CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 813Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentRural Development and AgricultureFood Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics

Food sovereignty

Open access
Patel, Raj·2009·The Journal of Peasant Studies
DOI 10.1080/03066150903143079
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What does food sovereignty look like? Raj Patel Hannah Arendt observed that the first right, above all others, is the right to have rights. In many ways, Via Campesina's call for food sovereignty is precisely about invoking a right to have rights over food. But it's unclear quite how to cash out these ideas. This Grassroots Voices section examines some of the difficulties involved in parlaying the right to have rights about food systems into practical solutions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03066150903143079

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The food sovereignty movement challenged the globalized, neoliberal, industrial, capital-intensive, corporate-led model of agriculture that created destructive economic policies that marginalized small-scale farmers, removed them from their land, and forced them into the global market economy as wage laborers.

    “The food sovereignty movement challenged the hegemony of the globalized, neoliberal, industrial, capital-intensive, corporate-led model of agriculture that created destructive economic policies that marginalized small-scale farmers, removed them from their land, and forced them into the global market economy as wage laborers.”

    From “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States (2016) · cites this paper as [2]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This neo-colonial process impoverished millions of peasants and Indigenous peoples by displacing them from the land, resulting in many being forced into wage labor to serve the global food economy.

    “This neo-colonial process impoverished millions of peasants and Indigenous peoples by displacing them from the land, resulting in many of them being forced into wage labor to serve the global food economy [2][3][4][5][6][7].”

    From “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States (2016) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Conclusion links neo-colonialism to impoverishment and describes development projects and other forces that displace people and confiscate land. The Introduction also describes a crisis that reduced peasant farmers’ yields and food supplies. These passages do not establish that millions of peasants and Indigenous peoples were displaced or that displacement forced them into wage labor for the global food economy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The overcommodification of food after World War II concentrated decision-making power over food, land, and seas in the hands of only a few, and policy development regulated food to meet the demands of the agribusiness industry.

    “The overcommodification of food after World War II resulted in concentrating the decision-making power over food, land, and seas in the hands of only a few.Policy development regulated food to meet the demands of the agribusiness industry”

    From hishuk’ish tsawalk—Everything is One. Revitalizing Place-Based Indigenous Food Systems through the Enactment of Food Sovereignty (2019) · cites this paper as Patel, 2009

    In “The etymology of food sovereignty” (page unavailable), Patel says decisions about food availability shifted from institutions concerned with food security to the market. This supports a shift in control, but the passage does not establish that post–World War II overcommodification concentrated decisions over food, land, and seas in a few hands, or that policy was developed to meet agribusiness demands. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The last 30 years have seen an increase in the globalization of food systems through neoliberal state policies that place decision-making authority over food production and distribution in the hands of national, state, supranational, and transnational organizations promoting agricultural practices that do little to alleviate world hunger.

    “The last 30 years have seen an increase in the globalization of food systems through neoliberal state policies that place decision-making authority over food production and distribution in the hands of national, state, supranational, and transnational organizations promoting agricultural practices that do little to alleviate world hunger.”

    From hishuk’ish tsawalk—Everything is One. Revitalizing Place-Based Indigenous Food Systems through the Enactment of Food Sovereignty (2019) · cites this paper as Patel, 2009

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • La Via Campesina emphasized that the current regime continued to promote agricultural practices that benefited transnational corporations while undermining small-scale farmers.

    “They also emphasized that the current regime continued to promote agricultural practices that benefitted transnational corporations while undermining small-scale farmers [2][3][4][5][6][7].”

