**3. The unsustainable neoliberal food policy**

As a generally intended term food policy refers to the two fields of intervention of food safety and food security. Moreover, a third field may be added concerning the control of the environmental impact of food production and distribution; this component may be called food sustainability. As an institutionalized field of state intervention food policy emerged at the beginning of the third food regime. The term *food security* was coined for the first time following the First World Food Conference in 1974 in Rome. The term food safety was used first in the United States in 1977 when naming the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).2 During the previous food regimes the only institutionalized field of public intervention was agricultural policy, which was part of the general economic development policy, and was often subordinated to industrial policy. The first World Food Summit was convened under the emotional boost of the global economic crisis, -consequent to the concomitant food, financial and oil crisis-, of the 1971-73. Nevertheless, it was also the culmination of decades of protests (summarized by the demand for a New International Economic Order) expressed by the "third world" countries due to the exploitation of their natural resources and the consequent persistent hunger and poverty they faced.

In 1974, governments attending the World Food Conference had proclaimed that "every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop their physical and mental faculties." This statement reflects the prevalent politically economic view of the time, which, under the general label of "welfare state", endorsed an active role of states in the economy in order to fulfill their commitment to uphold human rights and promote social justice. In 1974 the declared goal of governments was to completely eradicate hunger on a world scale. Two decades later, when the neoliberal wind had already passed into oblivion the policy attitudes of the embedded liberalism, the Rome Declaration, at the 1996 World Food Summit, set the far less ambitious target of reducing by half the number of undernourished people by no later than the year 2015.

Therefore, as a matter of fact, food policy so far has suffered from a severe internal inconsistency: while its goals were set in the political era antecedent neo-liberalism, its instruments have been developed together with the consolidation of neoliberal ideology.

Neoliberalism represents a new particular political economic approach in liberal systems of modern capitalist societies, which has replaced the previous approach of embedded liberalism (Harvey, 2005). According to embedded liberalism, to which the experience of welfare states in the thirty years 1950-1970 has been linked, the economic sphere is embedded in the social and political spheres, and the state has the mandate to intervene in the economy with regard to a variety of goals beyond the allocative efficiency; such as distributional and political goals. On the contrary, according to neoliberalism, the economic sphere is independent from the social and political one and states ought to abstain from intervening in the economy, allowing individuals to participate in free and self-regulating markets. In the case of food policy, these two perspectives lead to a very different choice of

<sup>2</sup> The concept of food safety has been incorporated in the more complex definition adopted at the 1996 World Food Summit: "Food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels [is achieved] 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".

Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 381

markets; state failures are more dangerous than market failures, which tend to be self-

**Food policy instruments**  Embedded liberalism (the economic sphere dependent on social and

Competition policy (high

Command and control instruments (standards

Command and control

instruments (taxes and

State as a direct provider

Upholding human rights (the economic dimension overshadowed by political and social dimensions)

(standards and regulation) Market based

of public goods

Public information

subsidies)

Regulation Disclosure

Regulation Fiscal measures Direct market interventions

Table 1. Food policy instruments in the neoliberal food regime

Neoliberalism

political sphere)

enforcement)

carbon tax) Self regulation Private governance

Privatization

Self-regulation Private governance

No intervention

Private governance

CSR

SCR

(economization of social and

Chicago school approach to competition policy (low

Market based instruments, according preference to economic incentives with respect to taxes (e.g. carbon emission trading preferred to

Market based instruments

political sphere)

enforcement).

and regulation) Market based instruments (taxes, subsidies, and economic

incentives)

correcting as long as the free competitive process is not disturbed.

**Food policy goals** 

*The economic rationale* 

competitive markets

food production and

Correcting market failure: negative externalities (limiting the environmental impact of

Correcting market failures: non

distribution, such as pollution, global warming, and non renewable resource depletion)

Correcting Market failure: public goods (food safety and climate change mitigation as examples of public goods)

Correcting market failure: informative imperfection (as in the case of credence goods and

*Ethical and political rationale*  Assuring access to safe food to poor people. Food as a human

Food safety and food security policies as a matter of social

food risk)

rights

justice

goals and instruments. Table 1 confronts food policies in the two cases of embedded liberalism and neoliberalism. In the first column, the main food policy goals are listed according to the two possible rationales for intervention: the sole economic rationale, concerning the improvement of allocative efficiency through the correction of market failures (such as non competitive markets, externalities, public goods and information problems), and the ethical/political rationale, concerning the accomplishment of social justice and human rights. In the second and third columns, the main policy instruments deployed in case of embedded liberalism and neoliberalism are listed. There are two major differences between the two political views.

