Intersecting Narratives: Faith, Food, and Human Rights(DRAFT)

by Kirk Harris

October 8, 2009Center for Human Rights

Human Rights Seminar SeriesJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice

City University of New York

Setting the Table

As the prices of basic agricultural commodities around the world skyrocketed in 2008, World Food

Program Executive Director Josette Sheeran coined the term “silent tsunami” to describe the crisis,

which forced100 million people into hunger,1 on top of the original 854 million individuals around the

world who were already chronically food insecure.2 The sudden spike in food prices caught the

attention of world leaders, as food riots broke out in countries around the world from Haiti to Egypt.

This unrest mobilized serious international attention around the food crisis. United Nations Secretary

General Ban ki-Moon created a High Level Task Force composed of UN departments and agencies, along

with the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) of the Bretton Woods system, to determine the roots

of the crisis and propose solutions. The document which emerged from this group, the Comprehensive

Framework for Action, launched an additional flurry of international action, which culminated in a joint

statement on food security of the G8 group of major industrialized countries plus Russia in July 2009.

The group collectively pledged $20 billion over three years to focus on agricultural development efforts

to ameliorate world hunger.3

A casual observer to all of this activity could easily lose sight of the fact that this is not the first time

the international community has committed itself to combating world hunger. Rather, action around

the recent global food crisis is simply the latest in a long line of efforts to resolve one of the modern

age’s most stubborn human dilemmas – the problem of world hunger. The actors engaged in this effort

include the powerful entities mentioned above (the UN system, nation-states, IFIs, etc.), along with

actors in the private sector, grassroots civil society groups, international non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), and churches and faith-based groups. Although nearly all these actors share a

sincere desire to ensure that people have access to food, the number of ideologies driving their work

are almost limitless. Two of these ideologies are worth examining here. The first is the belief that

adequate food, sufficient for a healthy life, is a basic right of every human person. There is a large and

varied constituency, including many nation-states, UN bodies, and local and international human rights

groups which embrace this norm and have asserted it repeatedly in international legal documents,

policy papers, advocacy briefings, and in public demonstrations. The second ideology emphasizes

1 World Food Program. “WFP says high food prices a silent tsunami, affecting everycontinent.” (April 22, 2008). http://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/wfp-says-high-food-prices-silent-tsunami-affecting-every-continent (accessed September 20, 2009).2 High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis. (2008, July). Comprehensive Framework for Action. New York.3 L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI). “‘L’Aquila’ Joint Statement on Global FoodSecurity.” (2009, July 10), at paragraph 12.

ending hunger as a moral obligation, rather than a legal one, and is often embraced by faith-based

groups. This ideology, existing within the Christian tradition, is rooted in a theological narrative, drawn

from The Bible, which views access to food as a moral imperative and an expression of God’s just will for

humanity. Although they draw their inspiration from different sources, there are overlapping areas of

emphasis between the right to food doctrine upheld by human rights defenders and advocacy groups,

and the theological “food justice” narrative drawn from the Bible, which informs several of their faith-

based counterparts. Both visions affirm the need to re-examine the current food system and expand

access to food and nutrition for all, through empowering smallholder farmers and reforming

international trade regimes.

The Right to Food

The notion that human beings have an internationally recognized legal right to adequate food is one

which has developed over time. Its normative content has been shaped by decades of international

agreements, treaties, conferences, and consultations. Only within the past decade have nation-states

have made progress in defining the specific nature of this right and in laying down concrete guidelines

for its implementation, however. At its most basic level, the right to food asserts that all human beings

have a right to access adequate food sufficient for ensuring a fulfilling and dignified life.4

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The right to food has its roots in the post-World War II era, which gave birth to the United Nations and

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), both of which have been critical to the development

of the normative implications of the right. The UDHR is the first document to assert that individuals are

entitled to food as a human right. Article 25, paragraph one of the Declaration asserts that “everyone

has the right to a standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of himself and of his family,

including food.5” This articulation of the right to food hardly seems like an ironclad obligation on which

to hang an international human rights regime, but it is nonetheless significant for two reasons. First, the

UDHR situates the right to food within the context of a healthy and fulfilling life. Later articulations of

the right have elaborated on this point, explaining that attainment of the right to food involves more

than simply ensuring that individuals have access to enough calories and nutrients to stay alive; rather, it

involves having a sufficient quantity and quality of food to live a life of dignity.6 The second reason why

