In its latest issue , Usbek & Rica develops “ 20 ideas to find a taste for the future ”. Among them, the establishment of a new branch of the Social Security, which would overcome food insecurity while accelerating the ecological transition of agriculture. Defended by several associations, this project against the current of the time deserves to be tested as quickly as possible at the local level. Exclusively, find here the entire article that we have devoted to this subject (other proposals can be found in our last issue).
Can we find the same solution to three problems? First problem: food insecurity continues to increase in France. A quarter of French people today say they are in financial difficulty to obtain a healthy diet three times a day, according to the 2019 poverty barometer carried out by Ipsos and the Secours populaire français. In 2017, 5.5 million people received food aid, twice as many as in 2009.
Second problem: farmers are particularly affected by precariousness; 30% of farmers have a monthly income of less than 350 euros, estimated in 2017 the Mutualité sociale agricole. And nearly 20% declared the same year zero income or a deficit from their operation, according to an INSEE report .
Third problem: our agricultural model is sinking into an ecological impasse which is fueling tensions. The use of pesticides continues to increase, contributing to the collapse of biodiversity and causing the ire of local residents; fertilizers, livestock and products geared towards export strongly contribute to global warming; and intensive breeding clashes with growing concerns for animal welfare.
From this breeding ground of difficulties sprouted a new idea: to create a new branch of Social Security, dedicated to food. Like the health branch, it would be a question of making citizens contribute downstream, by deducting part of their income, to finance upstream the reimbursement of their food expenses. Only certain producers would be approved and certain foods reimbursed, according to ethical and sustainability criteria to be defined.
The races payable directly by carte vitale would be capped each month, for example up to 150 euros per citizen
The races payable directly by carte vitale would be capped each month, for example up to 150 euros per citizen. At least that's what a group of associations, grouped online under the banner securite-sociale-alimentation.org, is offering . “The measure would cost 118 billion euros, financed by a contribution of 12.6% of gross salary, with an employer's share to be defined. This is important but the money is recovered in the food budget and only very high salaries would show a net loss , ” says Louise Seconda, volunteer for Engineers Without Borders - AgriSTA, member of the collective.
In addition to having an immediate effect on the budget of precarious households, the measure, by its universality, would have for its promoters the virtue of putting an end to the feeling of shame and the lawsuit in assistantship brought to beneficiaries of food aid. By reducing a large share of consumption, the Social Security for Food (SSA) would also be a powerful lever for ecological transition , the relevance of which would be ensured by the decentralization of decisions, within the local contribution funds and by the establishment of a real “food democracy ” .
"The first virtue would be educational, by bringing together consumers and farmers, who are now completely disconnected"
Jean-Claude Balbot, former administrator of the Civam farmers network
"We want to return to the spirit of the Social Security of 1946, managed by contributors before the State got involved in 1967. The food contribution funds could decide at the canton level what are the criteria for agreement, according to local specificities, through a debate between delegated or drawn citizens. The first virtue would also be educational, by bringing together consumers and farmers who are now completely disconnected, ” argues Jean-Claude Balbot, breeder and former administrator of the Civam farmers network.
For farmers, the promise would also be, by multiplying local outlets, to turn their backs on a model encouraging exports and lower costs, accused of promoting over-indebtedness. The idea of remuneration subject to agreement has, on the other hand, been variously received within a profession attached to its independence. "I am personally quite reluctant to the idea of no longer earning a living by selling the product of my work ," confesses Jean-Claude Balbot. But a university professor at the hospital accepts to be paid by contributions, and many of my colleagues would see themselves employed in an SSA fund. One can imagine that the tractors, tools and heavy investments are also supported by the funds. Farmers who would like to remain owners of their capital could also do so, just as there are salaried doctors with contracts and other independent workers. "
Pascal Bernardon / Unsplash
Still, on the form either, the SSA does not convince everyone. “I think that including food in Social Security is a mistake. Social security is insured: in principle, it is the workers who contribute for their retirement, health, maternity leave, etc. The right to food is more a matter of social assistance protection, like the right to housing. While the rights to Social Security have been steadily reduced since the 1980s, it would be more effective to include in the Constitution the right to quality food and to finance a targeted rather than universal allocation through taxes ” , estimates Axelle Dolino-Brodiez, historian at the CNRS.