The first difference is that while embedded liberalism is consistent with both the economic and the political/ethical rationales, neoliberalism only accepts the economic rationale. In other words, while embedded liberalism awards distributive and social goals a prominent place in the food policy agenda, the only goal accepted by neoliberalism is economic efficiency. An important consequence is that neoliberalism does not foresee any form of intervention in order to uphold individuals' rights to adequate and safe food. With respect to food security, the rationale for intervention is ethical and political rather than economic. Ensuring access to food for poor people means carrying out policies of income redistribution, which respond to objectives of social justice rather than of economic efficiency; it also means considering food to be a human right, which has to be upheld by governments through public commitment. However, it is worth noticing that the goal of food security is still pursued under neoliberalism, but the idea is that keeping markets free from any form of intervention will boost economic development and, through a trickledown process, will eventually benefit hungry people; hence food security is considered to be the "natural" outcome of the economic development assured by a system of free markets.

The second difference is that in the case of market failures, while neoliberalism only acknowledges market-based instruments, embedded neoliberalism strongly relies also on command-and-control policies. Many problems of food safety and sustainability can be modelled in terms of market failures. In the case of food safety an adequate risk prevention may be considered as a public good, for which properties of non rivalry and non excludability prevent the private sector from providing the efficient supply. Also imperfect information applies, when the low food risk is seen as a quality attribute exhibiting the character of a credence good (the typical example is the presence of chemicals and phytosanitary products' residual substances). Externalities are the main concern in the case of sustainability goals; moreover, prevention of negative environment impacts may be considered as a public good; for instance, reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions is a public good, which firms do not provide unless with direct state intervention. As summarized in table 1, embedded liberalism tackles all these problems with a large set of instruments, including all types of state direct and command-and-control interventions, such as standards, regulation and state participation in economic activities. On the contrary neoliberalism only deploys market-based instruments, such as taxes and incentives, privatization and self-regulation (Backer, 2008; Pariotti, 2009). In fact, neoliberal ideology endorses a system of free markets and free trade where the only acceptable reason for state regulation is to safeguard commercial liberty and private property. Accordingly, it stresses that: problems of public goods may be solved through the Coase theorem (and hence through privatization); food safety can be fulfilled through self regulation and SCR; food security is the "natural" outcome of the economic development assured by a system of free

goals and instruments. Table 1 confronts food policies in the two cases of embedded liberalism and neoliberalism. In the first column, the main food policy goals are listed according to the two possible rationales for intervention: the sole economic rationale, concerning the improvement of allocative efficiency through the correction of market failures (such as non competitive markets, externalities, public goods and information problems), and the ethical/political rationale, concerning the accomplishment of social justice and human rights. In the second and third columns, the main policy instruments deployed in case of embedded liberalism and neoliberalism are listed. There are two major

The first difference is that while embedded liberalism is consistent with both the economic and the political/ethical rationales, neoliberalism only accepts the economic rationale. In other words, while embedded liberalism awards distributive and social goals a prominent place in the food policy agenda, the only goal accepted by neoliberalism is economic efficiency. An important consequence is that neoliberalism does not foresee any form of intervention in order to uphold individuals' rights to adequate and safe food. With respect to food security, the rationale for intervention is ethical and political rather than economic. Ensuring access to food for poor people means carrying out policies of income redistribution, which respond to objectives of social justice rather than of economic efficiency; it also means considering food to be a human right, which has to be upheld by governments through public commitment. However, it is worth noticing that the goal of food security is still pursued under neoliberalism, but the idea is that keeping markets free from any form of intervention will boost economic development and, through a trickledown process, will eventually benefit hungry people; hence food security is considered to be the "natural" outcome of the economic development assured by a system of free markets. The second difference is that in the case of market failures, while neoliberalism only acknowledges market-based instruments, embedded neoliberalism strongly relies also on command-and-control policies. Many problems of food safety and sustainability can be modelled in terms of market failures. In the case of food safety an adequate risk prevention may be considered as a public good, for which properties of non rivalry and non excludability prevent the private sector from providing the efficient supply. Also imperfect information applies, when the low food risk is seen as a quality attribute exhibiting the character of a credence good (the typical example is the presence of chemicals and phytosanitary products' residual substances). Externalities are the main concern in the case of sustainability goals; moreover, prevention of negative environment impacts may be considered as a public good; for instance, reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions is a public good, which firms do not provide unless with direct state intervention. As summarized in table 1, embedded liberalism tackles all these problems with a large set of instruments, including all types of state direct and command-and-control interventions, such as standards, regulation and state participation in economic activities. On the contrary neoliberalism only deploys market-based instruments, such as taxes and incentives, privatization and self-regulation (Backer, 2008; Pariotti, 2009). In fact, neoliberal ideology endorses a system of free markets and free trade where the only acceptable reason for state regulation is to safeguard commercial liberty and private property. Accordingly, it stresses that: problems of public goods may be solved through the Coase theorem (and hence through privatization); food safety can be fulfilled through self regulation and SCR; food security is the "natural" outcome of the economic development assured by a system of free

