Global Policy Forum

By Jose Bove

The first time I used the word "malbouffe" was in August 1999 in front of McDonald's in Millau, France [where many hundreds had gathered for a demonstration against the US-imposed sanctions against the ban on the import of hormone treated beef]. I initially used the word "shitfood" but changed it to avoid giving offence. Malbouffe implies eating any old thing, prepared any old way. The word has become universally accepted to express a confused unease, a mixture of guilt and accusation.

Malbouffe is completely uniform; it's food from nowhere, not even a degeneration of American culture. Everywhere the same labels, the same way of running the "restaurants". We did not want McDonald's to be seen as a prime target. It's merely a symbol of economic imperialism. It represents anonymous globalisation, with little relevance to real food.

For me, malbouffe means both the standardisation of food - the same taste from one end of the world to the other - and the choice of food associated with the use of hormones and GMOs, as well as the residue of pesticides and other things that can endanger health. It also involves industrialised agriculture, that is to say mass-produced food in the sense of industrialised pig-rearing, battery chickens and the like.

Nowadays, food is rarely eaten in anything like the state in which it leaves the farm. It's reconstructed - often several times over - to produce easily prepared, ready-made meals that can be consumed with little work in the home. The food industry regards the farmer as merely the supplier of raw commodities to meet the need of the manufacturers, rather than those of the consumer. The art of cooking and eating will soon not be passed on to new generations; this has resulted in a loss of family cohesion and of the ties that bind us to the land or place where we live.

[We got to this point because] since 1957, agricultural policy in Europe has been geared to low food prices and food self-sufficiency. Food security for Europe was an essential and legitimate political goal. The problem is that once self-sufficiency was achieved, the policies did not change. We could have maintained it at a European level without getting embroiled in excessive industrialisation whose only purpose was to produce for the sake of producing, with the EC responsible for finding outlets for over production, or for compensating producers

From the start, the modernisation of agriculture depended on a massive exodus from the countryside. The farmer who continued to use his own methods was made to feel guilty by the revolution in agricultural techniques. Knowledge came from outside and totally devalued the farmers' know-how. In the name of freedom and emancipation he had to make a clean break with his former practices. Instead of being a farmer, he became a producer, scrupulously applying new techniques under the guidance and control of technicians. The fundamental idea that underpinned the modernisation of agriculture was the same that applied in industry: intensification and specialisation of output. Industry became the reference point for measuring economic efficiency.

Specialisation was the key concept. Within the space of a few years we have moved to monoculture in entire regions. In Brittany, until the 1980s, a farm would produce milk and either pork or poultry; today it has a specialised output. Dairy farmers are no longer all-round farmers; they are specialists with little interest in crops and even less in soil use. Specialisation has put an end to local production of different crops and animals, which are adapted to the climate, soil and topography of the area.

The size of a plot of land has now been adapted to the machine, often to the detriment of the natural topography and the needs of proper drainage. Hedges that hindered the movement of machines and competed with crops were uprooted, and slopes were flattened. All this reshaping by bulldozers has resulted in a loss of biomass, has promoted soil erosion, reduced the humus layer and significantly decreased the flora and fauna. Agriculture has adopted a production-line organisation.

Today the production of food is determined by the global market. Means of transport and communications ensure that today's market is genuinely worldwide. As far as world leaders are concerned, the entire planet should submit to market laws. Our struggle is based on resistance to this develop ment. Health, education, culture, food - these are all issues that are close to everyone's heart. Today they are in danger of becoming commodities. Waves of opposition to this commodification can be felt in all corners of the world. There are two different views of society. One where the market with its own rules, runs everything, and where all human activity takes place with capital as the bottom line; the other view is one where people and their political institutions, not to mention issues such as the environment and culture, are at the forefront of people's concerns.

We now have a worldwide dictatorship [governed by multinationals]. If you are not in the market place, you're a nobody. We no longer live under conditions of traditional management and inter-state conflicts, but in the middle of a war between private powers with the market as the battleground. To understand the extent of this, all you have to do is look at how the traffic in money makes more profit than traditional production and trading activities combined. Today, money works by itself. This has produced a new breed of parasite; vampires thirsty for money. Money addicts.

Seattle and the demonstrations against the WTO showed the emergence of a young radical movement that brought together dozens of groups. It was a convergence of movements - unions, ecologists, consumers, civil and gay rights activists - with the countries of the south.

We reject the global [trade] model dictated by the multinationals. Let's go back to agriculture; less than 5% of agricultural production goes on to the world market. Yet those responsible for that 5% of international trade dominate the other 95% of the production that is destined for national consumption (or neighbouring countries) and force this sector to submit to their logic. It's a totalitarian exercise. Agriculture should not be reduced to mere trade. People have the right to be able to feed themselves and take precautionary measures on food as they see fit.

[Despite Seattle] the WTO is still alive and well. You can't put an end to it with one demonstration. Our objective was to stop the extension of the WTO's powers. Why should the global market escape the rule of international law or human rights conventions passed by the UN? The WTO has arrogated the functions of legislature, executive and judiciary solely for itself. In the 18th century such an anti-democratic concentration of power provoked the French revolution.

We want the WTO to adopt the human rights charter. To break the monopoly of power, we have demanded an international court of justice, composed of professional lawyers, independent of the WTO. It would hear appeals by countries dissatisfied with WTO decisions.

The WTO isn't going to change overnight. We're in for a long struggle. We're working towards setting up a permanent watchdog in Geneva, seat of the WTO. This centre will provide information for all those mobilising on the issue of world trade. We want the WTO to know it is under scrutiny.

I call this the Dracula principle. Dracula, the vampire, can't bear the light. We want to open all the windows on the WTO.

The strength of the global movement [that is gathering around the world] is precisely that it differs from place to place, while building confidence between people. Today, people mobilise without wanting to take over state institutions, and maybe this is a new way of conducting politics. The future lies in changing daily life by acting on an international level.

The multinationals take decisions with complete disregard for nation states, displaying contempt for the political system. That requires new responses, new forms of militancy. This is what happened in Seattle, Millau, Prague and elsewhere.

What's important is the educative value of an action - whether it encourages public participation. Actions that exclude people are failures. Actions that change the ideas of those who take part as well as those who observe them are successes.Millau and Seattle showed the force of direct action. Legitimacy is a prerequisite. We had that on our side in Millau with the ban on roquefort.

Often illegal action is required to make a case. If the case is fair, the public will support it. Action is collective, but responsibility has to be assumed individually - including going to prison, if that is necessary. In order to win you have to be sure there will be solidarity with your action. In any case, if there's no hope of winning, there's no point in starting the fight.

The Bové guide to good farming

1 Distribution of production to allow the maximum number of people to work as farmers; the right to produce includes the right to work and the right to an income.

2 Worldwide solidarity with all farmers.

3 Respect for nature, to ensure its use for future generations.

4 Efficient use of resources, protecting those that are scarce.

5 Transparency in all areas of agricultural production.

6 Ensuring the safety and good quality of produce.

7 Maximum autonomy for farmers.

8 Partnership with others living in the countryside.

9 Maintaining diversity in animal and plant stock.

10 Always respectful of the long-term and global context.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.