ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The industrial food system, which is becoming highly dominant, is increasingly failing to fulfil its basic functions: producing food in a sustainable manner, feeding people adequately and avoiding hunger. As hunger remains steadily high and obesity numbers do not cease to grow in a world that is overconsuming natural resources far beyond planetary boundaries, producing food unsustainably and wasting one third of it, there is a need to bring unconventional perspectives into the debate on possible solutions for a transition towards a fairer and sustainable food system. The dominant paradigms that have sustained human development and economic growth during the twentieth century (productivism, consumerism, individualism, survival of the fittest, the tragedy of the commons and endless growth) do not provide viable solutions to the multiple crises and the current challenges. Considering food as a commons can be an alternative paradigm worth exploring. The food commons, anchored to the adequate valuation of the multiple dimensions of food to humans, can provide a discourse of convergence that embraces contemporary (i.e. urban innovations) and customary (i.e. indigenous practices) food activities, being at the same time the aspirational vision that coalesce the different collective actions for food into a networked web that relentlessly grows to challenge and render obsolete the industrial food system that only values the economic dimension of food as a commodity, keeps food producers hungry and makes food consumers obese.
Content may be subject to copyright.
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
Food as a new old commons: A paradigm shift for human
Dr Jose Luis Vivero Pol
World Food Programme and Université Catholique de Louvain
The industrial food system, which has become dominant, is increasingly failing to fulfil its basic
functions: producing food in a sustainable manner, feeding people adequately and avoiding
hunger. As hunger remains steadily high and obesity numbers do not cease to grow in a world that
is overconsuming natural resources far beyond the planetary boundaries, producing food
unsustainably and wasting one third of it, there is a need to bring unconventional perspectives into
the debate on possible solutions for a transition towards a fair and sustainable food system. The
dominant paradigms that have sustained human development and economic growth during the
twentieth century (productivism, consumerism, individualism, survival of the fittest, the tragedy
of the commons and endless growth) do not provide viable solutions to the multiple crises and the
current challenges. Considering food as a commons can be an alternative paradigm worth
exploring. The food commons, anchored to an adequate valuation of the multiple dimensions of
food to humans, can provide a discourse of convergence that embraces contemporary (e.g. urban
innovations) and customary (e.g. indigenous practices) food activities. At the same time, the food
commons represents the aspirational vision that coalesce the different collective actions for food
into a networked web that inexorably grows to challenge and render obsolete the industrial food
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
If food is a vital resource for every human being and much of it is produced
by nature, why cannot food be treated as a commons to be guaranteed to
every person every day?
Photograph: Finabocci Blue, Flickr Creative Commons
‘The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones’
John Maynard Keynes, British economist
What is the common bond between Caleb Harper, a bright MIT scientist and director of the cutting-
edge Open Agriculture Initiative (1), and Daniel Pascual, leader of a peasant and indigenous
movement (Comité de Unidad Campesina) that fights against the privatisation of local seeds and
agricultural mono-cropping in Guatemala (2)? The answer is food, more precisely open-
knowledge commons-based food systems. The future and the past of food production and
consumption is exemplified by what happens between Boston and Huehuetenango. More on that.
How come a cool, creative and Italian Future Food Institute (3) actually shares transformational
narratives back and forth with Fijian indigenous sugarcane growers (4)? Because both consider
food as a multi-dimensional good essential for human survival that has to be governed, produced
and distributed by every member of the community, either a local village or the whole planet. We
all eat and therefore we all should have a say in food democracy.
In this paper I present the idea of food as a commonsbeing a useful paradigm for food systems
that are fair-to-the-people and sustainable-to-the-planet, and I contrast it with other paradigms that
are trying to become hegemonic in the transition of the global food system. This customary but at
the same time innovative narrative opposes the food-as-a-commodity narrative by valuing the
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
multiple dimensions of food (such as being a human right and a cultural determinant) and not just
its price in the market. This approach emphasizes the importance of food to every human, gives
relevance to collective, cooperative, fair and sustainable aspects of food production and
consumption and, I argue, can provide a common ground for the convergence of contemporary
alternative food initiatives --mostly emerging in urban areas and led by consumers-- and customary
commons-based sustainable practices that have been resisting industrial modernization --mostly
rooted in rural and indigenous communities. The food commons, new and old, highlight the many
ways people collaborate to get healthier food, higher autonomy, stronger communities and,
fundamentally, a happier life.
The ‘low-cost’ food system is broken
Food production is the greatest driver of Earth transformation (cultivable land expansion,
greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, freshwater use, exhaustion of phosphorus and
nitrogen cycles) (5-6). And this driver requires a drastic overhaul (see Box 1), as many food and
nutrition experts and media agents have been expressing since the 2008 food crisis broke out (7-
8). This malfunctioning ‘low-cost’ food system is characterised by (a) extremely low food prices
that do not reflect either food’s multiple values to humans or production costs and environmental
externalities, (b) overemphasis on production of hyper-caloric, unhealthy and ultra-processed
food, (c) food that is heavily advertised, easy to brand and addictive, (d) heavily subsidised by
citizen’s taxes through governments, (e) wasted by tonnes in illogical and inefficient food chains
and (e) unacceptably destructive of limited natural resources, contributing to climate change and
biodiversity reduction. In this system that mostly values the economic dimensions of food, many
eat inadequately (the hungry and malnourished of the Global South) to enable others to eat
unhealthily and cheaply (the over-weighted of the North). Furthermore food production has
become a major force in pushing the environment beyond its planetary boundaries. Increasing
water and food needs due to population growth, climate change vagrancies, consumption shifts
towards meat-based diets and increased production of biofuel will only exacerbate the already
critical challenges to our global food system.
How broken?