differences between the two political views.

markets; state failures are more dangerous than market failures, which tend to be selfcorrecting as long as the free competitive process is not disturbed.


Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 383

Food waste and loss, i.e. food that is discarded or lost uneaten, annually account for 1.3 billion tons of food, about one third of the global food

production (according to a 2011 estimate). Consumers' attitudes and retailers' procurement and marketing policies are referred to as the main causes.

nevertheless important recognized causes are poverty, low level of education,

Besides hunger malnutrition means over nutrition and obesity. Obesity is associated with higher mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases and cancer. In the United States obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death. Over the last twenty years obesity has also spread

in developing countries. World obesity epidemic has multiple causes,

Over the last thirty years, food and agriculture have not been at the top of the agenda for governments of developed countries. Few events, amongst which the BSE outbreak and the failure of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, have been deemed worthy of the front pages of newspapers. It was with the 2008 food crisis that the issues of food security and the fragility of the global food system were brought to the fore as hot topics at the level of

The 2008 food crisis and the concomitant financial crisis have shown the contradictions and the shortcomings of neoliberalism to the public at large. Criticism of the system, confined over the previous years at margin of media and academia, have reached the large public and

In the aftermath of food riots, which spread across poor countries faced by the sudden rise in food prices, two alternative readings of the crisis were given, the "official" one, by mainstream academicians and FAO, and the alternative one, by some ONGs, heterodox social scientists and the various associations which had been fighting the neoliberal food system over the previous years. The comparison of the two analysis offers the opportunity to understand how continuing neoliberal policies may worsen, instead of resolve, future food crisis; it also helps to introduce the discussion on the alternative forms of intervention

Participants at the FAO Conference held in Rome in June 2008 (FAO, 2008) identified two main causes of the food crisis: 1) the structural changes in demand associated with the high economic growth rate of the emergent capitalistic countries (China in particular); 2) the strong pressure on the energy market, this latter aspect inducing both rising costs of the very fuel dependent food system and a strong competition between food/feed and biofuel crop cultivation. With regards to a third cause, the role of the financial market crisis and its

In contrast to the "official" interpretation of the crisis, heterodox analysis, as reported by ECT group and PANAP (ECT group, 2008; Guzman, 2008) identified three important points, essential for understanding the food crisis, that were missing in official documents of FAO,

effects on the grain futures market, there was instead a strong disagreement.

children exposure to junk food advertising.

governments and international organizations as well as that of society.

Table 2. The unsustainable neoliberal food regime

Food loss and waste

Malnutrition and

obesity

mass media.

which is the issue of the next section.

national governments and the World Bank (WB).

Thirty years of neoliberal food policy seem not to have been successful in achieving the most part of food policy goals. Currently the food system at global level proves inadequate to meet people's needs and to ensure the preservation of natural resources and the environment. Health emergencies related to obesity and hunger pose serious challenges to people's lives, while the increasing food industrialization and globalization destroy the environment and natural resources apace. Figures in table 2 briefly synthesize "food failures" of current times, which pose serious challenges for the future food policy.


Thirty years of neoliberal food policy seem not to have been successful in achieving the most part of food policy goals. Currently the food system at global level proves inadequate to meet people's needs and to ensure the preservation of natural resources and the environment. Health emergencies related to obesity and hunger pose serious challenges to people's lives, while the increasing food industrialization and globalization destroy the environment and natural resources apace. Figures in table 2 briefly synthesize "food

Food security The number of people lacking access to the minimum diet has risen from 824

Energy In the future oil shortages may threaten food availability. It takes more than

Water scarcity Agriculture accounts for 70% of global fresh water use. Almost a billion

Food safety Unsafe food causes many acute and life-long diseases, ranging from

policy agendas to international organisms.

million people annually, 1.9 million of them children.