4 UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter. “The Meaning of Food as A Human Right.” http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/right-to-food (accessed Sept. 9, 2009).5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (accessed Sept. 17, 2009), Article 25.6 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. "Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment 12, The Right to Adequate

the UDHR matters is that it is widely viewed as the cornerstone of the international human rights

regime. The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948 imbuing it with a

profound sense of legitimacy that has only grown with time. The document is the basis of the two most

significant human rights-related international legal instruments: the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

These two documents, adopted by the UN General Assembly and opened for signature by member

states in 1966, give the norms articulated in the UDHR the force of international law. As treaties, states

parties are obligated to ensure that they respect, protect, and fulfill the rights delineated in the

covenants. The attempt to codify the rights outlined in the UDHR into a single definitive treaty was the

subject of nearly twenty years of UN General Assembly degate.7 One reason for the length of this

debate was Cold War tensions between Western nations and Soviet bloc countries,8 with the West

emphasizing free speech, property rights, and other civil and political freedoms deep roots in the

Enlightenment, while their Socialist counterparts highlighted those entitlements associated with

material well-being, such as the right to work, the right to housing, and the right to unionize. The

bifurcation between these two sets of rights had implications for the urgency with which states moved

to fulfill their obligations under the covenants. The rights described in the ICCPR were widely

considered “negative” rights which the state had only to refrain from violating, while those outlined by

the ICESCR were viewed as “positive” rights, which the state must, over time, work to provide to its

citizens.9 Indeed, economic rights such as the right to food were viewed falsely and euphemistically as

“aspirational rights, “10 which required only progressive implementation, thus being essentially non-

judiciable.

Unfortunately, the Right to Food, listed in Article 11 of the ICESCR, is one of those human rights which

features a particularly wide gap between articulation and implementation. The UN Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) estimates that 1.02 billion people – almost a sixth of humanity – suffer from hunger

Food.” (15 December ,1999). UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5, articles 4,6.7 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Fact Sheet No.16 (Rev.1).” p. 3. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet16rev.1en.pdf (accessed Sept. 21, 2009).8 Gready, P., & Ensor, J. (2005). Introduction. In Gready, P., & Ensor, J. (Eds.), Reinventing Development?: Translating Rights-Based Approaches From Theory Into Practice, (p. 16). New York, NY: Zed Books.9 Buckingham, D. (2000, December 6). Food Security, Law, and Theology: Biblical Underpinnings of the Right to Food. Canadian Foodgrains Bank [discussion paper] 8-9.10 Alston, P. (1984). International Law and the Human Right to Food. In P. Alston, & K. Tomasevski, (Eds.), The Right to Food. (p. 16) Boston: M. Nijhoff.

on a daily basis.11 In spite of this inconsistency, the Covenant remains a solid basis in international law

for the right to food. It asserts clearly that everyone has the right to an “adequate standard of living for

himself and his family, including adequate food… and to the continuous improvement of living

conditions.12” The Covenant further pledges states parties to cooperate in meeting the right to food on

an international basis by sharing knowledge, engaging in agricultural development work, and ensuring

“an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.13” In addition to being a legally

binding international treaty housed with the United Nations, the ICESCR has garnered the approval of

160 states,14 giving it broad international legitimacy as well.

In spite of the fact that the ICESCR affirmed the right to food as a legal principle, for many years this

was virtually ignored. In 1984, one prominent human rights scholar stated that “the right to food has

been endorsed more often and with greater unanimity and urgency than most other human rights,

while at the same time being violated more comprehensively and systematically than probably any

other right.15” Additionally, he opined that the international community had made no effort to develop

“normative implications” for the right to food.16

World Food Summit, General Comment 12, and Voluntary Guidelines

This trend began to change significantly in 1996, when heads of state and government gathered at

FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy for a World Food Summit. Much like previous high-level gatherings on

food security and hunger issues (including, notably the 1974 World Food Conference), the world’s

leaders gathered to repeat the conventional wisdom of their time and dedicate themselves to ending

the scourge of hunger. However, this time they also made concrete commitments to further develop

the right to food as an operational principle. The World Food Summit Plan of Action which emerged

from this gathering pledged to implement the right to food as spelled out in the ICESCR and resolved to

clarify its content.

This initiative achieved a significant response, in the form of action taken by the UN Committee on

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the independent body responsible for monitoring implementation

11 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2009, June 19). 1.02 Billion People Hungry. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/20568/icode/ (accessed September 22, 2009)..12 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11.1. (1966, December 16).UN Doc. General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI).13 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11.2 (1966, December 16). UN Doc. General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI).14 UN Treaty Collection, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4⟨=en#2 (accessed September 22, 2009).15 Alston (1984), 9.16 Alston (1984), 9.

of the covenant and issuing interpretations of portions of the covenant, known as General Comments.