The primary purpose of any given food system is to feed people adequately, and this is precisely
the most evident failure of the current system, as recently reported by the UN institutions that
monitor Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 on eradicating hunger by 2030 (9). Instead of
progressing, the food security situation is deteriorating, with hunger and obesity growing
relentlessly. Almost all countries in the world experience public health problems with at least one
of the three common forms of malnutrition (stunting, anaemia or overweight). Obesity and non-
communicable diseases are growing rapidly in most countries, already achieving pandemic
proportions. Actually, although the number of people living in poverty is declining, the number of
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
hungry people is steadily rising since 1990, with the first decade of this century (2000-2010)
performing worse than the previous one (1990-2000) (10). It seems the so-called SDG “pull effect”
to foster political will, allocate higher funds and set up measurable indicators was not so pulling
to convince countries in the Global South and donors in the Global North to actually eradicate
Oddly enough, hunger and obesity were rising while poverty was reportedly decreasing in the
same period. There was an impressive reduction of extreme poverty by 70 per cent between 1990
and 2015 whereas the reduction in chronic malnutrition for the same period was only 40 per cent.
How is it possible that such good performance on money-measured extreme poverty did not
parallel a similar reduction in hunger? One of the root causes of that paradox is the private nature
of food as a commodity that prevents those income gains from translating into nutritional
improvements. As long as we keep on considering food to be a private good whose access is
exclusively determined by purchasing power and market driven forces, we will never achieve food
and nutrition security for all. We cannot achieve the common good (a collective goal rooted in
cooperative values) by means of monetised markets where individual for-profit demand and supply
reign. Exclusive for-profit motivations will never achieve the commonwealth. This paradigm is
actually naïve and delusional.
We actually produce enough food for all but we waste one third of total production
and another third goes to non-human-feeding purposes while 815 million people
stay hungry. More production is not the solution. We need to produce and consume
Photograph: JBloom, Flickr Creative Commons
Box 1: Whose system is broken, corporate’s or peasants’?
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
Just a clarification: when I say the food system is broken, I refer to the industrial food system
dominated by transnational corporations that control all aspects of food, shrinking the
commercial agro-biodiversity, driving prices down at farm gates and convincing consumers to
buy profitable but unhealthy ultra-processed foods (11). In this system, food is purely a
commodity that can be traded for profit to feed cars, speculated with and waste, without
considering it to be a fundamental need for every human. Farming tends to be reduced to a mere
conversion of commodities that might originate from anywhere into other commodities to be
sold at any location (12), sometimes the further away, the more profitable. Estimates on who is
feeding the world state that between 30-45 per cent of the total food supply is produced by the
industrial food system, whereas between 55-70 per cent is produced by the peasants’ web, as it is
so nicely called by the Canadian NGO ETC Group (13-14). Thus, it is basically small-scale
family farmers who are feeding the world with non-mechanised agro-ecological systems,
cultivating food that is mostly consumed within national boundaries (85 per cent of total food
produced). Conversely, industrial agriculture is largely feeding the growing population of
confined animal feedlots and automobiles (15). Paradoxically, due to the system configuration
and the private nature of food, the members of this web who feed most of the world consist of
between 50-70 per cent of hungry people (16). The industrial system with its hegemonic leverage
competes with the thriving, resilient and diverse peasants’ food webs to feed the world.
The industrial corporate system produces less than 40 per cent of total food,
largely feeding livestock and cars whereas family farmers are the main food
providers to the world.
Photographs: Left - Patty´s Flickr Creative Commons,
Right - Ukhviid Flickr Creative Commons
Commoditised food crowds out other important dimensions
Food is a multidimensional vital resource for humans, being primarily an absolute satisfier of
subsistence (caloric energy and body-building components are needed in all cultures and all
periods), but also a pillar of every national culture; a fundamental human right that should be
guaranteed to every citizen; and a natural resource involving multiple and complex systems with
varied proprietary rights, uses and entitlements.
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
Figure 1. The multiple dimensions that render food a commons
Source: Vivero-Pol (2017) (34).
The industrial food system is sustained by the absolute commodification of food, neglecting other
non-monetary dimensions that are central to human’s survival, self-identity and community life.
The private nature of food is defined by economists by applying two features: excludability and
rivalry. Excludability means it is possible to prevent people who have not paid for the good from
having access to it. Rivalry implies the same good cannot be consumed by two different
consumers. This commodity approach to food conflates value and price (understanding the former
in terms of the latter). Under capitalism, the value in use (a biological necessity) is highly
dissociated from its value in exchange (price in the market) (17), with price having primacy. Food
as a pure commodity can be speculated on by investors, modified genetically and patented by
corporations, or diverted from human consumption just to maximise profit. Nutritional quality is
overshadowed by a focus on higher returns to investment (standardisation of forms, mechanisation
of production, waste along the chain), because profit maximisation seems to rule the world,
sidelining moral grounds and politics.
Market rules not only put prices on foodstuffs, they also corrupt the original meaning of food in
doing so (18) and therefore commodification explains the roots of the failure of the global food
system (19). Nevertheless, major analyses on flaws in the global food system and the very
existence of hunger do not even question the nature of food as a private good and, despite previous
efforts by the UN system (20), neither food and nutrition security is considered a global public
good or food a commons.
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
Food has always been endowed with multiple dimensions, not easy to be monetised
and commoditised. It would be aberrant to many to set a price for Holy Bread in
the market and yet coffee, a cultural pillar of Ethiopian hospitality, is a highly
appreciated commodity.
Photographs: Left – SOAS Alumni Office, Flickr Creative Commons
Right - Lawrence OP, Flickr Creative Commons
Clash of narratives to steer food transitions
As the unsustainability and unfairness of the industrial food system are rather evident to many
stakeholders, there is a broad consensus on the need for substantial change (21-24). However, such
consensus does not extend to the final goal (the narrative: where do we want to go) or the transition
path (the process: how are we going there). Perhaps the global food system in its complexity
requires several non-dominant narratives of transition (25).