Inequalities Hunger does not affect uniformly people in the world: it is concentrated in

production and distribution (such as home storage and refrigerators, waste disposal, transportation by final consumers and so on) the global food system is accountable for nearly 50% of total world GHG emissions (Grain, 2009). Climate change threatens food production through desertification, water

400 gallons of oil to feed one person for a year in the USA. In terms of energy conversion this food production system means that it takes three calories of energy for every single calorie of edible food produced on average. In the case of grain-fed beef it takes 35 calories of energy for every one calorie of beef. Oil shortage threatens food security also through the increasing use of

The amount of arable land per capita is steadily decreasing. It has almost halved since 1960. After the 2008 food crisis rich countries and TNCs have been buying large swathes of land, mainly offered by corrupted governments

people live in countries chronically short of water. By 2030 demand for water

diarrhoeal diseases to various forms of cancer. WHO estimates that foodborne and waterborne diarrhoeal diseases taken together kill about 2.2

There are evident imbalances of power among the different stages of the world food chain. About 7 billion consumers and 1.5 farmers are squeezed by

processors- who control 70%of the world food market. Only three companies (Cargill, Bunge and ADM) account for 90% of the global grain trade. Four firms (Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta and Limagrain) control over 50% of seed industry. Large companies in the food system are now expanding their power by directly regulating the system, setting private standard and dictating

no more than 500 companies –retailers, food companies, traders and

developing countries, in rural area and among women. In other words hunger is concentrated among poor people. Neoliberal globalization has raised income inequalities, making poverty and hunger "incurable deseases".

failures" of current times, which pose serious challenges for the future food policy.

Global warming Considering also emissions by indirect activities associated with food

million in 1990 to 925 million in 2010.

shortages, yield decreases.

Land depletion and land grabbing

Competition and

asymmetries in the food chain

power

arable land for bio fuel production.

and elites in developing countries.

is expected to increase by 30%.


Table 2. The unsustainable neoliberal food regime

Over the last thirty years, food and agriculture have not been at the top of the agenda for governments of developed countries. Few events, amongst which the BSE outbreak and the failure of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, have been deemed worthy of the front pages of newspapers. It was with the 2008 food crisis that the issues of food security and the fragility of the global food system were brought to the fore as hot topics at the level of governments and international organizations as well as that of society.

The 2008 food crisis and the concomitant financial crisis have shown the contradictions and the shortcomings of neoliberalism to the public at large. Criticism of the system, confined over the previous years at margin of media and academia, have reached the large public and mass media.

In the aftermath of food riots, which spread across poor countries faced by the sudden rise in food prices, two alternative readings of the crisis were given, the "official" one, by mainstream academicians and FAO, and the alternative one, by some ONGs, heterodox social scientists and the various associations which had been fighting the neoliberal food system over the previous years. The comparison of the two analysis offers the opportunity to understand how continuing neoliberal policies may worsen, instead of resolve, future food crisis; it also helps to introduce the discussion on the alternative forms of intervention which is the issue of the next section.

Participants at the FAO Conference held in Rome in June 2008 (FAO, 2008) identified two main causes of the food crisis: 1) the structural changes in demand associated with the high economic growth rate of the emergent capitalistic countries (China in particular); 2) the strong pressure on the energy market, this latter aspect inducing both rising costs of the very fuel dependent food system and a strong competition between food/feed and biofuel crop cultivation. With regards to a third cause, the role of the financial market crisis and its effects on the grain futures market, there was instead a strong disagreement.

In contrast to the "official" interpretation of the crisis, heterodox analysis, as reported by ECT group and PANAP (ECT group, 2008; Guzman, 2008) identified three important points, essential for understanding the food crisis, that were missing in official documents of FAO, national governments and the World Bank (WB).

