a group of people on a guided tour of the supermarket, that it is a small group, and that you will be careful to stay out of customers’ way as you walk through the store.

• Choose a store and visit it. Run through a dress rehearsal. Plan where you would like to stop during the tour. Estimate how long each section might take so you have a rough timeline.


• Prepare props, lists or handouts for any activities during the tour.

• It would be good to prepare a list of local alternatives, including shops where or-ganic foods and products are sold, community shared agriculture, food co-ops, etc. Prepare to hand out copies of this at the end of the tour.

On the Tour

• At the beginning of the tour, it is important to outline the objectives and themes of the tour. It is a good idea to have the participants introduce themselves and share what they would like to gain from the tour. Let participants know how long the tour will last.

• Encourage everyone to participate. Explain that you are a facilitator, not a lec-turer, and affi rm that everyone has much to contribute to this tour.

• Encourage participants to pick up products and examine labels.

• It may be a good idea to discuss alternatives at the end of each theme, rather than leaving this to the end. Participants may feel more empowered and opti-mistic if they are given time to think through alternatives throughout the tour.

• Don’t worry if you don’t have all the answers. Record any unanswered ques-tions and ask for volunteers to research the answers and share them with the group at a later time.

• Leave the supermarket for the debriefi ng session.

Debriefi ng

• Debriefi ng the tour is very important. There needs to be time for participants to share their impressions, ask further questions and give feedback.

• Ask participants to share their strongest impressions with the group. Don’t feel that you have to comment on each response.

• Follow up on any questions.

• Some participants may feel that the problems are too large for one person to make a difference. Emphasize the importance of small changes.

• If the group works well together, you might suggest that the group work together for some common goal at a later date, such as inviting a speaker, giving tours to others or getting together to write letters. But don’t push people into action if they are resistant.

• Ask people to consider what their visions for change are. They don’t necessarily

have to share this with the group if they are uncomfortable. Envisioning a goal is a much more positive motivator than dwelling on the negative aspects of the current system.


• Finally, evaluate the tour. Ask each participant to state one positive aspect of the tour, and one thing that could be improved. This will help you to improve your planning and presentation for any further tours.

Sample ActivitiesWhile it may seem diffi cult in a supermarket, group activities are good ways to take breaks from information-intensive subjects. Activities often reinforce the information presented. Here are two activities that may be used during the course of the tour. Activities help to concretize the information being presented. At the end of each activity, be sure to leave time for a discussion on alternatives.

Making a Banana SplitThis activity can be used in a discussion about produce and the effects of buying produce from developing countries.

Materials: Banana cut-outs, pens.

• Have participants work singly or in pairs. Explain that you are using bananas as an example of a product exported by developing countries to better understand who earns what in the process of getting the banana to us.

• Quickly brainstorm: where do bananas come from? What steps are involved in the production and distribution of bananas? List people’s suggestions. Sum-marize them by listing the following types of categories: farmer and plantation worker; export, transportation & taxes; wholesaler (e.g. Chiquita, Dole); retailer (stores).

• Make sure everyone in the group has a basic idea of the role of each of these groups.

• Ask each participant (or pair) to split up the banana based on the share they think each group listed above should receive, based on costs and labour (e.g. if a banana costs one dollar, how many cents should go to the farm worker, the local store, etc.?) Have them explain their reasons behind their numbers. If pos-sible, get the group to agree on how the banana should be split.

• Show the participants the actual breakdown of who receives what. (See Chapter 2; in general, out of every dollar, the worker/grower earns fi ve cents, the costs of export, transportation and taxes amount to 44 cents, the wholesaler gets 17 cents and the retail store gets 34 cents.)

• Ask the group why they think the banana is cut the way it is. Why do the work-ers get so little? Who sets the prices? What can be done to change the situation so that workers and farmers receive a fairer share?


• You may want to remind the group that while the banana is only one example of the many products that come from developing countries, many other agricul-tural products (such as sugar, coffee and even manufactured products) have a similar breakdown. Even in Canada, wheat farmers are paid relatively little for their crops.

Adapted from “Workshop: What in the World is Fair Trade?” Ten Days for Global Justice: Education and Action Guide, 1998.


Let’s Go Shopping! A Window on Corporate Concentration

This is a good activity to let participants really see the control of corporations.

Materials: Separate cue cards with the following shopping lists (do not let people know which company is associated with each list until the participants have reassembled).

Suggested Shopping Lists

• Give participants about 15 minutes to get as many of the products on their shopping lists as possible. Ask the group to reassemble near the ice cream section, so that no products melt during the tour. Participants can share with the others what items are on their list and in their shopping basket.

• Once you disclose which corporation manufactures the items on each list, you can provide relevant information about each corporation (see Chapter 5).

• Alternately, you can make up your own lists from the lists provided in the book-let. You can also make lists to illustrate other points, such as what food prod-ucts contain Genetically Modifi ed Organisms (Chapters 2 and 4), or what foods contain certain pesticide residues.

List 1: Philip Morris

Jell-O Cheez Whiz Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Maxwell House coffee Minute Rice Cool Whip Raisin Bran cereal Kool-Aid Philadelphia Cream Cheese Toblerone chocolate bar Baker’s chocolate Miracle Whip

List 2: Nestlé

Coffee-Mate Nescafé coffee Smarties Turtles Alpo dog food Perrier water Carnation baby formula Parlour ice cream Stouffer’s frozen entrée Libby’s canned beans Opti-Free contact lens solution Maggi bouillon

List 3: Unilever

Becel margarine Country Crock margarine Breyer’s Ice Cream Ragú spaghetti sauce Lipton cup-a-soup Red Rose tea Sunlight dish soap Salon Selectives shampoo Close-Up toothpaste Dove soap Q-Tips Degree deodorant

List 4:Procter & Gamble

Folgers coffee Sunny Delight Pringles Crisco vegetable shortening Jif peanut butter Old Spice aftershave Oil of Olay soap Pampers diapers Tampax tampons Crest toothpaste Tide laundry detergent Mr. Clean

List 5: General Mills

Cheerios cereal Lucky Charms cereal Golden Grahams cereal Total cereal Betty Crocker cake mix Robin Hood baking product Hamburger Helper Bugles snack Fruit Roll-Ups Yoplait yogurt Nature Valley bars Pop Secret popcorn

an opirg peterborough publication · acknowledgments writing, editing and research for the...

Documents