Inequality of Food Security and the Aleination of Marginalized 

Populations in Brazil

Brazil is the largest country in South America and is known for many beautiful things such as its famous Carnival celebrations, Christ the Redeemer and Copacabana beach that makes Rio de Janeiro a must see travel destination. Although these are beautiful attributes to the country, food insecurity is hiding behind these travel points. Food security is a complex problem that many Latin American countries face and the blame cannot be placed on one specific thing. Rather, in the case of Brazil, it is worth exploring how political corruption is a key contributor to the food crisis that is happening in Brazil. In 2012, Brazil had the strongest economy in Latin America but has recently been experiencing a decline and this is in part of government corruption that takes place within the country (Food Security Portal). Corruption has contributed to widespread poverty creating the accessibility to basic needs unattainable, creating inadequate agriculture opportunity due to failed political promises and a drive to make profit off of exports, along with an even larger gap between the rich and the poor that has all contributed to food insecurity within Brazil.

These factors are complex and are useful to understand with relation to food security and food sovereignty. Food security differs from food sovereignty in significant ways but are important to understand in connection with each other. According to a United Nations construct, food security is 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” (Mowforth, 21). In other words, food security comes down to the term access and how much of this access is available to an individual. The food may be available, but the individual may not have the means to purchase the food, so access becomes unattainable. Poverty in this way is a very real scenario within the Brazilian favelas.

On the other hand, food sovereignty, according to NGO La Via Campesina states, “the right to produce food on one’s own territory… It includes the right of peoples to sustain themselves and define their own agriculture, labour, fishing, food and land policies which are ecologically, socially economically and culturally appropriate to their circumstances” (Mowforth, 22). In other words, food sovereignty differs from food security in the sense that it surrounds the use of land available to produce one’s own food. There may be lots of land around, but it’s more than likely owned by business and corporations leaving small scale farmers in Brazil, and other Latin American countries not many choices. This essay will strictly focus on food security but it is important to draw the connections between security and sovereignty in order to have a better understanding of how food security works in Brazil.

There are many reasons why food security is a problem within Brazil but it is useful to look at political corruption as a contributing factor. The largest blame of why food security is not at the success it should be at could perhaps lay in the hands of the government. Reflexive governance for food security: the example of school feeding in Brazil explores the ways in which the challenges with food security usually tend to focus on production or consumption, leading to “global institutions [that] have been directing intervention at the supply end of the food system – mostly through initiatives that promote trade liberalization and support large-scale agricultural productivity” states Jarosz (Schneider, Sonnino, Torres, 1). This quote shows the ways in which globalization and supporting large scale corporations that use large scale agriculture to export is an everyday scenario affecting the lives of many Brazilians on a day to day basis. The food that is being exported to the North, could in turn be used to feed their own people. Especially the indigenous and the poor living in the favelas who experience the hardest hit with regards to poverty. These individuals experience the rich and poor gap significantly in regards to proper housing, adequate clothing and access to basic needs, such as nutritious food and secure employment.

Brazil’s neoliberal food system has supported the North, in the sense that the “Brazilian public food system was designed to support large-scale private companies and exclude small producers” (8). This neoliberal policy was supported by the Brazilian government, which in turn actually worsened the food security of their own country while supporting the needs of the North. The exclusion of these small scale producers also creates lack of employment and job insecurity as well. Access to food does not come without income. The food may be available within a city or a community but if one does not have basic means of income to provide for oneself and family members than there really is no access. As it has become obvious, neoliberal policies do not tend to support the poor, it advances the rich. So in turn, if Brazil is not looking out for their own people and the government’s only concern is with large scale private companies and investors, then there is going to be a lack of food security within Brazil. Along with a lack of faith in the Brazilian government.

Brazil has always been seen as the country with great potential and possible opportunity but this will not happen without political will and a government that has the best interests in mind for the country. If the small scale farmers of Brazil had more access to land, it would strengthen food sovereignty, also creating more jobs. This, then strengthens food security because it allows for the employment of more people, creating a basic income that then allows this access to food be more attainable. It is a cycle that has the potential to do great things, if there is political will to support it but as of right now and in recent years, Brazil has had presidents that work in the favour of profit and not for the people.