For the case presented in this article, the consideration of food as a private good that has lately
evolved into a pure commodity is the dominant scientific and political paradigm. And dominant
narratives tend to close down alternative choices affecting the directions of change within a system.
Thus, instead of exploring several options to change the industrial food system, we are constrained
by mono-cultures of the mind, as perfectly described by Vandana Shiva (26). Profit-driven
globalisation is compelling us to think within the so-called “permitted worldviews” and accepted
narrative frames. Markedly alternative or radical views will be easily discarded by the dominant
mainstream, by being labelled utopian, naïve or, even worse in our times, communist (previously,
a challenging political ideology and nowadays just a mere an insult). As recently stated by the
latest report of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, real competition
in food systems is between different agricultural models, not different countries (27).
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
The hegemonic productivist narrative
Increasing the food supply still dominates the international discourse, being the hegemonic
strategy to tackle food security in the future. A rise in food production that would be facilitated by
restricted technologies and patented knowledge, based on multinational agribusiness, top-down
policies promoted as blueprints and universal panaceas, large monoculture landholdings in budget-
poor-but-land-rich countries owned by corporations from budget-rich-but-land-poor countries, and
having endless growth and market-driven competence as underlying justifications. Although with
varying nuances, this paradigm has been correctly described by many researchers (28-29). This
narrative is hegemonic within governments, spurred by international financing institutions and
private philanthropic foundations, and reinforced by devolution of normative control from national
governments to private corporations and lately greenishedby the sustainable intensification
proposal, merely lip service that mostly addresses the technological challenges and obscures the
social and power imbalances.
The productivist paradigm is compounded of a diverse mix of scientific knowledge (e.g. rational
choice, bounded reality), ideological positions (e.g. private enterprises are more efficient than the
public domain), dominant values (i.e. consumer’s absolute sovereignty, survival of the fittest),
popular stories (e.g. individualist self-made man), false knowledge (e.g. GMOs will improve
production and combat hunger), myths, overvalued facts, and the vested interest of the dominant
elites of each period, in what Nassim Taleb calls “a narrative fallacy” (30). However delusional
this narrative may be, as elegantly exposed by Kate Raworth in her doughnuts economics” book
(31), it is hegemonic these days, although its promoters and interested stakeholders feed no more
than 40% of total population (as mentioned above).
The alternative non-hegemonic narratives
The former narrative is challenged by a myriad of customary and contemporary civic actions for
food in developing and developed countries. Recent academic work on food transitions and social
grassroots movements have presented different classifications of the stances adopted to challenge
the dominant system, namely ‘grassroots innovation’ or ‘normative contestation’ (32),
‘progressive’ or ‘radical’ (33) and ‘gradual reformer’, ‘counter-hegemonic transformer’ or ‘alter-
hegemonic transformer’ (34). However, neither the mainstream nor the alternatives consider food
as a commons and just the ‘radical’ trend (epitomised by the food sovereignty movement promoted
by the Via Campesina) claims community rights to water and seeds. This radical trend challenges
the neoliberal food paradigm and rules of legitimacy, advocating for a deep, structural change, a
redistribution of wealth and decision-making power, as well as entitlements and proprietary titles.
The food commons: where innovation meets tradition
The food commons paradigm rests on the idea of food not being a commodity but a commons,
which means revalorising the different food dimensions that are relevant to human beings (its
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
value-in use) food as a vital element for our survival, food as a natural resource, human rights
and cultural determinant and thus, of course, diminishing the tradable dimension (its value-in
exchange) that has rendered it a mere commodity. This regime would inform an essentially
democratic food system based on sustainable agricultural practices (agro-ecology) and open-
source knowledge (creative commons licenses) through the assumption of relevant knowledge
(cuisine recipes, agrarian practices, public research, etc.), material items (open seeds, fish stocks,
etc.) and abstract entities (transboundary food safety regulations, public nutrition, etc.) as global
commons (35).
Food commons refers to the management, production and distribution of food resources and it is
based on shared customary and contemporary models of social organization, non-monetized
allocation rules and sharing practices, principles of peer production based on commons (resources,
knowledge and values), social economy and the importance of the commonwealth, happiness and
well-being of our communities. Unlike the market, the food commons is about equity,
collectiveness, embeddedness, caring, stewardship, autonomy and direct democracy from local to
global. This invokes a radical paradigm shift from individual competitiveness as the engine of
progress via endless growth towards collective cooperation as the driver of the common good. We
need to develop a food system that first, provides for sustainable nutrition for all, and second
provides meaning and not just utility to food production, trading and consumption.
Box 2. Contemporary Civic Food Actions
Beacon Hill Food Forest in Seattle (USA) (36) In less than a hectare, the largest edible garden
on public land in the U.S is a living example of the real sharing economy. Instead of dividing the
land into small patches for private cultivation, volunteers cultivate the whole food forest together
and share the fruits and vegetables with everyone. Urban foragers are welcome to reap what the
community cultivates. They create and share abundance. Similar examples of cultivation in
abandoned urban lots are promoted by other groups (e.g. Incredible Edible or Guerrilla
Food Buying Groups in Belgium (37) Several types of local initiatives for food production and
consumptions are mushrooming in Belgium, adopting different institutional forms such as
community supported agriculture, food basket schemes, do-it-yourself vegetable gardens or
shareholders’ cooperatives. People join those collective actions to answer perceived personal
and societal needs and challenges, such as healthy and meaningful food, local and sustainable
production, reducing food waste, mitigating climate change and reinforcing local bonds of
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
Collective actions for food that revalue food as a commons are building a
revolutionary food system.
