The consequences of a failed rights-based approach is devastating, and these failures outweigh the slim possibility it will workAnderson 08Molly Anderson, 2008, Rights Based Food Systems and The Goals of Food System Reform http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226404273_Rights-based_food_systems_and_the_goals_of_food_systems_reform Date Accessed:3/27/15 NRLThe US food system falls short of respecting, protecting, promoting, and fulfilling ESCR without discrimination, by all means possible. This might be dismissed as a quixotic goal that no complex system comprising state and private actors could ever achieve, but the consequences of failure are severe in terms of human suffering, inequity, and damage to the environment. The number and extent of violations of ESCR in the US food system, and the absence of discourse about rights related to the food system, indicate that the US public and actors with responsibility for food system decisions do not seem to connect ESCR with the food system as yet. Even those who are dedicated to reforming US food systems are only beginning to consider human rights, most often the right to food, the right to food sovereignty, or workers rights. Although thinking about food, health, and a clean environment as basic inalienable rights is not yet standard in the US and jars with the idea of individual responsibility for ones diet and health, this shift in perception is happening in other countries. The concept of RBFS can help to fill this gap in the US, and advance food system advocacy and analysis.

Rights-based food security is achieved through food democracyAnderson 08Molly Anderson, 2008, Rights Based Food Systems and The Goals of Food System Reform http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226404273_Rights-based_food_systems_and_the_goals_of_food_systems_reform Date Accessed:3/27/15 NRLThe right to food underpins RBFS, since food production is the main purpose of food systems, and reinforces the importance of public participation in food system decisions. This right is best implemented through food democracy because food is more than just nutrients. By claiming a right to food, people claim the right to control over how that food reaches them, or food sovereignty. The first of the guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food, endorsed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in November of 2004 (FAO 2004b), addresses democracy and good governance. It stresses that States must empower individuals and civil society to make demands on their governments and ensure the accountability and transparency of governments and state decision-making processes. In the rights-based framework, social relationships must be reframed so that there is distributive equity of resources; participatory equity in determining how distributive rights will be claimed; and equity of ownership by workers of the means of production, the conditions under which they work, and the distribution of proceeds (Fields 2003). These three kinds of redistribution are interconnected and mutually supportive, and decisions about redistribution must be made through public participation. Providing food aid in emergency situations in ways that do not incapacitate local food production is the most extreme form of food redistribution, and is both humane and politically expedient. However, the right to food cannot be met long-term through external donations. It requires local control over practices and policies to reinforce the ability to grow or buy stable amounts of nutritious food for ones household and community.

Rights-based approach to food security is by six criteriaAnderson 08Molly Anderson, 2008, Rights Based Food Systems and The Goals of Food System Reform http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226404273_Rights-based_food_systems_and_the_goals_of_food_systems_reform Date Accessed:3/27/15 NRLThis section sets forth six criteria of rights-based food systems, or food systems that can address ESCR comprehensively: Absence of human exploitation. Democratic decision-making on food system choices that have impacts on people in more than one sector of 600 M. D. Anderson 123 he system (e.g., consumers and producers, or distributors and producers). Fair, transparent access by producers to all necessary resources for food production, including knowledge. Multiple independent buyers. Absence of resource exploitation. No impingement on the ability of people in other locales to meet these criteria (e.g., through trade relationships that undermine decent wages, fair prices, environmental quality, and transparency of access to information in other countries).

Economic social and cultural rightsESCR and Rights-based approach is only focused on US rights and abilitiesAnderson 08Molly Anderson, 2008, Rights Based Food Systems and The Goals of Food System Reform http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226404273_Rights-based_food_systems_and_the_goals_of_food_systems_reform Date Accessed:3/27/15 NRLMany of the ESCR that underpin socioeconomic expectations in other countries can be met through the food system, or are adversely affected by food system practices. The list includes, at the least (with references to the relevant sections of the 1966 International Covenant on ESCR in parentheses): The rights to safe and healthy working conditions for farmers and wageworkers in the food system, fair compensation for their labor, and fair wages sufficient to guarantee a decent living (Article 7); The right to form and join unions (Article 8); The right to food (Article 11); The right to make full use of technical and scientific knowledge to achieve the most efficient development and use of natural resources (Article 11) and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (Article 15); The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including environmental hygiene and access to medical services (Article 12, which has been construed to mean environmental quality suffi- cient for public health); and The right to enjoy culture and participate in cultural life (Article 15). In this section, I summarize trends affecting ESCR within the food system from the perspectives of the public in the roles of consumers, taxpayers, and citizens; farmers; rural communities dependent on agricultural production; and wageworkers in the food system.