"Social measures are almost always born and tested at the local level, by associations"
The researcher and the promoters of the SSA, on the other hand, agree on one point: the success of such a utopia will depend on local action: “Social measures are almost always born and tested at the local level, by associations. And when it works and the pressure mounts, it gradually goes back to the public authorities, ” says Axelle Dolino-Bordiez.
The strike funds, mutual aid societies and workers' cooperatives which sprang up in the 19th and early 20th centuries, before the advent of post-war Social Security, are also a source of inspiration for supporters. of “food democracy” . In addition to increasing local contacts with associations and unions, SSA activists already claim to have many exchanges with political parties and deputies. A debate on the subject could even be put on the agenda in the National Assembly before the end of 2020. Before, they hope, to arise in the debates for the presidential campaign of 2022.
Can the crisis caused by Covid-19 lead to a massive food shortage? How can we transform our food system to make it sustainable and safe in the face of future shocks? Responses from Félix Lallemand and Arthur Grimonpont, co-founders of Greniers d' Abondance, an association dedicated to questions of food resilience.
Faced with the climate emergency, Le Parisien , Konbini news , France Culture and Usbek & Rica come together to offer each month a major survey on an issue that engages present and future generations. This month, we focused on food. #SaveThePresent
In March, the confinement had the consequences, among other things, of emptying supermarket shelves , causing temporary shortages of certain products, such as flour . A simple logistical reorganization, assured the distributors. In the longer term, however, the sudden shutdown of the global economy caused by the Covid-19 pandemic could destabilize the food commodity market. Russia, one of the largest producers of wheat, suspended its exports until July 2020. The price of wheat became more expensive than that of oil in April . And the World Food Program warns of a possible explosion of hunger in the world due to the Covid-19 crisis.
These multiple alarm signals give food to grain to grind to those who castigate the world food system, criticized for its vulnerability to crises and its objectives turned towards the market rather than the food security of the populations. This is the case of the Les Greniers d'Abondance association , which has been carrying out research work since 2018, summarized in the form of a recent report , and advising actors in the field to build a more resilient, sustainable and sustainable food system. fair.
Can the pandemic cause a large-scale food shortage? What does this crisis reveal about our food vulnerability to future climate or energy shocks? How to move towards more autonomy and sustainable and affordable food production? We asked these questions to the two co-founders of Greniers d'Abondance, Félix Lallemand, doctor in ecology and evolution from the National Museum of Natural History, and Arthur Grimonpont, research engineer on food resilience at the Urban School of Lyon. .
Usbek & Rica: Does the unprecedented nature of this crisis, with half of humanity more or less confined, pose a particular risk to the global food system?
Félix Lallemand: An economic crisis can always generate a food crisis, as in 2008 when the prices of certain food raw materials had soared. What is happening with the Covid-19 crisis is very particular: the entire production chain is under tension. With containment and border closures, workers cannot reach the fields. In France alone, seasonal labor normally involves 200,000 people. Food processing industries, transport and distribution are also affected. This is an unprecedented situation.
Arthur Grimonpont: The disruptions also concern outlets. Restaurants and canteens are at a standstill, whereas they normally represent one in six meals in France. The outlets are therefore greatly disrupted for producers.
Can these disturbances create risks of shortages?
FL: The labor problems mainly concern productions requiring a lot of workers, such as fruits and vegetables. But the large grain farms continue to operate. In terms of available food calories, there is no risk of a shortage: there will be no famine because there is a lack of zucchini ... On the other hand, some major cereal-producing countries, such as Russia, have decided to suspend their exports, which could reinforce tensions in the markets. But in terms of pure production, there is no shortage to fear.