In 1999, the body issued General Comment 12 on The Right to Adequate Food. The text

comprehensively defines the Right to Food, elaborates on the obligations of states party to the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and offers suggestions for how states

can implement the right. Its detailed explanation, along with the Committee’s mandate and

authoritative status, make this document the definitive explanation of the right to food. The Committee

declared that the right to food is inseparable from the notion of human dignity and that the right to food

implies “the availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of

individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture… [as well as] the

accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of

other human rights.17”

While there are a number of key phrases in this definition of the right to food (e.g. dietary needs,

adverse substances, sustainability) two that have the greatest significance for understanding the right

are “availability” and “accessibility.”

The concept of availability infers either the potential for individuals to directly harness the land to

produce food or the presence of a system of distribution which can move food to where it is needed.18

Availability is distinct from the concept of accessibility, however, which the Committee explains has both

an economic and physical dimension. The concept that all individuals have a right to be able to

physically access food is primarily a comment on the right’s scope: namely, it infers that the right to food

extends everyone, including vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and victims of natural

disasters. The economic dimension of this right means that the costs of acquiring adequate food should

not be so high as to preclude an individual from meeting other basic needs.19 This clarification around

the question of access is critical, as hunger is often closely associated with poverty. The link between

these two qualities is reflected repeatedly in the outcome documents of conferences meant to address

hunger crises,20 as well as in the universally-shared Millennium Development Goals, the first of which

calls for halving extreme poverty and hunger by 2015.21

17 General Comment 12 (1999), paragraph 8.18 General Comment 12 (1999), paragraph 12.19 General Comment 12 (1999), paragraph 13.20 See, most recently: “‘L’Aquila’ Joint Statement on Global Food Security,” L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI), July 10,2009, paragraphs 1-2. Also:21Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (accessed Sept. 21, 2009).

General Comment 12 also clarified the obligations of states in implementing the right to food. It

asserted that states were bound to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to food for their populations.22

The duty to respect the right to food entails refraining from any measures which would curtail a

population’s ability to access food. The duty to protect the right to food means preventing other

“enterprises or individuals” from depriving someone of food. The duty to fulfill the right to food confers

two sub-levels of responsibility on a state. First, fulfilling the right to food means that states have the

obligation to facilitate access to food – that is, to pro-actively engage in behaviors that strengthen

peoples’ ability to access food and insure their livelihoods. Second, fulfilling the right to food also means

stepping in when all else fails to provide food to people in emergencies.

Following the 1996 meeting in Rome and the publication of General Comment 12 in 1999, the right to

food began to gain additional momentum. In 2000, the UN Commission on Human Rights created the

position of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, a role which today is held by Professor Olivier

de Schutter. The Special Rapporteur is mandated to promote measures to realize the right to food,

submit proposals to help realize MDG #1, and to work with as wide a variety of actors as possible to

achieve these goals.23 As an independent expert accountable to the UN General Assembly’s 3 rd

Committee and Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur is a permanent advocate within the UN

system for the right to food, and a conscientious voice for the need to implement the right.

Following swiftly after the Special Rapporteur’s appointment, in 2002, the international community

gathered again in Rome for a follow-up meeting on the 1996 Summit, which resulted in the formation of

an Intergovernmental Working Group established under the auspices of the FAO. This group realized a

significant achievement, when, in 2004, they adopted a set of “Voluntary Guidelines to Support the

Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security.” These

guidelines cover nineteen subjects ranging from governance and food policy concerns, to social issues,

and include matters of international cooperation. Their purpose is to provide guidance to States in

implementing the right to food.24 As such, they move beyond merely clarifying the normative content of

the right, which was accomplished by General Comment 12, and into the territory of practical

application. By mapping out some of the key policy questions surrounding the right to food, the

Voluntary Guidelines help States create a framework on which they can evaluate their own progress

towards realizing implementation of the right. As elementary as it may sound, this is a novel concept in

22 General Comment 12 (1999), paragraph 15.23 Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. (20007, September 9) UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/6/2, paragraph 2a,d,f.24 Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security. (2005) 127th Session of the FAO Council [Rome, Nov. 2004], paragraph 6.

the development of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. In his Foreword to the printed set of

guidelines, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf recognized that the Voluntary Guidelines “represent the

first attempt by governments to interpret an economic, social and cultural right and to recommend

actions to be undertaken for its realization.25” In moving from aspiration towards application, the

Voluntary Guidelines ought to be seen as another link in the chain of the right to food’s development,

which moved from a concept articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to a legal

principle in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to a package of policy

options in the form of the voluntary guidelines.