Photographs: Left, Beacon Food Forest participants. Extracted from
Right, GASSINES, Food Buying Grous of Lessines, Belgium. Extracted from
As the reader can see in the examples presented in boxes 2-4, the customary and contemporary
alternatives to the dominant industrial food system influence each other, re-inventing neglected
practices, re-claiming forgotten institutions and innovating new practices based on technological
solutions and traditional but relevant values. The complex problems that affect the food system
require a reconsideration of well-established ideas (food as a commodity), incorporating
customary and contemporary non-scientific actors and non-scientific knowledge into the problem
solving process (38).
Box 3. Customary Civic Food Actions
The examples below highlight the importance of the non-economic dimensions of coffee and
cacao, two of the most traded food commodities, to different human societies. The consideration
of food as a commons is rather common in customary food systems of both OECD countries and
the Global South.
Cafe sospeso (pending coffee) in Italy. This tradition began in working-class cafés of Naples,
where someone who had experienced good luck would order a ‘sospeso’, paying the price of two
coffees but consuming only one. A poor person asking for a ‘sospeso’ would then be served a
coffee for free. Although this customary tradition is almost gone in Naples, it is being re-
invigorated in other places (Mexico, Spain) by contemporary food initiatives (39-40).
Cacao: God’s gift in Guatemala. In many Maya ethnic groups of Central America, cacao
occupies a place of cultural relevance in daily and spiritual life, second only to maize. In the
Ch'orti' Maya groups of Guatemala, cacao is connected to rain ceremonies and local
environmental knowledge. The protection of cacao as a sacred tree may help re-construct the
agricultural livelihoods of those hunger-stricken communities (41).
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
Sharing labour and knowledge, agro-ecology, joy, cooperation, non-monetized
relations and community life are all features of customary civic actions for food.
Prices and money cannot exclusively determine our social relations and food
Photographs: Left, Cafes pendientes in Mexico, Hector Forero,
Right, Café sospeso in Bergamo, Italy. Extracted from
In political terms, the food commons would be governed in a polycentric manner by food citizens
(42) that develop food democracies (43) which value the different dimensions of food (34). That
would entail a return from corporate-state control to a collective, polycentric and reflexive
governance, a shift of power from a state-private duopoly in food production, transport and
distribution to a tricentric governance system (44), where the third pillar would be the self-
regulated, civic, collective actions for food that are either emerging all over the world
(contemporary food movements) or were resisting the neoliberal waves of capture of natural
resources they depend on (customary food movements, i.e. indigenous communities, subsistence
small farmers, fisher folks).
Box 4. Food sharing initiatives (old and new)
Two successful examples from India and UK-Australia can epitomize the common rationale
behind food sharing initiatives, a non-economic motivation that values the life-supporting
dimension of food over its price.
The Dabbawalas of Mumbai are a century-old lunchbox service that daily delivers over 200,000
home cooked meals directly to their customers wherever they are (home, markets, office). The
operational structure even became a case-study at Harvard Business School. The “Share My
Dabba” initiative is rather relevant for the food commons idea in that by putting a sticker on
each uneaten dabbas lunch box, a customer agrees to share that food with hungry children on
the streets (45).
The Casserole Club in UK and Australia is a contemporary urban innovation that helps people
share extra portions of home-cooked food with others in their neighbourhood who are not
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
always able or willing to cook. This initiative connects people, fosters convivial bonds in
otherwise individualised households and promotes knowledge exchange, healthy eating and
resource optimization (46).
The food commons are customary
‘The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands, but in seeing with new eyes’
Marcel Proust, French writer
As I have already suggested above, food has not always been regarded as a pure commodity devoid
of other important dimensions. It was cultivated for millennia in common and considered a
mythological or sacred item. Food sharing is an integral part of hunter-gather social organisation
(47-48). Many types of food are often endowed with sacred beliefs and their production and
distribution are thus governed by non-market rules. Food-producing commons were ubiquitous in
the world and historical records are full of commons-based food production systems ranging from
the early Babylonian Empire, ancient India, the Roman Empire, Medieval Europe and early
modern Japan (see 49 for a literature review). Food was assigned with diverse and certainly
evolving meanings ranging from a ceremonial gifts offered to idle Temple priests to resources
levied by kings and feudal lords, to a public tool used by Roman Emperors, Mayan dignitaries and
the British Government to prevent disturbances and appease the revolting crowds. Food always
carried many dimensions and it was never solely considered a tradable, priced good (50)
And this consideration is struggling to survive in our globalised world, as two billion people still
depend on the commons (forest, fisheries, pasturelands, croplands and other natural goods) for
their daily food (51), with over 2.6 billion living in and using forests and drylands, actively
managed in commons or through common property arrangements (52). A great majority of small-
scale traditional farmers still have mixed proprietary arrangements for food resources, with the
500 million sub-Saharan Africans that still rely on communal lands a major example (53).
Moreover, in the highly privatized and increasingly neoliberal Europe, despite centuries of
encroachments, misappropriations and legal privatisations, more than 8.5 million ha of common
lands have survived up to now (54), still covering 9 per cent of surface of France, 10 per cent in
Switzerland, 3.3 per cent of United Kingdom and 4.2 per cent in Spain. Their utility to human
societies has enabled them to survive up to the present day. However, the relevance of the socio-
economic importance of the food-producing commons in Europe is hardly noticed by the mass
media and hence neglected by public authorities and mainstream scientific research. Outside
Europe, there are also documented examples of live and functional food-producing commons in
current Fiji, Nigeria, and the world-famous examples of US lobster-fisheries or Mexico’s Ejidos
just to name a few. In various other countries such as Taiwan, India, Nepal and Jamaica, land
ownership of ethnic minorities is also granted as common land.
