With its narrow focus on finance and corporate-owned products and technologies, the Summit’s outcomes will exacerbate inequality, debt, dispossession and extraction, especially in the global south, and further undermine the small-scale food provision on which most people worldwide depend.
More than half of the farmland in the United States is expected to change hands in the next 10-15 years, and TIAA and other pension fund managers are major players, wielding incredible economic power,
Farmers, ecologists, academics—and even some of the UN’s own food policy experts—say the organization is favoring corporate interests over human welfare.
The Constitution gives states the authority to oversee land transactions, so it is difficult to get a true feel at the federal level for how much agricultural land is owned by non-U.S. corporations or citizens.
Financier and corporate interest in farmland has driven small, Indigenous, and farmers of color around the world off their land, including Brazil where Harvard University and pension fund TIAA purchased large tracts of land to plant in soy and corn.
According to a new coalition of farmers, growers, and academics led by the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), keeping existing farmers of color on the land—and helping new ones get started—will only be possible if they can get a price for their food that’s more than what it costs to produce it.
On average, farmers are paid $1.45 for each gallon of milk that costs them $2 to produce.
EPA staff felt constrained or muted in sharing their concerns on the dicamba registrations.
The EPA again “failed in its legal duties to ensure that the pesticide would not cause unreasonable harm to farmers and farming communities as well as to the environment and hundreds of endangered species.”
The MST settlement in Brazil offers a living testament to the revitalizing power of agroecology, and it can be replicated in other formerly destitute regions.
If most U.S. animal agriculture as turned into corporations racing to produce as much meat as cheaply as possible while offloading health and biodiversity impacts as “externalities,” who’s to say the same won’t happen in the ocean?