A Theology of Food and Justice

People worried about hunger and famine long before the UDHR was drafted in 1948. Communities

have understood the imperative of taking collective action to end hunger for millennia, dealing with this

obligation in a variety of different ways. As a profound expression of human suffering, hunger is a

significant question for many religious faiths as well. Not surprisingly, the Christian tradition, home to

an astounding variety of religious interpretations and cultural expressions, is also concerned with this

question. While there are a multitude of different interpretations of the Bible, it is possible to observe a

compelling narrative running through the text which calls on Christians to ensure universal access to

food as a matter of priority and a critical element of the Christian faith. This narrative views food as a

life-sustaining gift of God intended for all people. This gift is distorted or denied by human sin, or

rebellion against God, which violates the created order in which the individual, the community, and God

exist in a just and peaceful relationship. As a consequence, the world experiences scarcity, hunger, and

even famine. The responsibility of Christians, as a people restored to relationship by God through the

intervention of Jesus Christ, is to join in this work of restoration, bringing food to the hungry, and

healing to those who suffer as a result of human sin. Two dominant themes within this narrative are the

notion of abundance – the idea that God has created a world in which there are sufficient resources for

humans to thrive – and justice – the idea that God desires this gift for all people, not merely the wealthy

and powerful.

Genesis: From Abundance to Scarcity

Although at one level the Bible is simply a diverse compendium of ancient histories, songs, prophetic

warnings, and letters, Christians nonetheless view their Scriptures as telling a single cohesive story. This

25 Diouf, Jacques. Foreword (2005). In Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security. 127th Session of the FAO Council [Rome, Nov. 2004].

story begins in Genesis, with an account that is as debated, especially amongst religious believers, as it is

well known. The book records that God’s creation of the world is fundamentally good, a word used

repeatedly throughout the first chapter to describe the world’s state of affairs.26 Human beings, both

male and female, are created “in God’s image,27” a phrase which connotes the fundamental dignity and

value of each human person. The second chapter gives the image of nature as a Garden, a veritable

paradise teeming with life. Here, human beings are able to utilize and manage the gifts of nature in a

way which ensures that both people and the environment are able to thrive.28 Yet Genesis does make

clear that choice and limitations exist within the Garden. God has set apart a tree from which humans

are commanded not to eat.29 This emphasis on choice is essential, and it helps situate the Biblical

narrative within the context of a universally-experienced human reality. Whatever the purposes of God

for creation, the natural world forces human beings to choose from a limited number of options every

day. The original humans in the Garden rebel against God by eating the ‘forbidden fruit,’ and the

consequences are stark. Genesis 3:14-19 describes several sets of relationships fundamental to human

life which are severed by this experience. First, humanity is separated from God, the creator and source

of all life.30 Second, through sin, conflict and division enters all human relationships,31 a theme which is

played out to catastrophic effect throughout the Old Testament.32 Third, the harmonious relationship

between humanity and nature is fractured.33 What was once a productive and fruitful relationship with

the land becomes a fundamentally adversarial one.34

Exodus, Leviticus, Deutronomy: God’s providence in community life

The Biblical narrative does not end in Genesis, however, and Christians often view the rest of

Scripture as God’s struggle to reconcile the world to himself.35 Throughout the Old Testament this saga

is mediated primarily through God’s relationship with the nation of Israel. This relationship is based on

God’s providence for the Israelites in the context of a unique covenant relationship. Although the roots

of this covenant can be traced back to the patriarch Abraham,36 it is in the story of the Exodus that God’s

26 Gen. 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31: The Holy Bible, New International Version. (1996) Grand Rapids: Zondervan.27 Gen. 1:26-27.28 Gen. 2:10-12,15,19-20.29 Gen. 2:1730 Gen. 3:8,22-23. Cf. Gen. 2:7-9.31 Gen. 3:12-13,16-17; 4:7-1032 See especially the warfare described in the books of Exodus, Joshua, and Judges.33 Gen. 2:15. Cf. Gen. 3:19.34 Campbell, C.C. (2003) Stations of the Banquet: Faith Foundations for Food Justice. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 11.35 See 2 Corinthians 5:17-21and Matthew 23:37.36 Gen. 12:1-3.

relationships with the Israelites as a nation becomes more fleshed out. Key in this relationship is God’s

exceptional generosity towards “his” people. One of the key texts in the Old Testament addressing this

generosity is Exodus Chapter 16, in which the Israelites, on the verge of losing their lives and their faith

in the desert are sustained by the miraculous gift of bread and quail from heaven. Old Testament

scholar Walter Brueggemann describes it as “an act of transcendent mercy in which the limits of

conventional possibility were overcome by the resourceless God dealing with his desperate people.37”

According to Brueggemann, the great miracle is not so much God’s provision for God’s people, but the

method in which the food is distributed – no matter how much they gathered each day, the Israelites

had enough food to meet their needs, no more and no less.38 Once they enter the Holy Land, however,

the Israelites’ relationship to food and agriculture changes. As a settled, agricultural people whose faith

in God’s provision is no longer tested on a daily basis, they are forced to grapple with mundane

questions about the distribution of wealth and land and how to provide for the hungry among them.

