Talk:Food sovereignty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Food Sovereignty , Pre-condition for Food Security[edit]

Ensuring Food Security is ultimate aim of any agricultural system. But, Food Security should not compromise the food sovereignty. These two terms Food Security and Sovereignty looks like identical, even some people use as synonyms, however has great differences. Food security in one hand is a technical concept , whereas sovereignty is political.

As according to World Food Summit (October 1996) ,Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” It has four pillars or dimensions : Food availability, Food Access, Food Utilization and Stability.

Similarly, Food sovereignty is the right of each nation to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce its basic foods respecting cultural and productive diversity. We have the right to produce our own food in our own territory. Food sovereignty is a precondition to genuine food security." - (Via Campesina, 1996: 1). It comprises four priority areas(pillars): the right to food; access to productive resources; mainstreaming of agro-ecological production; and trade and local markets.

Economic and political structure has lot to do with overall development framework of nation. Agriculture development is not an exception. The objective of any agricultural program is food security. Food security of individuals, households, communities, regions and nation as a whole. Then, does food security means agricultural development? no off-course not. Because food security aims to fulfill the food and dietary need of people from any sources available, it does not emphasis on own production and sustainability, whereas sovereignty does so. Then least developed and developing countries has to be awake and keep in mind, food security if does not ensure food sovereignty should not be only aim of the national agriculture.

Lot of controversies and debates are there to establish their own verse among advocates of food security and food sovereignty. Country like Nepal is never part of such discussion. We are actually follower of power. Who virtually wins and establishes the own definition, Nepal would be the supporter of them.

The debate on either food security or sovereignty is not new, however the sprouting of the sovereignty concept took place after establishment of Via Campesina in 1992 by international Farming and Peasant Movement. The advocacy for food security is doing through concept of World Trade Organization (WTO) and Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation's (FAO). Whereas, International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignity( IPC) comprising of NGO's and social movements, is advocating for food sovereignty.

Now it's a time to think of these things seriously, either Nepal would prefer to be a food secure country at any cost or maintain food sovereignty. Interim constitution of Nepal 2007 has stated food sovereignty as liability of nation. In contrast to this, relevant ministries and agencies are wholeheartedly working for food security at any cost. If government is not serious at this time, culture of food dependency, which is promoting nowadays would increase more in days to come, making nation food insecure chronically.

FAO itself has questioned on maintaining food security through liberalized economy. It means the culture of economic rationalism is questionable on its sustainability, rather we need green rationalism, which is only possible from food sovereignty.

Therefore, let's work together, make our nation food secure through food sovereignty. Protect and promote our farmers and agriculture and develop our nation economically and socially in a sustainable way.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Khanal B. (2014) Article Published on Agriculture Weekly Nepal, 20 March 2014 (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

It seems unlikely that satisfies WP:RS. I would recommend getting a consensus at WP:RSN before using it as a source for anything but its own statements. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy, hammering the revert button is not a substitute for consensus and policy-compliance. I recognise that there is a lot of content you really want to put into articles, but sooner or later you will wear out your revert button or an admin will take it away from you, and from that point the rest of the community can begin to clean up the mess. bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a reliable source. The authors are at University Pierre and Marie Curie/ National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, France.
Bob thank you for posting on this talk page. However, you have only done so after I reverted your blatant POV pushing, and after another editor opened a complaint against you on the Arbitration Requests Noticeboard. You have some audacity to accuse me of WP:NPOV violation. In fact you are the one that should learn to follow WP:NPOV. And please do the community a favor and learn that on WP it is important to try to build WP: Consensus on the talk page before removing massive amounts of sourced content. In fact you are the one whom editors should take the revert button away from -- you have reverted an enormous amount of sourced content in recent days from a large number of articles, as evidenced by your list of so-called 'contributions.' Your behavior is disruptive and out of control. It's going to take the community months or even years to undo the enormous damage you have done recently. Please stop removing content because you just don't like it. Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If you ever manage to find a consensus that is a reliable source, I would happily use it in many articles. Until then, please try to comply with wikipedia policies; stop editwarring to push advocacy sites when you know there is no consensus to support them. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


There is hardly any mention of race. Race is an extremely important factor when it comes to food sovereignty. People need to have not only access to healthy foods but also foods that are culturally appropriate. Although other countries are mentioned there also seems to be an over representation of the of western countries. Kadepercy (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In the United States[edit]

Food sovereignty was recently in the news in the USA (hence my visit to this page). News coverage of events in Wyoming and Maine, as here , may be useful to someone who wants to expand content of this article. I should guess that food sovereignty in the USA is one aspect of the current wave of jurisdictional struggles between, municipal, state, and federal governments over the regulation of various economic activities (for example, fracking), and that it is an issue being driven in considerable part by American libertarians. I have no idea, though, whether those possibilites have been explored in publications suitable for use as Wikpiedia sources. This video suggests another angle worth exploring: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)