AG: The problem will be mainly economic, and it is not new. For 50 years, we have produced a lot of food to feed humanity, and yet more than 800 million people suffer from hunger in the world. The current pandemic threatens to worsen this situation. The UN World Food Program sounded the alarm : The number of people stricken by famine or severe malnutrition could double in 2020, rising to 265 million people. This disaster is mainly due to financial insecurity in poor countries, where many people living in the informal economy find themselves unemployed without social protection and without any resources overnight. If food prices rise too sharply due to trade restrictions, they will become inaccessible for millions of people.
"With the crises, the food situation will become more and more difficult"
With Les Greniers d'Abondance, you work on ways of resilience of food systems to future systemic shocks. Could a supply disruption result from a convergence of crises? The current crisis could, for example, make us more vulnerable to climatic disasters, such as the severe drought that is currently affecting part of France and Europe ...
FL: There are two types of seizures. On the one hand, structural crises, long-term degradation linked to climate change or the gradual scarcity of resources, in minerals for fertilizers or in fossil fuels for example. We know that these growing constraints will lower agricultural yields. And on the other hand, acute crises, like that of the Covid-19, a drought or an oil shock, can arise unpredictably. All of this makes it very difficult to make predictions about a future food shortage. All that can be said is that the situation will become more and more difficult and that we must anticipate it by preparing for resilience over the long term.
You mention the scarcity of fossil fuels. How dependent is our diet on petroleum?
F.L. : We must be aware that fossil fuels are very present at all levels of our food system. In the fields, they are essential for the operation of agricultural machinery, harvesters, tractors, grain dryers, etc. But also upstream of the farm: the production of inputs, mainly nitrogenous fertilizers, consumes for their synthesis and their extraction as much energy as the work in the fields, mainly in the form of natural gas, which is also exhausted. . And downstream: logistics and the agrifood industry rely entirely on road transport, right up to individuals for their food purchases. In France, 90% of trips for food purchases are made by car. On average, a household travels 60 km per week to feed itself.
"Even in a scenario of a total stoppage of world food trade, France would have enough to eat"
This dependence on fossil fuels is accompanied by a strong dependence on a globalized agrifood market. Can we fear a scenario similar to what we see today for drugs : shortages in certain products due to the relocation of their production to countries suddenly unable to sell them to us?
AG: Even in a scenario, rather implausible, of total stop of world food trade, France would have enough to eat. We are major exporters of cereals (half of our production), dairy products, sugar and potatoes. Pastoralists, on the other hand, would have great difficulty as they depend on soy imports to feed livestock. We would also have much less fruit and vegetables, which we import at 50%. For countries dependent on our exports, the consequences would be dramatic.
But all this concerns only the " agricultural trade balance ." If by "food autonomy" we mean the capacity of a territory to meet its basic needs with the only resources and equipment at its disposal, France is very far from 'Be self-sufficient! We import two-thirds of our mineral nitrogen requirements, and all of our phosphate requirements, two critical limiting factors for plant growth. Without sufficient recycling, our fertilizer needs are massive. There is no longer a single French tractor manufacturer, and we lack processing capacity for many products. Even more critically, we import all of the oil on which the entire agricultural system is based. It is not a simple link. of the food system: it is his blood.
FL: Regarding agricultural production, we also have a lot of leeway by redirecting production: 60% of the cereals that we do not export are used to feed livestock. In the event of strong tensions, that makes a lot of cereals that could directly feed the French.
"The entire food system, and not just the farms, must be relocated to the territory"
Even in a country with a high agricultural production like France, organizing a transition to more autonomy and food resilience may take time, right?
A.G. : Yes, because it is all the logistics that must be rethought. Make a lot more inventory instead of just operating in just-in-time, relocating supply chains, etc. We must also ask ourselves the question of the right scale for autonomy. Growing fruit in the south for consumption in the north of the country is only relevant in a world with almost free transport and energy. Our entire economic system has optimized its operation in a world where energy is inexpensive, but with the scarcity of fossil fuels this will have to change. The ultra-specialization of territories is no longer economically attractive when transport begins to have a cost. For basic foodstuffs, one can imagine autonomy at the level of the department and neighboring departments.