These legitimately weighty questions of justice run throughout the books of Leviticus and

Deuteronomy in particular. On a regular basis, the Israelites are commanded not to be stingy in

gathering their harvest, allowing the poor and aliens among them to “glean” from the leftovers.39 The

poor are entitled to gather these leftovers and the landowner is obligated to ensure that gleaning is

possible, that there is enough left for the poor to gather.40 Israel is also commanded to let their land

rest and lie fallow every seventh year and to forgive the debts of the poor on a similar timetable,41

commands with profound environmental and social implications. Even more radical is the year of

Jubilee set forth in Scripture; every fifty years the nation of Israel was called, not only to forgive debts,

but also to return land to its original owners. Theologian Cathy C. Campbell describes Jubilee as “a time

not just for rest but also for the restoration of community relationships that had been distorted through

the accumulation of wealth and power by the few.42” Alternatively, Jubilee represents an opportunity

for each generation to take possession of its own land, sharing in the fruits of God’s gift to the nation of

Israel. Commands to respect the Year of Jubilee, the Sabbath year, and the practice of gleaning are all

ways in which open access to food is promoted amongst the nation of Israel as an expression of God’s

37 Brueggemann, W. (1977, December 7) A Biblical Perspective on the Problem of Hunger. Christian Century, 11-36. Reproduced with permission at: http://www.religiononline.org/showarticle.asp?title=1191.38 Brueggemann, W. (1977) A Biblical Perspective on the Problem of Hunger. See Ex. 16:17-18.39 Leviticus 19:9-10 and Deuteronomy 24:19-22.40 Baker, D.L. (2006, July) To Glean or Not to Glean. Expository Times, 117(10), 406-410.41 Ex. 23:11; Deuteronomy 15:1-18.42 Campbell, C.C. (2003), p. 113.

gracious provision. That this celebration of God’s generosity is included as an element of Israel’s laws

testifies to the fact that providing food for all is also a standard of God’s justice.

The Prophetic Tradition: in the face of food injustice

Tragically, and perhaps predictably, this standard was not always adhered to by the nation of Israel,

and the most fiery messages about food and justice in all of the Christian Scriptures, either Old or New

Testament, emerge from the prophetic tradition. The prophets frequently reproach their economic and

political leaders for breaking faith with God. Predictably, they frequently cite idolatry as the nation’s

major sin.43 Yet there is also a social aspect to the judgments of the prophets. The prophets are swift to

denounce their societies for oppressing the poor and exploiting the vulnerable. Amos 8:4-9 forms a

particularly harsh indictment against the wealthy, who are accused of a litany of dishonest acts,

including manipulating food markets and violating the codes regarding food and the land laid out in

Leviticus and Deuteronomy.44 Amos faults them for “skimping the measure, and boosting the price” of

grain, driving the poor and vulnerable into destitution45. Similarly, Brueggemann describes the prophet

Micah as condemning his society’s wealthy for their “aggressive land practices… and exploitative policies

that generated urban wealth at the expense of the vulnerable.46” The prophetic tradition of Amos and

Micah places divine justice firmly on the side of the poor and the marginalized, those whose needs are

not being met by society. To quote Cathy C. Campbell, these voices assert that “those who have no

benefactors do have a place and a claim on the community. They have some entitlements.47” They

derive these entitlements not from their productive functions within society, but as a result of their

membership in it – God’s covenant with Israel requires justice for every member of society, and the

prophets warn of destruction if this covenant is broken.