The authors then go on to acknowledge that Brazil is also a country that managed to reduce poverty and malnutrition by about six years ahead of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals. This is important to note because even though the complex issues regarding corruption within Brazil is evident, so are small success stories. There have been some progressive alternatives that Brazil has aimed at achieving that has been highlighted in this article and is worth examining because it could shed some light in the direction this country, and other Latin American countries should move towards. I think it is important to acknowledge some success that the country has made as well because as a country they are not ‘backwards.’ In turn, they have a government that is failing them.

The authors discuss the effects of a reflexive governance as an alternative framework. A reflexive government “facilitates the emergence of increasing complex political and social devices that allow for a constant re-framing of sustainable developmental practices” (2). Basically, it is a government that supports the growth of sustainable development and acknowledges the benefits that are associated with this, lacking a profit driven motive. An example of this would be the school feeding in Brazil, as mentioned in the article. School feeding is a system that began in the 1950’s in Brazil which was organized by UNICEF that delivered skimmed milk to over 350,000 children. The school feeding system eventually progressed to initiatives initiated by the 2009 Brazilian Government that created a law that was designed to tax 30% of the federal government and created a budget that:

“must be used to purchase, through a separate bidding process, diversified and seasonal products from family farmers, selecting, whenever possible, agrarian settlement producers and traditional communities, organic or agro-ecological foods, family farming associations, informal family farming groups, and the family farming associations that have the largest number of producer-members located in the municipality, the region, the State and the country in this order of priority” (7).

The list of priorities shows that the 2009 Brazilian government showed concern with small-scale producers and family owned businesses that assisted in long standing agrarian issues within the country. Sufficient means to agriculture will eventually lead to a more stable network food security and food sovereignty in Brazil. Many Brazilians that I have spoken with has seen this as a Band-Aid solution to an enormous, pressing problem. It was helpful at the time, but progress will not be made if political corruption still exists within the country.

Corruption with relation to agriculture is another dynamic of food security that must be acknowledged. Adequate agriculture production is important with relation to food security because it provides the foundation for fundamental access. If there is more adequate agriculture than there would be more access to food. There is a problem with large scale companies having the upper hand with purchasing land but there is also a problem regarding deforestation with relation to accessible agriculture. Whether one is rich or poor, deforestation affects us all in the long run and is a crisis that must be acknowledged, especially with relation to food security worldwide. Linking Brazil’s food security policies to agriculture change highlights the ways in which deforestation “continues to be a prime contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss” (Tscharntke, 779). The key word in this quote is ‘continues’ meaning this problem is not disappearing, nor slowing down. Deforestation has caused significant unsustainable energy sources and severe climate change. Inadequate agriculture and deforestation fuels food insecurity.

With less and less land available than the amount of food becomes less available as well. If there is no land to grow, there is no land to produce. This is becoming a problem in many Latin American countries, specifically Brazil. Even if small-scale farmers are lucky enough to own their own land, often times they are unable to survive in such a competitive market and are forced to produce for urban centers for a mean to survive; amounting to large proportions of hunger within the country since the home grown food is being exported to the North. (780). Deforestation is a pressing problem that lies in the hands of the government and if the Brazilian’s government is profit driven than it will continue to affect basic needs such as food security because there will be no agriculture left that is not owned by corporations or companies.

In contrast to the article mentioned, Food security, the labour market and poverty in the Brazilian bio economy the authors argue “…that the expansion in sugarcane production according to actual patterns does not have a negative effect on poverty, and has only minor impacts on food prices and deforestation. The increase in the regional economic imbalances within the country appears to be the problem that requires attention” (Filho, Bento, 1). So we can see there are opposing views on whether or not large industry exports, such as sugarcane directly impact poverty in Brazil. There are many academic sources that argue that food secuirty is caused by different social problems within the society, community or country but overall in my research there seems to be a general agreement that economic imbalances, such as the large gap between the rich and poor requires attention as it is a driving factor that fuels inequality and in turn, fuels food insecurity. Like mentioned early, this is a cycle that feeds itself. There would be less of a rich and poor gap if the government provided more employment which in turn would create more access to basic human rights, such as nutritious, reliable, safe food.