Food Policy Beyond Neo-Liberalism 385

local economies to broader markets and a shift from self-consumption and self-employment to production for the market and to wage employment; investing in safety nets for the

Most of these suggested interventions have been criticized by the "heterodox approach" on the grounds that they are likely to continue the commodification of food initiated with the first food regime and then reinforced by the neoliberal agenda in accordance with the Washington Consensus "credo": privatization, liberalization, deregulation, decreasing public social expenditure. As far as these interventions reinforce the true causes of the food crisis, - i.e. corporate power, neoliberal ideology and financiarization- they are unlikely to

As discussed in the following sections, the "heterodox approach", recognizing the limits of the neoliberal project, proposes very different forms of intervention, placing human rights

Since its inception, the neoliberal project has been opposed by intellectuals and scholars from the tradition of Marxist research. Nonetheless, it is only since the spread of the antiglobalization movement, in the early 1990s, that critics of neoliberalism have gone beyond the boundaries of leftist intellectual circles and have affected the political arena and society at large. With respect to food-related issues within the antiglobalization movement a large network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), farmers' organizations and indigenous peoples' organizations have discussed and promoted alternatives to food neoliberal policies. Notwithstanding their diversity and multiplicity, alternatives proposed by different subjects share a common view of the main goals and instruments able to "adjust" the neoliberal model. This common view may be summarized

1. Food as a human right. Food production and distribution is firstly a political matter, secondly an economic matter. Each nation has the duty to uphold this basic human

2. Fighting inequalities. Hunger is not the result of limited resources, but rather the effect

3. Supporting smallholder farmers. 500 million small farms in developing countries support almost two billion people, nearly one-third of humanity. Nevertheless 80% of people suffering hunger and malnutrition are food producing households in higher-risk environments (50%), herders, fishers, forest-dependent households and non-farm rural household (UNDP, 2003). Therefore supporting small farmers and rural economies is the best way to achieve food security. The case for a massive, government-led

4. Guaranteeing equal rights to the land, especially of indigenous people and women. Globalization and the internalization of the land market have put the access to land by communities, such as indigenous people, and individuals, such as women, with illdefined property rights and/or low purchasing power at risk. Access to land should be considered as a human right and land should be considered a public rather than a

investment in smallholder farming and supporting infrastructure is clear.

in the following seven points, which form the pillars of the alternative vision:

of unequal wealth distribution and economic injustice.

poorest people, preferring targeted cash transfers and in-kind food distribution.

prevent further future food crisis and promote food security.

and food sovereignty at a premium.

**4. Building alternatives** 

right.

private good.

The first point was that the food emergency did not emerge overnight, and did not begin with record-high prices. It had already been affecting poor countries for 20 years. In the early 1960s developing countries had an overall agricultural trade surplus approaching \$7 billion per year (FAO, 2004). By the end of the 1980s the surplus had disappeared and many countries were net importers of food. This shift had been the consequence of US and European policies that had favored corporate agribusiness by keeping commodity prices low, dismantling trade barriers and marginalizing millions of small scale farmers.

The second point was the strong food-financial crisis nexus. The reason for food 'shortages' had been speculation in commodity futures, following the collapse of the financial derivatives markets. Desperate for quick returns, dealers had been taking trillions of dollars out of equities and mortgage bonds and had ploughed them into food and raw materials. The amount of speculative money in commodity futures ballooned from US\$5 billion in 2000 to US\$175 billion in 2007. This is the 'commodities super-cycle' on Wall Street and its latest illustration has been the post-2008 'land grab' by rich governments and corporations (GRAIN, 2008; Ghosh, 2010; Zagema, Lobbyist, 2011).

The third point, finally, was that whereas shortage of supply had been pointed at as a main cause of the price surge, this might not be the case. Looking at data and forecasts in the period previous to 2008 production outpaced consumption, on average on a two years basis, for all types of food.

Therefore, according to the heterodox interpretation 2008 price rises were driven by the international food trade, notwithstanding the fact that global food trade has been estimated to be only around 10% of global food production. Because global food trade is controlled by a few TNCs that have gained exceptional profits from price peaks (as reported by Lean, 2008, in the first three month of 2008 Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland increased their net earnings by 86 and 42 per cent) it is likely that high prices have been the consequence, besides the speculation on financial markets, of the exercise of a strong market and buying power by these leading companies.

In other words the heterodox interpretation contends that global food crisis is politicaleconomic in nature and not the mere consequence of unbalanced supply-demand movements. According to this view, the food inflation that has pushed millions of people into poverty and worsened the life of the 2.5 billion people already living on less than \$2 a day, has been the consequence of: 1) excess of market/buying power exercised by the big corporations of the agribusiness; 2) process of financiarization of the world economy, that has made food commodities markets vulnerable to financial crisis; 3) twenty-five years of lasting neoliberal policies that have worsened inequalities and created food import dependence in less developed countries.

