PowerSwitch

This looks like a plan

http://www.srfood.org/en/final-report-t ... ts-council

The right to food is the right of every individual, alone or in community with others, to have physical and economic access at all times to sufficient, adequate and culturally acceptable food that is produced and consumed sustainably, preserving access to food for future generations.

Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the link, Biff.

Ooh, look up there! A pig!

Just one?

I don't think you have the right to food. You have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness . Now being well fed will defiantly make you more happy then if you are hungry, but it is up to you to pursue and obtain the food to achieve that happiness.
If you had a "right" to food who would have the responsibility to provide it?

vtsnowedin wrote: I don't think you have the right to food. You have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness . Now being well fed will defiantly make you more happy then if you are hungry, but it is up to you to pursue and obtain the food to achieve that happiness.
If you had a "right" to food who would have the responsibility to provide it?

I agree, seriously I do.

To presume we have a "right to food" suggest we are somehow different from all the other species on on planet.

Civilization seeks to give us all this right to the detriment of almost everything else, then it collapses to show us all it was never a "right" all along.

Indeed. 'Rights' only exist whilst society is in a position to sustain those 'rights'. Should society break down 'rights' will go out of the window including Human Rights.

Indeed, in fact each society defines its own set of rights, if any. Humans may have evolved a sense of morality, but what is considered moral is a social construct, and constantly changing. Often the ruling class will influence the moral code to their own advantage. Well, not often, nearly always.

PS_RalphW wrote: Often the ruling class will influence the moral code to their own advantage.

David Cameron yesterday: "I believe we should be encouraging people to pass things on to their children!"

Dressed up as a moral standard whereby people are encouraged to take responsibility for looking after their children's future (and who could disagree with that?!), this is actually an attempt to justify raising the inheritance tax threshold from £300k to £1m, thus preserving inequality in society. It benefits only those families who are already rich, at the expense of everybody else (and who could possibly agree to that?)

ETA: And of course Cameron's probable response to the above criticism would be "I don't think an estate of £1 million is properly described as 'rich'. Lots of 'ordinary people' have that much to pass on."

Tory c***.

I'm hoping for a property bubble collapse before we pop our clogs. Otherwise tax man gets it and kids still can't afford to buy.

I suspect two things: one, people are missing the point (read the quote) and two, they haven't read Biff's link.

Food has been almost 100% commodified world-wide, whether people wanted this or not, asked for it, voted for it. Vandana Shiva is particularly vocal and extremely knowledgeable on this; a latter-day hero indeed but a lone voice. We're going this way in Europe too, with the attacks on seed savers, pressure from GM pedlars and the criminals behind the TTIP.

And what if food is simply too expensive, given your income? What rights have you? Where's the morality in transferring all your money to people who don't give a shit about you or the planet, who already have more money than they'll ever spend, simply to eat?

Point.

"Right to food" by itself just sounds silly, as if you should just be able to turn up somewhere and demand to be fed.

"Right to food sovereignty" is probably a better phrase, as in, right to determine how you produce food, and to freedom from having your means of food production b***ered about with (e.g. by Monsanto, anti-seedsaving laws, neighbourhood codes that ban food gardens, etc).

Good one, yes. It's also a bit silly saying someone is not allowed to have adequate nutrition because of some outside/invented/unobtainable/inadequate concept (i.e. money or worse, debt). But silly is as silly does.

Yes to RCs point no to Emordilap's. Money is just a medium of exchange. people without land or other means of food production use it to swap their output for food produced by those that have the land and produce food. It by itself is not the enemy and if you did away with it you would promptly have to invent a substitute.

Point out in that post where I said get rid of money. Denying food on the basis of lack of money or debt - which is a real problem for immense numbers of people - is immoral; some of the worst affected countries have governments that easily find money for arms (and idiots willing to sell them).

And whether they have to 'work' for food or do something else for it is a totally different matter. We now have far more obese/severely overweight (1.4 billion was a recent estimate) people than those at rock bottom starvation levels (0.8 billion), so the calories are quite obviously there, being used in the most pathetic of ways.

Indeed, as recently debated in Sweden, people are no longer citizens. That word is only used when convenient, when spin is required. In every area, we are consumers. No area, even survival itself, is immune.