Moving towards the business sector of Brazil, the Brazilian agri-business is a model that should not be copied. The government has allowed for deforestation and harmful use of chemical outputs as noted in Small farms and sustainable rural development for food security: The Brazilian experience by Rocha, Burlandy and Maluf. The article goes on to discuss how “the sector has made little contribution to the reduction of poverty and improvements in food and nutrition security. It has made only modest contributions to rural employment. So far, the export-oriented agribusiness sector of Brazil can hardly be seen as a model of sustainable rural development for food security” (2). This fact is problematic because it shows the ways in which the Brazilian government is concerned with profit, rather than investing back into their own people. The Brazilian agri-business is export oriented causing unsustainable food security, since all of the food being produced is shipped to countries in the North. There would be far less poverty if this food stayed in the country to feed their own people.

Political will is the stepping stone for change in any developing country. Throughout many of my visits to Brazil, I experienced first-hand the frustration many Brazilians felt regarding their own government, viewing it as a corrupt system that will never change. I thought of these feelings after reading the article Food security in Brazil: Can Lula keep his promise? The article was published in 2003 and outlines the ways in which the previous president of Brazil, Luiz Lula da Silva declared that he will cut the number of hungry people to zero during his presidency. This promise most likely came from the fact that “according to the ERS food security assessment (FSA) model, between 20 and 40 percent of Brazil's population-roughly 50 million people-do not have sufficient incomes to purchase the amount of food necessary to fulfill nutritional requirements” (Meade, Rosen, 1). This statistic has a lot to do with the rich and the poor gap that is ever present in Brazil, even today. Poverty and food security is a problem that is directly associated with income. With the lack of employment and training that is available for the poorer populations of the country than access to basic means is simply unattainable. This promise was not followed through with and realistically was not attainable within a four year presidential span. Lula and now Dilma have been suspected of taking advantage of the poor in order to win votes but do not follow through with their promises causing a frustrated country that does not believe their government will help them.

Mentioned in this article was Lula’s goal to eradicate hunger all together for his country. His goal was to apply an approach which employed a “food purchasing power threshold (FPPT) to account for prices of food items and balanced coverage of main food groups. This approach measures food insecurity by calculating the cost of a healthy food basket and the cost of other basic necessities. This FPPT can then be compared to income” (1). This quote examines how food insecurity is such a pressing issue because of the high prices of basic needs and the few opportunities for secure employment within the country. I can understand the pressures associated with maintaining a secure job with a secure income as I have directly experienced first- hand through my friends in Brazil the struggle they face on a daily basis to get by with a failing economy. Although Lula had great intentions to build Brazil back up, and even made some improvements at the end of the day he created a temporary solution to a long standing problem. Corruption within the government system is unfair and unjust and affects nearly all Brazilians on a day to day basis and makes goals such as Lula’s unattainable.

Another aspect of food security with relation to corruption that may not be considered often is the impact of biofuels. The book Biofuels and food security: biofuel impact on food security in Brazil, Asia and major producing countries examines how biofuels of agriculture based products can compete with the demand of food related resources and how this competition may be bad for food security (Koizumi, 1). The author argues that biofuels has continued to grow due to the ever pressing need to enhance energy security and to reduce greenhouse gases. Although biofuels do their part in maintaining a healthy climate they have also affected the global agriculture markets by increasing the prices of food, which in turn affects food access. There are cons associated with biofuels with their connection to food security.

The book also looks at several countries but focusing more closely with Brazil the author explains how Brazil is known for sugarcane and molasses in biofuel production (17). With relation to this Brazil is the world’s largest bioethanol producer and is also the largest sugar producer and exporter. (18). If we look at the positive aspects of biofuels than this could be a great thing for Brazil. Koizumi explains that there are some benefits of Brazilian bioethanol’s stating that “…Brazilian bioethanol production costs are much lower than the cost of other bioethanol’s and are economically competitive with the gasoline price. The advantage is that net energy return on investments for sugarcane based bioethanol is much higher than other biofuel” (22). This quote is significant because it proves the possibility that Brazil has the opportunity for success and change, if there was a government that supported this as well.

The low cost of these biofuels means a greater opportunity for Brazil to make profit from Global North countries, which is usually the reverse. The Global South usually tends to not have the upper-hand. If the money was entering the hands of a government that is not corrupt then this could be a great thing for Brazil. The money received for their exports should be invested back into the people but instead raises the prices on every day basic needs. The money should go towards adequate agriculture and employment that would make food security more accessible and attainable but instead the rich benefit and the poor lose creating an even larger gap between the two, fueling food insecurity.