Consistently with the official interpretation of the crisis, FAO, WB and US and EU governments suggested the following prescriptions to cope with the food crisis: further trade liberalization; enhancing agriculture productivity by shifting from smallholders farms to labor-intensive commercial farming; relying on the private sector as provider of agricultural services; promotion of innovation through science and technology; developing high-value markets (i.e. food sold through supermarkets) for domestic consumption; facilitating input markets in order to assure better access to improved seed and fertilizers; improving the land market to facilitate agriculture consolidation processes; enhancing the performance of producer organization to achieve competitiveness of smallholders; linking

The first point was that the food emergency did not emerge overnight, and did not begin with record-high prices. It had already been affecting poor countries for 20 years. In the early 1960s developing countries had an overall agricultural trade surplus approaching \$7 billion per year (FAO, 2004). By the end of the 1980s the surplus had disappeared and many countries were net importers of food. This shift had been the consequence of US and European policies that had favored corporate agribusiness by keeping commodity prices

The second point was the strong food-financial crisis nexus. The reason for food 'shortages' had been speculation in commodity futures, following the collapse of the financial derivatives markets. Desperate for quick returns, dealers had been taking trillions of dollars out of equities and mortgage bonds and had ploughed them into food and raw materials. The amount of speculative money in commodity futures ballooned from US\$5 billion in 2000 to US\$175 billion in 2007. This is the 'commodities super-cycle' on Wall Street and its latest illustration has been the post-2008 'land grab' by rich governments and corporations

The third point, finally, was that whereas shortage of supply had been pointed at as a main cause of the price surge, this might not be the case. Looking at data and forecasts in the period previous to 2008 production outpaced consumption, on average on a two years basis,

Therefore, according to the heterodox interpretation 2008 price rises were driven by the international food trade, notwithstanding the fact that global food trade has been estimated to be only around 10% of global food production. Because global food trade is controlled by a few TNCs that have gained exceptional profits from price peaks (as reported by Lean, 2008, in the first three month of 2008 Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland increased their net earnings by 86 and 42 per cent) it is likely that high prices have been the consequence, besides the speculation on financial markets, of the exercise of a strong market and buying

In other words the heterodox interpretation contends that global food crisis is politicaleconomic in nature and not the mere consequence of unbalanced supply-demand movements. According to this view, the food inflation that has pushed millions of people into poverty and worsened the life of the 2.5 billion people already living on less than \$2 a day, has been the consequence of: 1) excess of market/buying power exercised by the big corporations of the agribusiness; 2) process of financiarization of the world economy, that has made food commodities markets vulnerable to financial crisis; 3) twenty-five years of lasting neoliberal policies that have worsened inequalities and created food import

Consistently with the official interpretation of the crisis, FAO, WB and US and EU governments suggested the following prescriptions to cope with the food crisis: further trade liberalization; enhancing agriculture productivity by shifting from smallholders farms to labor-intensive commercial farming; relying on the private sector as provider of agricultural services; promotion of innovation through science and technology; developing high-value markets (i.e. food sold through supermarkets) for domestic consumption; facilitating input markets in order to assure better access to improved seed and fertilizers; improving the land market to facilitate agriculture consolidation processes; enhancing the performance of producer organization to achieve competitiveness of smallholders; linking

low, dismantling trade barriers and marginalizing millions of small scale farmers.

(GRAIN, 2008; Ghosh, 2010; Zagema, Lobbyist, 2011).

for all types of food.

power by these leading companies.

dependence in less developed countries.

local economies to broader markets and a shift from self-consumption and self-employment to production for the market and to wage employment; investing in safety nets for the poorest people, preferring targeted cash transfers and in-kind food distribution.

Most of these suggested interventions have been criticized by the "heterodox approach" on the grounds that they are likely to continue the commodification of food initiated with the first food regime and then reinforced by the neoliberal agenda in accordance with the Washington Consensus "credo": privatization, liberalization, deregulation, decreasing public social expenditure. As far as these interventions reinforce the true causes of the food crisis, - i.e. corporate power, neoliberal ideology and financiarization- they are unlikely to prevent further future food crisis and promote food security.

As discussed in the following sections, the "heterodox approach", recognizing the limits of the neoliberal project, proposes very different forms of intervention, placing human rights and food sovereignty at a premium.