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
The medieval Agrarian University of the village of Sacrofano (Rome province) still
governs communal lands, producing meat, mushrooms and asparagus--a lively
food commons that survived the enclosure movements across Europe.
Box 5. Commons-based food systems in Europe
In Spain, more than 6600 farming households depend entirely on communal lands for earning
their living by producing food, and one quarter of the most forested region in Spain, Galicia, is
still owned under communal regimes. Anyone can forage wild mushrooms and berries in the
Scandinavian countries under the consuetudinary Everyman’s Rights and there are thousands of
surviving community-owned forests and pasturelands in Europe where livestock is raised in free-
range, including Baldios in Portugal, Crofts in Scotland and Montes Vecinales en Mano Comun
in Spain. Finally, in the medieval village of Sacrofano (Roma province, Italy), a particular and
ancient University still serves local residents: the Agricultural University of Sacrofano
(Università Agraria di Sacrofano) holds 330 ha of fields, pastures, forests and abandoned lands
where the citizens residing in the municipality can exercise the so-called rights of civic use
(customary rights to use common lands).
Grassroots innovations as revolutionary crowd
Local transitions to sustainable and fair systems are taking place today across the world. Food is
being produced, consumed and distributed through a multiplicity of open structures and peer-to-
peer practices aimed at sharing and co-producing food-related knowledge and goods. The different
innovations taking place in multiple scenarios (contemporary urban settings as well as customary
rural villages) are not yet forming a well-knitted alternative movement, but they are growing big
and disruptive enough to present a strong alternative in the years to come, once they organise better
as a connected polycentric web, recognise their different worldviews and emphasize their shared
values and commonalities. Those different ‘fields of struggle autonomously marching forward on
parallel paths’ will form the revolutionary crowd (55) to confront the hegemonic industrial food
system and the accompanying productivist paradigm, vindicating the commons (56). The pursuit
of the commonwealth, common good or Buen Vivir (57) in a sustainable and fair manner will
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
serve as catalyst for the active multitude to become a collective political entity in a type of
collective organisation known as technopolitics (58) or reflexive governance. And this new
political actor, many people acting in networked concert, will define contemporary discourse to
de-construct a vital resource, food, from its absolute commodification status towards a
consideration as a commons.
Box 6. What you can do to become a food commoner?
Some practical actions to promote food as a commons at household level include to (a) cultivate
your own food at home, partially covering your needs; (b) share your food with others and enjoy
eating together home-made meals, either with family members, neighbours or swapping meals
via web-based applications; (c) eat healthily, by choosing organic ingredients, directly from
producers or short-chain local systems; (d) avoid wasting food and learn how to re-cycle, up-
cycle and preserve your foodstuffs; (e) establish a Universal Food Coverage system for your
country, state or city, through advocacy and political engagement, whereby a minimum amount
of food is guaranteed to every person every day; (f) be ready to pay fairer prices for better food
directly to the producers and (g) defend food as a justiciable human right. And, above all, never
accept the idea that food is just a commodity like any other.
A just proposal outside the ‘permitted ideas’
‘The road to utopia leads to dissidence and, in some cases, to rebellion’
Jules Verne
The commons are at the same time a very ancient and rather innovative framework to govern
natural resources that are essential to human survival. In consequence, the food commons can be
perceived both as an emancipatory alternative, a system carrying a moral purpose to combat
oppression and create conditions for human flourishing (59) and a disruptive narrative that
challenges the power relations in the industrial food system and deepens food democracy. No
matter how little support it may get initially, since the mere fact of proposing alternatives outside
the dominant mainstream may contribute to creating the conditions in which such support can be
The food commons resembles perfectly one of those progressive new ideas that Hirschmann (60)
had in mind when analysing paradigm shifts in recent history and his teachings could serve as a
cautionary tale. Hence, one should expect that food as a commons will be termed a futile policy
belief (the futility argument), or claims that the visionary idea and its practical consequences of
social transformation will be incapable of making a dent in the status quo. And we should expect
that mainstream scientists and practitioners will claim that the cost of the proposed paradigm shift
is unacceptable (the jeopardy argument) because it will endanger previous accomplishments (e.g.
Universal Food Coverage will be unaffordable for national budgets or a waste of limited
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
resources). And, even worse, the perversity argument will be made, whereby any political action
to guarantee a minimum amount of food to all every day would have unintended consequences
(e.g. people will become lazy and stop working once food is guaranteed by the state), finally
resulting in the exact opposite of what was intended. Food as a commons can be discredited as a
policy narrative simply by calling it “utopian” or a “fantasy”, a sort of distraction from the serious
business of making practical improvements in the dominant system.
The food commons paradigm encompasses ancient and recent history, an emerging alternative
praxis and a feasible aspirational vision for the future and therefore can provide a common space
for customary food systems and contemporary collective innovations for food to converge.
Considering food as a commons is not utopian, as history teaches us and present innovations
confirm. It could be one of the best achievements we bequeath to future generations. Indeed, food
is a powerful weapon for social transformation (61).
The author would like to thank Geoffrey Cannon for his invaluable editorial support while drafting
this text, as well as his enthusiasm and encouragement on the idea of valuing and governing food
as a commons. Additionally, my gratitude also goes to the WN editor, Ted Greiner, and two
anonymous reviewers; their comments have improved the original manuscript.
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab Open Agriculture (OpenAG) Initiative.
2 Website:
3 Future Food Institute, Bologna. Website:
4 Kingi TT, Kompas TF. Communal land ownership and agricultural development: Overcoming
technical efficiency constraints among Fiji’s indigenous sugarcane growers. International and
Development Economics Working papers idec 05-11. Australia National University.
5 Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the
planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353(6296): 288-291. 2016.