The Ministry of Jesus and the life of the early Church: from scarcity to abundance

Christians generally cannot help but to see their faith through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

His teachings and relatively brief period of ministry are therefore foundational for Christian groups

concerned with food, agriculture, and justice issues. Jesus’ own testimony about himself, that he has

come so that people may have life, and have it “more abundantly,48” echoes the vision of an abundant

and fruitful created order described in Genesis. Jesus’ miracles bear this out. Perhaps the most well-

43 i.e. Isaiah 44:9-20; Jeremiah 2:5-8.44 Amos 8:4-9, also Amos 5:10-12.45 Amos 8:5.46 Brueggemann, W. (2003). An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 234. [citing Micah 2:1-2; 3:9-11]47 Campbell, C.C. (2003), 82.48 John 10:10 (King James Version)

known miracle recorded by the Gospels, the “feeding of the 5,000,49” is a symbol of his function within

Christian theology. Just as Christ reconciles humanity to God50, restoring the relationships broken in the

Garden,51 so too does Jesus reverse the physical process of sin by miraculously providing food to his

hungry followers. The Christian celebration of the Eucharist, sharing bread and wine in remembrance of

Christ’s death, further symbolizes, in a visceral way, this radical spirit of generosity which marks Jesus’

life. In taking communion (the Eucharist), believers are connected with God and with one another in a

representation of what Scripture and the Christian tradition have labeled the “new covenant,52” and

become a part of God’s work of reconciliation.53

In addition to signaling a restoration of the created order and establishing a new covenant between

God and God’s people, Jesus also represents a continuation of the prophetic tradition of the Old

Testament. In the Gospel of Luke Jesus opens his public ministry by quoting a text from the prophet

Isaiah, proclaiming “good news to the poor… freedom for the prisoners… recovery of sight for the

blind… [and] release for the oppressed.54” Just as the Old Testament prophets confronted the social

elites with hunger and poverty they were causing, Jesus scandalizes and confounds the religious

authorities of his day by violating the codes they had established which put adherence to customary law

ahead of the well-being of the vulnerable in their midst.55 As a counterpoint to this legalism, Jesus

outlines two maxims to guide human life – love of God and love of one’s neighbor, a term which Christ

stretches to include even enemies.56 These qualities are cited by Jesus as requirements for

righteousness, and they are quite clearly modeled by Christ in his ministry. This is a ministry which

Christians are called to emulate, one which works to restore human beings to God, to one another, and

to nature itself. Rather than being interpreted in a narrowly spiritual sense, Christian groups concerned

with food and hunger issues frequently apply this in a tangible way by pursuing what they view as a

mandate to pursue justice for the marginalized and oppressed and ensure that all members of society

have access to the abundant life which God desires for them.

Convergence and Overlap

49 Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15.50 2 Cor. 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:17-1951 Romans 5:12-1552 Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25.53 Campbell, C.C. (2003), 48.54 Luke 4:18-1955 Luke 6:1-11; Matthew 15:1-20. Cf. Micah 6:8; Amos 5:21-24.56 Luke 10:25-37.

There are obviously significant differences between the Biblical narrative and human rights

approaches to looking and hunger and food security. To begin with, while the right to food approach

finds its legitimacy in the multilateral way in which it was developed and in the breadth with which it has

been endorsed, the theological narrative’s claim to legitimacy is its exclusivity. This is to say, it asserts

its legitimacy by emphasizing its rootedness in the unique claims of an authoritative source (i.e. the will

of God made known through the Bible). Additionally, the obligation of nation-states (the duty-bearers

of the right) to respect, protect, and facilitate the rights of their citizens (the rights-holders) to exercise

their right to food is rooted in their international legal commitments. The Christian obligation to

promote abundant life for all, seek justice for the oppressed, and participate in the reconciling work of

God, however, grows out of a theological conviction. As such, it is a moral and spiritual obligation,

rather than a legal one.

In spite of these differences, there are significant areas in which both the Biblical narrative and the

right to food overlap. A rights-based approach to development and one drawing on the theological

narrative described above both affirm the value of prioritizing work with smallholder farmers, and

recognize the need to reformat international trade regimes to meet the needs of the vulnerable and

marginalized.

Prioritizing work with Smallholder Farmers

Prior to the spike in world food prices in 2008, the challenges facing smallholder farmers were neither

well understood nor widely discussed. Yet these farmers, the many of whom are net food importers (i.e.

they purchase more food than they produce) make up a significant portion of the world’s hungry, and

were profoundly affected by the crisis.57 Recently, both faith-based and secular, rights-based agencies

have been more vocal about meeting their needs. Nation-states, UN agencies, and key non-

governmental human rights defenders and ‘rights-based’ aid agencies increasingly recognize that the

current patterns of food production, distribution, and consumption must adapt to remedy historic

underinvestment in agriculture. On leading international NGO, Oxfam International has added their

voice to the list of organizations calling for increased investment in agriculture as a long-term solution to

the global food crisis. Citing a long-term decline in donor country support for poor smallholder farmers

in the developing world, they affirm the need to increase public support to smallholders in ways that will

help reduce poverty, improve environmental sustainability, and empower women.58 Rather than simply

57 Comprehensive Framework For Action (2008) 4, 15.58 Investing in Poor Farmers Pays, Oxfam Briefing Paper (No. 129) – Summary (2009, June 30). Oxfam International, [Briefing paper], 1.

being the latest developmental “buzzwords,” these three goals are consistent with a rights-based

approach. For a variety of factors, poor farmers, farmers in ecologically fragile environments, and

women are each vulnerable groups whose access to adequate food is threatened in times of

environmental or economic shock. Government action to improve the capacity of these groups to

withstand these shocks and access food in times of added climatic or economic stress is central to

helping them realize their rights in a sustainable fashion.

