Carlo Petrini asks us three things, “is it good?”, “is it clean?” and “is it fair?”. Indeed, these are all crucial questions that one must ask, and seek sound answers, in order to make thoughtful decisions concerning food. However, I think Petrini overlooks an important aspect of the slow nation, which is how fast the transition to “slow” takes place. It appears, unless I missed it in the text, that for Petrini there is no timeline that a wide spread transition must take place. Perhaps it is hard to determine an exact date, but scientific data of almost irreversible damages to the environment and potential points of no return of carbon emissions, alongside ever increasing social and economic gaps suggest that we have to implement wide spread change much more quickly than voluntary business as usual.
Petrini does address criticism to international organizations such as the World Bank and their harmful practices, which would suggest a possible policy intervention for the better, but it seems that the underlying message is that pressure to change the situation should be spearheaded from consumers and their market power. While I do not take away the power of market choices and how companies react to them, I am in favor of simultaneous political efforts, both domestic and foreign, to change the harmful practices of individuals, corporations and governments.
The problem is that policy changes themselves are easier said than done, as different stakeholders make it easier or harder depending on the goal. A part from constant conflict between interest groups, a lot of initiatives end up being voluntary. I believe that voluntary initiatives are one of the worst possible outcomes: policymakers can say they made progress and businesses and individuals are given the choice, thereby upholding their right of autonomy. And the outcome? Usually very little change has occurred as we’ve seen with several initiatives over the past decades. Petrini has included many examples of the damages of our current international market systems, so why wait and let more damage take place?
I believe the solution must be policy interventions that mandate practices, and not allow voluntary compliance. Unfortunately the word ‘mandatory’ is avoided at all cost when addressing the topic of sustainability and food systems. Other sectors of society ‘happily’ accept mandatory practices: every car must have seat belts, as well as a catalytic converts since the 70s, fire protection systems at homes, and many more examples. So, instead of relying on voluntary consumers and their ability to purchase good, clean and fair food, let’s focus on designing mindful policy that will mandate good, clean, fair and immediate changes to our food systems.
I enjoyed reading your post, and I similarly feel the same sort of urgency to make change on the political level. It disappoints me that destructive company and government practices are dismissed or ignored. Additionally, your point on the urgency from an environmental standpoint, is very well said. It is certainly true that we do not have time to waste, and that the vitality of the environment is at risk. However, a lot of those environmental problems come from our excessive use/waste, and perhaps lack of knowledge of a product’s lifecycle (whether it be an avocado or an iPhone). This is one instance where I see a huge potential for change through market power.
I do not think that policy change would be as powerful if consumers were not engaged in movements like Slow Food, which might not directly lead to policy-level change, yet has the potential to heighten education and pressure for urgent political action. Again, time continues to be an issue. It is impossible to calculate how long policy change and implementation (as oppose to other levels of change) will take place. For now, I think it is important for all levels to engage in the move towards good, clean, and fair.