The amount of rights that a government has to provide will overload the government to the point where they cant ensure justice to citizensAnderson 08Molly Anderson, 2008, Rights Based Food Systems and The Goals of Food System Reform http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226404273_Rights-based_food_systems_and_the_goals_of_food_systems_reform Date Accessed:3/27/15 NRLSummary of impacts on ESCR of current trends Focusing on ESCR that one might reasonably expect from the food system, the following conditions stand out: Working conditions of many farmworkers and foodprocessing workers are dangerous and unhealthy, and their abilities to form unions and bargain collectively are restricted. Sustainable livelihoods through income from food system jobs (hourly wages for wageworkers, and prices for crops received by farmers) are not possible for most farmers or food system workers, with the exception of large-scale farmers and some farmers raising highvalue crops. Farmworkers, waiters and waitresses, fast food cooks, and combined food preparation and serving workers earn wages below the official poverty threshold for a household of three. The right to food (which is not recognized in the US) was not met for the 12.6 million households characterized by food insecurity in 2006 (Nord et al. 2007), with disproportionately high numbers in rural areas dependent on agriculture and in agriculture-related jobs. Food security is achieved in the US as a whole with steadily increasing amounts of imported food (ERS FATUS data set). Public investment in research and technology has contributed to growing concentration in agriculture. It has not focused on improving human rights for agriculture-related occupations that employ the most people, or improving the viability of livelihoods through agriculture for the majority of farmers. The right to a clean, health-promoting environment is violated by food industries that contaminate water and soil in rural areas. Advertising and massive promotion of unhealthy food interfere with the right to maintain traditional foodways, as a part of cultural participation. Acceptance of the continuation of current trends in the US is an affirmation that people who grow food, maintain working landscapes, process food, and sell it do not deserve full ESCR. But many citizens are bucking these trends with their purchasing decisions and political activities. How would a food system look, if protecting, respecting, and fulfilling ESCR were a priority? And does current interest in localization and sustainability move the US food system in that direction? These questions are addressed in the next sections. Criteria of rights-based food systems This section sets forth six criteria of rights-based food systems, or food systems that can address ESCR comprehensively: Absence of human exploitation. Democratic decision-making on food system choices that have impacts on people in more than one sector of 600 M. D. Anderson 123 the system (e.g., consumers and producers, or distributors and producers). Fair, transparent access by producers to all necessary resources for food production, including knowledge. Multiple independent buyers. Absence of resource exploitation. No impingement on the ability of people in other locales to meet these criteria (e.g., through trade relationships that undermine decent wages, fair prices, environmental quality, and transparency of access to information in other countries). Each of these characteristics is important alone, but also supports the others. The criterion prohibiting human exploitation (which would result in living wages, fair prices, decent working conditions for farmers and wageearners in other sectors of the food system, and the ability to form unions and bargain collectively) needs no further explanation because it is a direct transfer from human rights declarations. Meeting this criterion requires a combination of defensive strategies against actors and institutions that exploit workers, and proactive efforts to set up meaningful social justice standards, with mechanisms in place to implement decisions made by food system stakeholders. Democratic decision making across sectors of the food system contributes to meeting this criterion, as each person tries to protect his or her rights. Access for producers to the necessary resources for food production is essential to allow freely chosen work for those who wish to farm. It also allows a population to avoid dependence for food on food systems that are not rightsbased. Meeting this criterion might involve legal strategies to obtain clear rights to land or water, to save farmland and give priority to farming over other potential land uses, or to allow farmers to acquire seeds and other inputs cheaply. It would involve reconsideration of Intellectual Property Rights law and company retention of proprietary information to ensure that producers can access necessary resources. It also would involve policies to make access to credit and other financial services more equitable. The criterion of multiple independent buyers protects independent producers, processors, packers, and distributors (i.e., those that are not vertically integrated into global value chains) by preventing an imbalance of power between sectors. This requires transparent access to information, systematic enforcement of existing anti-trust legislation, and stronger legal strategies to break open concentrated power in the food system. The criterion of no resource exploitation (i.e., no use of resources beyond their capacity to regenerate) is essential to allow the locale to endure. If community resources are being mined faster than they can renew, the people who live there will not be able to sustain their livelihoods over time and will be forced to emigrate. Meeting this criterion requires incentives and rewards for environmentally sound methods and the absence of toxic waste generation throughout the food system, from manufacture of farming inputs to waste disposal, and penalties for violating these constraints. If the criterion were interpreted strictly, it would require massive public investment in research on energy technology to allow farming, ranching, and fishing to replace current use of fossil fuels with renewable energy-efficient fuel sources. It would also remove all subsidies for transportation and infrastructure serving the petroleum and automotive industries, and replace them with incentives for a rapid transition to a fossil-fuel-free food system. The global food system is completely dependent on non-renewable petroleum supplies at present for almost every phase of production and processing, including fertilizer needed to grow modern seed varieties, diesel fuel to run tractors and trailer trucks, and plastic packaging materials. The criterion of no impingement on meeting these criteria in other locales prevents the people in one place from externalizing their social and environmental costs onto other people or other places. This criterion might be met through regulations that prohibit dumping crops below the cost of production, shipping garbage to other countries, buying food from companies or countries that allow workers to be exploited, and importing food or other agroecosystem goods produced in ways that degrade environmental quality. The RBFS concept recognizes that food system boundaries are porous and food system paths link different locales; attention to human rights fulfillment therefore must transcend country borders and follow each value chain back to its source. The rights-based approach to human development focuses on people as rights bearers, entitled to demand accountability of their governments and other powerful entities for their policies and actions. This entails meaningful political voice and ability to participate in decisionmaking, which require in turn that the public understands impacts of their choices through education and full access to information about those choices. Broad public participation allows vital concerns such as public health, access for people who cannot afford to buy food, ability to exercise choice over food production methods and technologies, and environmental quality to be debated and for results to become part of public food policy. In the absence of participation by citizens and residents beyond a passive consumer role, economic factors drive food system choices and these qualities tend to be externalized. This is one drawback to market-based solutions to food system problems (another important drawback being exclusion of all people who cannot afford to participate in the market). Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform 601 123 The right to food underpins RBFS, since food production is the main purpose of food systems, and reinforces the importance of public participation in food system decisions. This right is best implemented through food democracy because food is more than just nutrients. By claiming a right to food, people claim the right to control over how that food reaches them, or food sovereignty. The first of the guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food, endorsed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in November of 2004 (FAO 2004b), addresses democracy and good governance. It stresses that States must empower individuals and civil society to make demands on their governments and ensure the accountability and transparency of governments and state decision-making processes. In the rights-based framework, social relationships must be reframed so that there is distributive equity of resources; participatory equity in determining how distributive rights will be claimed; and equity of ownership by workers of the means of production, the conditions under which they work, and the distribution of proceeds (Fields 2003). These three kinds of redistribution are interconnected and mutually supportive, and decisions about redistribution must be made through public participation. Providing food aid in emergency situations in ways that do not incapacitate local food production is the most extreme form of food redistribution, and is both humane and politically expedient. However, the right to food cannot be met long-term through external donations. It requires local control over practices and policies to reinforce the ability to grow or buy stable amounts of nutritious food for ones household and community. Putting food in the category of universal rights, rather than privileges available to those able to pay for them, is a radical notion in the US. Recognizing and implementing this right would require a turnaround in the ethos of individual responsibility that prevails in government messages about food access, diet and related health problems, and environmental harm caused by food production and distribution. In the US at present, choices about foodand therefore accountability for those choicesare deemed to be up to the individual. However, individual retail consumers are diverse and usually unconscious of their collective influence: they can be badly organized and they carry most of the health costs of current food supply, yet they are made responsible for their own diet-related (ill) health since they are ultimately accountable for what they eat(Lang and Heasmann 2004, p. 15) Framing dietary choices as the ultimate responsibility of the individual is congruent with the larger neoliberal agenda to downplay governmental obligation for the public good. Making individuals responsible for their own diets and problems arising from eating unhealthy food removes the governments obligation to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill citizens rights to food. This shift in responsibility has been perversely construed as a right itself. The Center for Consumer Freedom defends the right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves by fighting the growing cabal of food cops, health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know whats best for you (Center for Consumer Freedom nd 2008). Consumer freedom may be a convenient justification for continuing to promote unhealthy food, but it is hardly a recognized ESCR.Food insecurity causes political riots and tensions which breakdown governments and societiesthat makes justice impossible. The most comprehensive and qualified studies conclude affirmative. Brown 9(Lester R, President of the Earth Policy Institute, Masters degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Maryland, founded the Worldwatch Institute, the first research institute devoted to the analysis of global environmental issues, formerly worked at the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service as an international analyst, later appointed Administrator of the department's International Agricultural Development Service, author or coauthor of over 50 books, recipient of many prizes and awards, including 25 honorary degrees, a MacArthur Fellowship, the 1987 United Nations' Environment Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize for his "exceptional contributions to solving global environmental problems, Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization? May 2009, http://biomass.age.uiuc.edu/images/c/cd/FoodShortageBrown.pdf, published by Scientific American, accessed 8-3-12)For many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization. I can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food economy most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperaturesforces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible. The Problem of Failed States Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one. In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record low. In response, world grain prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the highest level ever. As demand for food rises faster than supplies are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts severe stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of their problems stem from a failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate. We have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk. States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and basic social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of part or all of their territory. When governments lose their monopoly on power, law and order begin to disintegrate. After a point, countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers are no longer safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions have already put such programs in jeopardy. Failing states are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs, weapons and refugees, threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of failing states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training. Afghanistan, number seven, is the worlds leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers among them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six). Our global civilization depends on a functioning network of politically healthy nationstates to control the spread of infectious disease, to manage the international monetary system, to control international terrorism and to reach scores of other common goals. If the system for controlling infectious diseasessuch as polio, SARS or avian flubreaks down, humanity will be in trouble. Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself.