FL: However, relocation should not be Manichean, like the agro-industry sometimes caricature to oppose it. Each territory has its advantages and its peculiarities: it is obvious that soft wheat grows better in Beauce than in Provence. We will have to make trade-offs between the real costs of transport and the productivity of foodstuffs, and organize cooperation between the territories.
AG: Another important aspect is that it is not enough to relocate agricultural production to achieve a certain autonomy. It is the entire food system that must be relocated to the territory. What we consume has often been the subject of two or three transformations. We may have a diversified local production, if the processing plants are not also relocated, we will continue to export the production and then re-import it.
Doesn't such a transformation towards a more resilient and sustainable food system imply a radical change in the rules of the economic game?
AG: Market rules have their advantages, for example they allow a form of self-organization to meet the complex food needs of dense cities. However, the dominant economic theory has done tremendous harm to agriculture, in particular by encouraging each actor to promote its short-term interests and to remove negative externalities, which nevertheless threaten long-term food security, from their balance sheet. Soils are degraded, biodiversity destroyed, the climate destabilized and fossil energy consumed without moderation.
The whole issue is therefore to internalize the costs. The real cost of food today is colossal. If only in terms of health costs, it produces diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, etc. Not to mention environmental damage, the cost of treating water to make it drinkable, and so on. Experts around the world agree that these costs far outweigh the benefits of cheap food . But not everything is quantifiable: an Earth that has become uninhabitable is priceless. Maintaining an unsustainable system would have an infinite cost to society.
FL: It shows the limit of the economic prism. We should subtract part of food from the logic of profit, making it a common good in the same way as health. Proposals have been made in this direction by the association Engineers without Borders , for example with the idea of setting up a social food security system. This would make it possible to make it a common good managed by contributions from consumers, who could use a sort of food security card to pay for certain products that meet sustainable specifications from farmers who are contracted and paid at the fair price for their work.
"Out of 100 euros of food purchases, only 6.50 euros go to French farmers"
Our diet is another key factor: meat consumption has a very significant environmental cost . Will it be essential to change the content of our plate to achieve the resilience of the food system?
AG: From a caloric point of view and resource allocation, meat is very inefficient. A pig needs 4 calories to produce one in the form of meat. If we take into account all the crops and fodder intended for their food, animal production represents 85% of agricultural land and 90% of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production in France, according to a study carried out in 2019 by Solagro [ available in pdf here ]. This culture of massive meat consumption is very recent: if we have so many recipes for dishes in sauce, it is good to get the maximum benefit from the taste with small amounts of meat in a lot of vegetables. We can return to this culture of moderation.
The eternal question remains: how can such a radical cultural, economic and logistical change be triggered on a large scale in the short time allotted by the ecological emergency?
FL: One of the preferred action scales by our association is that of inter-municipal. They have a lot of skills in agriculture, regional planning, collective catering, waste management, etc. Many levers can be activated quickly. Of course, strong measures taken at European or national level would greatly accelerate the necessary transition.
AG: The message is harder to hear for some players. For mass distribution, for example: it is essential to reduce their market share, which is today hegemonic and which causes downward pressure on costs which is catastrophic. Rather than this permanent competition between distributors and this race to say the least social and environmental, it would however be rational for them to be able to agree on minimum purchase costs, allowing farmers to adapt and allowing them themselves to '' anticipate a world where energy will no longer be free.
"Healthy, sustainable and resilient food is not bound to be overpriced"
FL: And this evolution can be done in a logic of social justice. Healthy, sustainable and resilient food doesn't have to be overpriced. If we look at what food prices are made up of, a large part of the costs come from non-essential activities, such as marketing or the share of profits from agribusiness. Rethinking the composition of prices can benefit consumers, as well as farmers. Out of 100 euros of food purchases, only 6.50 euros go to French farmers. In other words, an increase of barely 10% of the total cost would considerably increase the income of farmers or the number of farmers in France. There is enormous room for maneuver, and everything to rethink.