    From “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States (2016) · cites this paper as [2]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Araghi, F. 1995. Global depeasantization, 1945-1990. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(2), 337-68.
  2. Bakan, J. 2004. The corporation: the pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York: The New Press.
  3. Balakrishnan, R. and D. Elson. 2008. Auditing economic policy in the light of obligations on economic and social rights. Essex Human Rights Review, 5(1), 1-19.
  4. Benhabib, S. 2002. Political geographies in a global world: Arendtian reflections. Social Research, 69(2), 539-66.
  5. Benhabib, S. 2005. Borders, boundaries, and citizenship. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(4), 673-7.
  6. Bentham, J. 2002. Nonsense upon stilts. In: P. Schofield, C. Pease-Watkin and C. Blamires, eds. Rights, representation and reform: nonsense upon stilts and other writings on the French revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 317-75.
  7. Mao, T. 1967. On contradiction. In: Selected works of Mao Tse-Tung Vol. 1. Peking: Foreign Languages Press, pp. 311-47.
  8. McMichael, P. 2008. Food sovereignty, social reproduction, and the agrarian question. In: A. Haroon Akram-Lodhi and C. Kay, eds. Peasants and globalization: political economy, rural transformation and the agrarian question. London: Routledge, pp. 288-311.
  9. Michaels, W.B. 2008. Against diversity. New Left Review, 52(July/August), 33-6.
  10. Monsalve, S. 2006. Gender and land. In: M. Courville, R. Patel and P. Rosset, eds. Promised land: competing visions of agrarian reform. Oakland, CA: Food First Books, pp. 192-207.
  11. Patel, R. 2006. Transgressing rights: La Via Campesina's call for food sovereignty. Feminist Economics, 13(1), 87-93.
  12. Rajagopal, B. 2000. From resistance to renewal: the Third World, social movements, and the expansion of international institutions. Harvard International Law Journal, 41(2), 529-78.
  13. Armbrecht, I., et al. 2009. AKST in Latin America and the Caribbean: options for the future. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Latin America and the Caribbean Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 165-86.
  14. Bajaj, S., et al. 2009. Traditional and local knowledge and community-based innovations. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 71-4.
  15. Beintema, N., et al. 2009. Agricultural knowledge, science and technology: investment and economic returns. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 495-550.
  16. Chauvet, M., et al. 2009. Public policies in support of AKST. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Latin America and the Caribbean Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 187-212.
  17. Devare, M., et al. 2009. Development and sustainability goals: AKST options. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: East and South Asia and the Pacific Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 159-98.
  18. Dreyfus, F., et al. 2009. Historical analysis of the effectiveness of AKST systems in promoting innovation. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 57-144.
  19. Gana, A., T. Marina-Hermann and S. Huyer. 2009. Women in agriculture. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 75-80.
  20. Gana, A., et al. 2009. Options to enhance the impact of AKST on development and sustainability goals. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 377-440.
  21. Heinemann, J., et al. 2009. Biotechnology. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 40-5.
  22. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: North America and Europe Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 20-78.
  23. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) 2009a. IAASTD global report: summary for decision makers. Washington, DC: Island Press. Available from: http://www.agassessment.org [Accessed 14 April 2009]. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) 2009b. Executive summary of the synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press. Available from: http://www.agassessment.org [Accessed 14 April 2009]. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) 2009c. Business as usual is not an option: the role of institutions. Available from: http://iaastd.net/docs/10505_Institutions.pdf [Accessed 14 April 2009]. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) 2009d. Towards multifunctional agriculture for social, environmental and economic sustainability. Available from: http://iaastd.net/docs/10505_Multi.pdf [Accessed 14 April 2009]. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) 2009e. Business as usual is not an option: trade and markets. Available from: http://iaastd.net/docs/10505_Trade.pdf [Accessed 14 April 2009].
  24. Izac, A-M., et al. 2009. Options for enabling policies and regulatory environments. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 441-94.
  25. Johansson, S. 2008. The Swedish foodshed: re-imagining our support area. In: C. Farnworth, J. Jiggins and E.V. Thomas, eds. Creating food futures: trade, ethics and the environment. Aldershot: Gower, pp. 55-66.
  26. Leakey, R., et al. 2009. Impacts of AKST on development and sustainability goals. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 145-254.
  27. Lefort, M., et al. 2009. Options for action. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: North America and Europe Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 208-75.
  28. Lutman, P., et al. 2009. Environmental, economic and social impacts of NAE agriculture and AKST. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: North America and Europe Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 79-115.
  29. McIntyre, B.D., et al., eds. 2009. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  30. Nathan, D., E. Rosenthal and J. Kagwanja. 2009. Trade and markets. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 65-70.
  31. Nivia, E., et al., eds. 2009. Agriculture in Latin America: context, evolution and current situation. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Latin America and the Caribbean Report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 1-74.
  32. Wen, D., et al. 2009. Influence of trade regimes and agreements on AKST. In: B.D. McIntyre, et al., eds. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: East and South Asia and the Pacific report. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 62-111.
  33. Bezner Kerr, R., S. Snapp, M. Chirwa, L. Shumba and R. Msachi. 2007a. Participatory research on legume diversification with Malawian smallholder farmers for improved human nutrition and soil fertility. Experimental Agriculture, 43(4), 1-17.
  34. Bezner Kerr, R., R. Peter, R. Berti and M. Chirwa. 2007b. Breastfeeding and mixed feeding practices in Malawi: timing, reasons, decision makers, and child health consequences. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 28(1), 90-9.
  35. Bezner Kerr, R., L. Dakishoni and L. Shumba. 2008. 'We grandmothers know plenty': breastfeeding, complementary feeding and the multifaceted role of grandmothers in Malawi. Social Science and Medicine, 66(5), 1095-105.
  36. Bezner Kerr, R., P.R. Berti and L. Shumba. (under review). Effects of participatory agriculture and nutrition project on child growth in northern Malawi. Food and Nutrition Bulletin.
  37. Snapp, S.S., P.L. Mafongoya and S. Waddington. 1998. Organic matter technologies for integrated nutrient management in smallholder cropping systems of southern Africa. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 71(1-3), 185-200.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patel, R.
Corresponding author
Patel, Raj
ORCID
Patel, Raj
Venue
The Journal of Peasant Studies
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2009-07
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
663-706
ISSN
  • 0306-6150 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9361
DOI
10.1080/03066150903143079
OpenAlex
W296100823
Cited by
813
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 25
FWCI
62.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
The Journal of Peasant Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rural Development and Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics
Keywords
food sovereignty, Via Campesina, right to have rights, food systems, peasant movements, agrarian rights, Hannah Arendt

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review