1ncNegative LD 2015

In light of the legacy of the greatest Vulcan in TV history, Spock, I find it appropriate to quote Leonard Nimoy, who once said You proceed from a false assumption: I have no ego to bruise. Nimoy tells us that knowing the true nature of an unjust system, is better than a false hope that we know will not be achieved. It is because I agree with Spock that I negate the resolution, Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security to their citizens.

First lets start by defining some key terms in the debate for proper analysis of the resolution. The World Health Organization in the Summit meeting of 1996 defines food security as when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.

First well start with the framework of the debate in order to establish a mechanism for deciding the decision of todays resolution. The superior value to uphold in this debate is the value of justice, specifically defined as giving each his or her due. Justice is the primary value of this debate to evaluate the the standard set by the resolution as to whether a government is deemed just or unjust.*OPTIONAL* Because I have the same value as my opponent, the debate will focus on which interpretation of justice is better, how it better supports the respective side of the resolution, and how much the criterion maximizes the value of justice.

The best criterion is the veil of ignorance proposed by American philosopher John Rawls in the latter half of the 20th century. Rawls proposes that we take a step back, and examine the amount of justice in our actions. Under the veil, we can see that the resolution makes a standard that says You cant be just if you dont ensure food security, even if you cant afford it. This is horribly unjust. The debate is not about how to provide food security such as the affirmative proposes, but rather it is about evaluating this assumption, and the lack of justice is has. Under the resolution, and the world of the affirmative, a nation that cant possibly provide food security would be unjust, even though this government could have the best employment rate, the best education, and even the best public safety, among other things. This is strictly unfair, and is most importantly unjust. When the resolution creates a system that doesnt allow poor nations to be just, we have to vote negative. We also need to establish that I, as the negative speaker, do not abhor or disagree with food security, because it is a good thing. However, I do value justice, and agree that the system imbedded in the resolution is flawed, and you, the judge should vote negative in this round today.