6 Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch:
report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 386: 1973–2028.
7 TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). Measuring what matters in agriculture
and food systems: a synthesis of the results and recommendations of TEEB for Agriculture and Food’s
Scientific and Economic Foundations report. Geneve: UN Environment. 2018.
8 IPES-Food. From Uniformity to Diversity. A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to
Diversified Agroecological Systems. Brussels: International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food
Systems. 2016.
9 FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO. 2018
10 Karver J, Kenny C, Sumner A. MDGs 2.0: What Goals, Targets and Timeframe? Washington,
DC: Centre for Global Development (CGD) Working Paper. 2012
11 Booth S, Coveney J. Food Democracy. From consumer to food citizen. Singapore, Heidelberg
New York Dordrecht London: Springer. 2015.
12 van der Ploeg JD. The peasantries of the twenty-first century: the commoditisation debate
revisited. Journal of Peasant Studies 2010 37(1): 1-30.
13 The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group). With climate
change…Who will feed us? The industrial food chain or the peasant food webs? 2013.
14 High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Note on critical and emerging
issues for food security and nutrition. Prepared for the Committee on World Food Security. 6 August
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
15 Holt-Giménez E, Shattuck A, Altieri M, Herren H, Gliessman S. We Already Grow Enough Food
for 10 Billion People … and Still Can't End Hunger. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2012, 36 (6):
16 United National General Assembly. The right to food. Resolution A/RES/67/174. 60th plenary 20
December 2012.
17 Timmer P, Falcon W, Pearson SR. Food policy analysis. Washington, D.C.: John Hopkins
University Press. 1983.
18 Sandel MJ. What isn’t for sale? The Atlantic, Feb. 2012.
19 Magdoff F, Tokar B, eds. Agriculture and food in crisis. Conflict, resistance, and renewal. New
York: Monthly Review Press. 2010.
20 Kaul I, Conceição P, Le Goulven K, Mendoza RU, eds. Providing Global public goods:
managing globalization. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003.
21 Foresight. The future of food and farming: challenges and choices for global sustainability. Final
project report. London: Foresight, Department for Business Innovation and Skills. The Government
Office for Science. 2011.
22 IAASTD. Agriculture at a Crossroads. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 2009
23 Paillard S, Treyer S, Dorin B, coord. Agrimonde: scenarios and challenges for feeding the world
in 2050. Versailles: Editions Quæ. 2011
24 UNCTAD. Trade and Environment report 2013. Wake up before it is too late: make agriculture
truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. Geneva: United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development. 2013.
25 Tansey G. Food and thriving people: paradigm shifts for fair and sustainable food systems. Food
and Energy Security 2013, 2(1): 1–11
26 Shiva V. Monocultures of the Mind. Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology. London:
Zed Books. 1993.
27 International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES FOOD). The new science of
sustainable food systems. Overcoming barriers to food systems reform. 2015 http://www.ipes-
28 De Schutter O. The spectre of productivism and food democracy. Wisconsin Law Review 2014
(2): 199-233.
29 van der Ploeg J. The food crisis, industrialized farming and the imperial regime. Journal of
Agrarian Change 2010, 2(10): 98-106
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
30 Taleb NN. The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguin
31 Raworth K. Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Vermont:
Chelsea Green Publishing; 2017.
32 Seyfang G, Smith A. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new
research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 2007, 16(4): 584–603.
33 Holt-Gimenez E, Shattuck A. Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of
reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies 2011, 38(1): 109-144.
34 Vivero-Pol JL. Food as commons or commodity? Exploring the links between normative
valuations and agency in food transition. Sustainability. 2017 9(3): 442.
35 Vivero-Pol JL, Ferrando T, De Schutter O, Mattei U, editors. Routledge Handbook of Food as a
Commons. Abingdon: Routledge; 2019
36 Beacon Hill Food Forest. Website:
37 Food Buying Groups in Belgium. Website:
38 Dedeuerwaerdere T. Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar Publisher. 2014.
39 Cafes pendientes in Spain. Website:
40 Cafes pendientes in Mexico. Website:
41 Kufer J, Grube N, Heinrich M. Cacao in Eastern Guatemala, a sacred tree with ecological
significance. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2006, 8(4):597-608
42 Gomez-Benito C, Lozano C. Constructing food citizenship: theoretical premises and social
practices. Italian Sociological Review 2014, 2: 135-156.
43 Lang T. Towards a food democracy. In Griffiths S, Wallace J, eds. Consuming passions: food in
the age of anxiety. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 2003. p. 13-24.
44 de Schutter, O, Mattei U, Vivero Pol JL, Ferrando, T. Food as commons: Towards a new
relationship between the public, the civic and the private. In Vivero-Pol, JL, Ferrando, T, de Schutter, O,
Mattei, U, eds. Handbook of Food as a Commons. Abingdon: Routledge. 2019. p. 373-395.
45 Share My Dabba How a Small Sticker Can Make a Big Difference.
46 Casserole Club. Website:
47 Hunt RC. Forager food sharing economy: transfers and exchanges. Senri ethnological studies
2000, 53: 7-26.
48 Kaplan H, Gurven M. The natural history of human food sharing and cooperation: a review and a
new multi-individual approach to the negotiation of norms. In Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E, eds.
World Nutrition 2019;10(1):119-137
Moral sentiments and material interest. The foundations of cooperation in economic life. Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London: the MIT Press. 2005.
49 Vivero-Pol JL. The idea of food as a commons or commodity in academia. A systematic review
of English scholarly texts. Journal of Rural Studies 2017, 53:182-201
50 Counihan C, Van Esterik P, eds.. (2008). Food and culture: A reader. Abingdon: Routledge.
51 Weston BH, Bollier D. Green governance: Ecological survival, human rights, and the law of the
commons. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2013.