Support for small farmers is also central to the approach of faith-based organizations. Mennonite

Central Committee is an international relief, development, peacebuilding agency connected with

Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches in the US and Canada. MCC works with civil society groups

around the world to address food security and food justice issues.59 In Ethiopia, one of MCC’s local

partners has targeted poor smallholders on marginal lands for a cash-for-work program that is helping

smallholder farmers plant trees and terrace hillsides to halt erosion and restore soil fertility,60 and in

Mozambique the organization is building small dams in seasonal riverbeds which capture rainwater for

storage below ground, essentially creating artificial aquifers in water-scarce communities.61 These

targeted agro-ecological interventions help poor communities exercise their right to food, but they also

align with the notion of restoration and theme of abundant life with which the Biblical narrative deals

significantly. In this sense there is a significant degree of overlap between the right to food-based

approach and the faith-based agenda.

International Trade

Another area of action and advocacy common to both the right to food agenda and the Biblical food

narrative is global trade. For faith-based groups who take the Bible’s claims about food and justice

seriously the economic imperative to turn a profit is secondary to the theological imperative to ensure

that vulnerable members of the human community have the chance to thrive. Catholic Relief Services

asserts that the agricultural economy “must serve people, not the other way around.62” In this respect,

these faith-based groups often find themselves at odds with a system of international trade which does

not always seem to adequately meet the needs of the vulnerable and marginalized. Center of Concern,

an advocacy organization rooted in the Catholic social tradition63 argues that the present system of

59 Global Food Crisis: Helping Through MCC. (August 2009) http://www.mcc.org/foodforall/food/crisis/ (accessed September 25, 2009).60 Shenk, T. (2009, May/June) Enough to Eat. A Common Place, 14-16,19.61 Shenk, T. (2008, July/Aug.) Between the Rains. A Common Place, 6-11.62 Catholic Social Teaching and Food. http://crs.org/emergency/downloads/cst-food.pdf (accessed September 25, 2009).63 Mission/Vision. http://www.coc.org/about-us (accessed September 25, 2009).

international trade in agricultural commodities has having benefited large agribusinesses and industrial

producers of farm goods rather than small farmers, who, they note, compose 80% of the world’s

hungry.64 Likewise, Dr. Agnes Abuom, of the Anglican Church of Kenya, warns that “subsidised exports

of surplus agricultural products from the developed countries, particularly foodstuffs, are destroying

food markets in poor countries. […] If we do not share the food, we must at least share the market more

fairly and efficiently.65” Each of these warnings is similar in nature to the stance taken by the Old

Testament prophets, and Jesus himself. They assert the fundamental dignity of the human person, who

is made in the image of God and must be put at the center of any economic system.

The warnings by these religious leaders and groups are occasionally similar to the positions of their

secular colleagues. As an internationally recognized legal norm, the right to food likewise puts the

nutritive needs of the individual ahead of the economic motivations of corporations or governments. In

a report on the World Trade Organizations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food explains

that the “realization of the right to food should guide… efforts aimed at the establishment of… [a]

multilateral trading system.66” The Rapporteur advises that for a global trade regime to contribute to

the realization of the right to food, it must not treat agricultural goods as it would any other product;

rather, such a system should allow developing countries the flexibility to protect their food producers,

who face stiff competition from farmers of the industrial world.67 This conclusion by the Special

Rapporteur – that the needs of poor farmers must be respected in international trade regimes – hews

surprisingly closely the prophetic stance adopted by several faith-based NGOs. It serves to illustrate the

degree to which the right to food and the Biblical narrative concerned with food justice overlap with one

another.