52 Meinzen-Dick R, Mwangi E, Dohrn S. Securing the commons. CGIAR Systemwide program on
collective action and property rights. Policy Brief 4. 2006.
53 Kugelman M, Levenstein SL. The global farms race: Land grabs, agricultural investment and the
scramble for food security. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 2013.
54 EUROSTAT. Official statistics for 13 EU member states only. European Commission.
55 Hardt M, Negri A. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. London: Penguin books.
56 Dardot P, Laval C. Commun. Essai sur la revolution du XXIe siècle. Paris: La Decouverte. 2014.
57 Villalba-Eguiluza CUI, Etxano I. Buen Vivir vs Development (II): The Limits of (Neo-)
Extractivism. Ecological Economics 2017, 138: 1-11
58 Toret J. (Coord.) Tecnopolítica: la potencia de las multitudes conectadas. El sistema red 15M, un
nuevo paradigma de la política distribuida. Barcelona: UOC-IN3. June 22, 2013.
59 Wright EO. Transforming capitalism through real utopias. 2011 Presidential Address. American
Sociologist Review 2013, 78: 1-25.
60 Hirschmann AO. The Rhetoric of Reaction.Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Boston: Harvard
University Press. 1991.
61 McMichael P. The power of food. Agriculture and Human Values 2000, 17: 21-33.
... Instead, as emphasized in calls for food sovereignty, fair distri-bution, control and access to food resources and means of production, including seeds, land, knowledge and technologies are needed (Chappell et al., 2013;Edelman, 2014;Patel, 2009). For instance, Food and Seed Commons are discussed as anti-hegemonic, deeply democratic and empowering alternatives to the dominant neoliberal paradigm (see Vivero-Pol, 2019). Distribution has implications for participation, as inequality in resources impacts capabilities to meaningfully engage in processes of decision-making and as it influences whose voices are more likely to be heard and accounted for (see i.e. ...
... Instead, as emphasized in calls for food sovereignty, fair distribution, control and access to food resources and means of production, including seeds, land, knowledge and technologies are needed (Chappell et al., 2013;Edelman, 2014;Patel, 2009). For instance, Food and Seed Commons are discussed as anti-hegemonic, deeply democratic and empowering alternatives to the dominant neoliberal paradigm (see Vivero-Pol, 2019). Distribution has implications for participation, as inequality in resources impacts capabilities to meaningfully engage in processes of decision-making and as it influences whose voices are more likely to be heard and accounted for (see i.e. ...
Full-text available
In this paper, we explore the relation between democracy and justice in governing agri-food transitions. We argue that a deeper understanding of democracy is needed to foster just transitions. First, we present a multi-dimensional understanding of justice in transitions and relate it to scholarship on democratizing transitions. Then, we argue that three paradigm shifts are required to overcome current unsustainable dynamics: (1) from expert toward pluralist understandings of knowledge; (2) from economic materialism toward post-growth strategies; and (3) from anthropocentrism toward reconnecting human-nature relationships. We explicate what these paradigm shifts entail for democratizing transitions from distributive, procedural, recognition and restorative justice perspectives. Finally, we highlight six challenges to institutionalizing deep democratic governance. These entail balancing tensions between: multiple justice dimensions, democracy and urgency, top-down and bottom-up directionalities, local and global scales, realism and idealism, and roles of incumbent scientific systems. This requires thoroughly rethinking transition studies’ normative and democratic ambitions.
Full-text available
After explaining in detail the pervasive effects of treating food merely as a commodity, this concluding chapter unfolds the tricentric governing model that could steer a fairer and more sustainable transition towards food systems that can nourish the entire human population, thrive within planetary boundaries and be regenerative enough to guarantee that our grandchildren will be able to feed themselves. An enabling public sector, a non-profit maximizer private sector and self-regulated civic collective actions are the three pillars of this model. There is a need of new norms, regulations, policies and subsidies to reach that goal. But first and foremost, there is a need to change the hegemonic social construct around food: from being merely treated as a priced commodity to being valued as a multi-dimensional essential with many economic and non-economic meanings. This book contributes to this re-valuation with solid rationales.
Full-text available
The food system, the most important driver of planetary transformation, is broken. Therefore, seeking a sustainable and socially-fair transition pathway out of this crisis becomes an issue of utmost priority. The consideration of food as a commodity, a social construct that played a central role in this crisis, remains the uncontested narrative to lead the different transition pathways, which seems rather contradictory. By exploring the normative values on food, this paper seeks to understand how relevant is the hegemonic narrative of food as commodity and its alternative of food as commons to determine transition trajectories and food policy beliefs. Applying the multi-level perspective framework and developing the ill-studied agency in transition, this research enquired food-related professionals that belong to an online community of practice (N = 95) to check whether the valuation of food is relevant to explain personal stances in transition. Results suggest that the view of food as commodity is positively correlated with a gradually-reforming attitude, whereas food as commons is positively correlated with the counter-hegemonic transformers, regardless of the self-defined position in the transition landscape (regime or niches). At a personal level, there are multiple loci of resistance with counter-hegemonic attitudes in varied institutions of the regime and the innovative niches, many of them holding this discourse of food as commons. Conversely, alter-hegemonic attitudes are not positively correlated with the alternative discourse, and they may inadvertently or purportedly reinforce the neoliberal narrative. Food as commons seems to be a relevant framework that could enrich the multiple transformative constituencies that challenge the industrial food system and therefore facilitate the convergence of movements that reject the commodification of food.
THE SUNDAY TIMES BESTSELLER'I see [Raworth] as the John Maynard Keynes of the 21st Century: by reframing the economy, she allows us to change our view of who we are, where we stand, and what we want to be.' George Monbiot, Guardian'This is sharp, significant scholarship . . . Thrilling.' Times Higher Education'[A] really important economic and political thinker.' Andrew MarrEconomics is broken. It has failed to predict, let alone prevent, financial crises that have shaken the foundations of our societies. Its outdated theories have permitted a world in which extreme poverty persists while the wealth of the super-rich grows year on year. And its blind spots have led to policies that are degrading the living world on a scale that threatens all of our futures.Can it be fixed? In Doughnut Economics, Oxford academic Kate Raworth identifies seven critical ways in which mainstream economics has led us astray, and sets out a roadmap for bringing humanity into a sweet spot that meets the needs of all within the means of the planet. En route, she deconstructs the character of ‘rational economic man’ and explains what really makes us tick. She reveals how an obsession with equilibrium has left economists helpless when facing the boom and bust of the real-world economy. She highlights the dangers of ignoring the role of energy and nature’s resources – and the far-reaching implications for economic growth when we take them into account. And in the process, she creates a new, cutting-edge economic model that is fit for the 21st century – one in which a doughnut-shaped compass points the way to human progress.Ambitious, radical and rigorously argued, Doughnut Economics promises to reframe and redraw the future of economics for a new generation.'An innovative vision about how we could refocus away from growth to thriving.' Daily Mail'Doughnut Economics shows how to ensure dignity and prosperity for all people.' Huffington Post
Food systems primary goal should be to nourish human beings. And yet, the current industrial food system, with its profit-maximising ethos, is not achieving that goal despite producing food in excess. On the contrary, this system is the main driver of malnutrition on the planet, as well as environmental degradation. Nonetheless, food systems also play a double role as Nature's steward. Deciding which role we want food systems to play will very much depend on the idea we have about food. What is food for humans? The dominant narrative of the industrial food system undeniably considers food as a tradeable commodity whose value is mostly determined by its price. This narrative was crafted and disseminated initially by academics, who largely favoured one option (commodification of food) over the others (food as commons or public good). In this research, the author aims to understand how academia has explored the value-based considerations of food as commodity and private good (hegemonic narratives) compared to considerations of food as commons and public good (alternative narratives). A systematic literature review of academic papers since 1900 has been carried out with Google Scholar™, using different searching terms related to “food + commons”, “food + commodity”, “food + public good” and “food + private good”. Following the PRISMA methodology to clean the sample, a content analysis has been carried out with the 70 references including “food + commons” and “food + public good”. Results clearly show that both topics are very marginal subjects in the academic milieu (only 179 results before cleaning) but with a sharp increase in the eight years that followed the 2008 food crisis. On the contrary, “food + commodity” presents almost 50,000 references since 1900 (before cleaning), with a remarkable increase since the 1980s, coincidental with the dominance of neoliberal doctrines. The phenomenological approach to food (epitomised in the “food as” searching term) largely prevails over the ontological approach to food (“food is”) except when food is identified as a “private good”. This result points to the ontological absolute ”food is a private good” developed by the economic scholars as a dominant narrative that locked other valuations of food by legal, political or historical scholars or non-scientific epistemologies. In a world where the industrial food system has clearly proven its unfitness to feed us adequately in a sustainable way, the need for academia to explore other food valuations seems more urgent than ever. Scholars need to approach other narratives of food (as commons or public good) that go beyond the hegemonic and permitted ideas, unlocking unexplored food policy options to guarantee universal access to food for all humans, regardless their purchasing power, without mortgaging the viability of our planet.
Like the entire Andean region, Ecuador has an economic structure that is dependent on primary exports. During the last boomin commodity prices the (neo-)extractivist development strategy generated economic growth and simultaneously reduced inequality. However, this bonanza was not used to advance in economic diversification or for transition towards Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay –Good Living) as postulated in the Constitution and the National Development Plans. We establish that (neo-)extractivism is not compatible with Buen Vivir, analysing three concrete aspects to this end: the failure to fulfill the rights of nature and ecological sustainability; the lack of advances in transforming the productive matrix; insufficient results in matters of redistributive social policies.
Elaborating on the concepts first introduced in Global Public Goods, this book addresses the long overdue issue of how to adjust the concept of public goods to today's economic and political realities. The production of global public goods requires the orchestration of initiatives by a large number of diverse actors across different levels and sectors. It may require the collaboration of governments, business and civil society, and in most cases it almost certainly calls for an effective linkage of the local, national, regional, and global levels. In light of today's new realities, this book examines a series of managerial and political challenges that pertain to the design and implementation of production strategies and the monitoring and evaluation of global public goods provision.As participatory decision-making enhances the political support for - and thus the effectiveness of - certain policy decisions, this volume offers suggestions on a number of pragmatic policy reforms for bringing the global public more into public policy making on global issues. Nine case studies examine the importance of the global public good concept from the viewpoint of developing countries, exploring how and where the concerns of the poor and the rich overlap.Providing Global Public Goods offers important and timely suggestions on how to move in a more feasible and systematic way towards a fairer process of globalization that works in the interests of all.
Crossing “safe” limits for biodiversity loss The planetary boundaries framework attempts to set limits for biodiversity loss within which ecological function is relatively unaffected. Newbold et al. present a quantitative global analysis of the extent to which the proposed planetary boundary has been crossed (see the Perspective by Oliver). Using over 2 million records for nearly 40,000 terrestrial species, they modeled the response of biodiversity to land use and related pressures and then estimated, at a spatial resolution of ∼1 km ² , the extent and spatial patterns of changes in local biodiversity. Across 65% of the terrestrial surface, land use and related pressures have caused biotic intactness to decline beyond 10%, the proposed “safe” planetary boundary. Changes have been most pronounced in grassland biomes and biodiversity hotspots. Science , this issue p. 288 ; see also p. 220