Conclusion

These overlapping areas of emphasis between the Biblical food narrative and the right to food

agenda, which cover the need to re-examine international trade and the prioritization of assistance to

smallholder farmers, arise despite differences in the inspiration and content of each doctrine. The food

justice agenda draws its inspiration from a reading of the Bible which sees food as a gift of God, meant

to be enjoyed in abundance by all people. The doctrine of the right to food, however, has its roots in a

64 Davis, A., & Polk, T. (2009, July) Seeding Justice: A New Value System for Food and Agriculture. Center of Concern [briefing paper], 2,4-5.65 Abuom, A. (2008, November 3) An earth that nurtures and sustains all life. Global Future: A World Vision Journal of Human Development, 25.66 de Schutter, O. (2009, February 4) Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development. UN Doc. A/HRC/10/5/Add.2, p.5.67 De Schutter; UN Doc.A/HRC/10/5/Add.2; February 4, 2009, p.2.

broad-based international consensus on the need to expand access to food for all members of society,

which gradually emerged out of the post-World War II era. Its normative content developed through

several decades of international discussion and debate, and it is only in the past decade that the

international community has made practical efforts to realize this right. What both agendas share is a

genuine desire to eliminate hunger and food insecurity, a goal shared by all persons of good will and one

which both faith-based and secular advocates hope will be realized soon.

Works Cited

Abuom, A. (2008, November 3) An earth that nurtures and sustains all life. Global Future: AWorld Vision Journal of Human Development, 24-25.

Alston, P. (1984). International Law and the Human Right to Food. In P. Alston, & K. Tomasevski, (Eds.), The Right to Food. (pp. 9-68) Boston: M. Nijhoff.

L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI). “‘L’Aquila’ Joint Statement on Global FoodSecurity.” (2009, July 10).

Baker, D.L. (2006, July) To Glean or Not to Glean. Expository Times, 117(10), 406-410.

Brueggemann, W. (1977, December 7) A Biblical Perspective on the Problem of Hunger. Christian Century, 11-36. Reproduced with permission at: http://www.religiononline.org/showarticle.asp?title=1191.

Brueggemann, W. (2003). An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and ChristianImagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 234.

Buckingham, D. (2000, December 6). Food Security, Law, and Theology: Biblical Underpinnings of the Right to Food. Canadian Foodgrains Bank, discussion paper.

Campbell, C.C. (2003) Stations of the Banquet: Faith Foundations for Food Justice. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Catholic Social Teaching and Food. http://crs.org/emergency/downloads/cst-food.pdf (accessedSeptember 25, 2009).

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. "Substantive Issues Arising in theImplementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General

Comment 12, The Right to Adequate Food.” (15 December,1999). UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5.

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Fact Sheet No.16 (Rev.1).” p. 3.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet16rev.1en.pdf (accessed September 21, 2009).

Davis, A., & Polk, T. (2009, July) Seeding Justice: A New Value System for Food and Agriculture. Center of Concern [briefing paper], 2,4-5.

Diouf, Jacques. Foreword (2005). In Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security. 127th Session of the FAO Council [Rome, Nov. 2004].

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2009, June 19). 1.02 Billion People Hungry.http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/20568/icode/ (accessed September 22, 2009).

Global Food Crisis: Helping Through MCC. (August 2009) http://www.mcc.org/foodforall/food/crisis/ (accessed September 25, 2009)

Gready, P., & Ensor, J. (2005). Introduction. In P. Gready, & J. Ensor (Eds.), Reinventing Development?: Translating Rights-Based Approaches From Theory Into Practice, (1-44). New York, NY: Zed Books.

High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis. (2008, July). ComprehensiveFramework for Action. New York.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. (1996) Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1966, December 16).UN Doc. General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI).

Investing in Poor Farmers Pays, Oxfam Briefing Paper (No. 129) – Summary (2009, June 30). Oxfam International, [Briefing paper].

Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. (20007, September 9) UN Doc.A/HRC/RES/6/2, paragraph 2a,d,f.

Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (accessed Sept. 21, 2009).

Mission/Vision. http://www.coc.org/about-us (accessed September 25, 2009).

de Schutter, O. (2009, February 4) Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development. UN Doc. A/HRC/10/5/Add.2

de Schutter, O. The Meaning of Food as A Human Right. http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/right-to-food (accessed Sept. 9, 2009).

Shenk, T. (2009, May/June) Enough to Eat. A Common Place, 14-16,19.

Shenk, T. (2008, July/Aug.) Between the Rains. A Common Place, 6-11.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (accessed Sept.17, 2009).

UN Treaty Collection, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV3&c apter=4⟨=en#2

(accessed September 22, 2009).

Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security. (2005) 127th Session of the FAO Council [Rome, Nov. 2004].

World Food Program. “WFP says high food prices a silent tsunami, affecting every continent.” (April 22, 2008). http://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/wfp-says-high-food-prices-silent tsunami-affecting-every-continent (accessed September 20, 2009).