I am going to agree with the value and criterion of my opponent, but argue however, that the affirmative strategy is ineffective to solve the problem

Contention 1 Government OverloadThe amount of rights that a government has to provide to ensure food security will overload the government to the point where they cant ensure justice to citizens- this is the 1AC Anderson evidenceAnderson 08Molly Anderson, 2008, Rights Based Food Systems and The Goals of Food System Reform http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226404273_Rights-based_food_systems_and_the_goals_of_food_systems_reform Date Accessed:3/27/15 NRLSummary of impacts on ESCR of current trends Focusing on ESCR that one might reasonably expect from the food system, the following conditions stand out: Working conditions of many farmworkers and foodprocessing workers are dangerous and unhealthy, and their abilities to form unions and bargain collectively are restricted. Sustainable livelihoods through income from food system jobs (hourly wages for wageworkers, and prices for crops received by farmers) are not possible for most farmers or food system workers, with the exception of large-scale farmers and some farmers raising highvalue crops. Farmworkers, waiters and waitresses, fast food cooks, and combined food preparation and serving workers earn wages below the official poverty threshold for a household of three. The right to food (which is not recognized in the US) was not met for the 12.6 million households characterized by food insecurity in 2006 (Nord et al. 2007), with disproportionately high numbers in rural areas dependent on agriculture and in agriculture-related jobs. Food security is achieved in the US as a whole with steadily increasing amounts of imported food (ERS FATUS data set). Public investment in research and technology has contributed to growing concentration in agriculture. It has not focused on improving human rights for agriculture-related occupations that employ the most people, or improving the viability of livelihoods through agriculture for the majority of farmers. The right to a clean, health-promoting environment is violated by food industries that contaminate water and soil in rural areas. Advertising and massive promotion of unhealthy food interfere with the right to maintain traditional foodways, as a part of cultural participation. Acceptance of the continuation of current trends in the US is an affirmation that people who grow food, maintain working landscapes, process food, and sell it do not deserve full ESCR. But many citizens are bucking these trends with their purchasing decisions and political activities. How would a food system look, if protecting, respecting, and fulfilling ESCR were a priority? And does current interest in localization and sustainability move the US food system in that direction? These questions are addressed in the next sections. Criteria of rights-based food systems This section sets forth six criteria of rights-based food systems, or food systems that can address ESCR comprehensively: Absence of human exploitation. Democratic decision-making on food system choices that have impacts on people in more than one sector of 600 M. D. Anderson 123 the system (e.g., consumers and producers, or distributors and producers). Fair, transparent access by producers to all necessary resources for food production, including knowledge. Multiple independent buyers. Absence of resource exploitation. No impingement on the ability of people in other locales to meet these criteria (e.g., through trade relationships that undermine decent wages, fair prices, environmental quality, and transparency of access to information in other countries). Each of these characteristics is important alone, but also supports the others. The criterion prohibiting human exploitation (which would result in living wages, fair prices, decent working conditions for farmers and wageearners in other sectors of the food system, and the ability to form unions and bargain collectively) needs no further explanation because it is a direct transfer from human rights declarations. Meeting this criterion requires a combination of defensive strategies against actors and institutions that exploit workers, and proactive efforts to set up meaningful social justice standards, with mechanisms in place to implement decisions made by food system stakeholders. Democratic decision making across sectors of the food system contributes to meeting this criterion, as each person tries to protect his or her rights. Access for producers to the necessary resources for food production is essential to allow freely chosen work for those who wish to farm. It also allows a population to avoid dependence for food on food systems that are not rightsbased. Meeting this criterion might involve legal strategies to obtain clear rights to land or water, to save farmland and give priority to farming over other potential land uses, or to allow farmers to acquire seeds and other inputs cheaply. It would involve reconsideration of Intellectual Property Rights law and company retention of proprietary information to ensure that producers can access necessary resources. It also would involve policies to make access to credit and other financial services more equitable. The criterion of multiple independent buyers protects independent producers, processors, packers, and distributors (i.e., those that are not vertically integrated into global value chains) by preventing an imbalance of power between sectors. This requires transparent access to information, systematic enforcement of existing anti-trust legislation, and stronger legal strategies to break open concentrated power in the food system. The criterion of no resource exploitation (i.e., no use of resources beyond their capacity to regenerate) is essential to allow the locale to endure. If community resources are being mined faster than they can renew, the people who live there will not be able to sustain their livelihoods over time and will be forced to emigrate. Meeting this criterion requires incentives and rewards for environmentally sound methods and the absence of toxic waste generation throughout the food system, from manufacture of farming inputs to waste disposal, and penalties for violating these constraints. If the criterion were interpreted strictly, it would require massive public investment in research on energy technology to allow farming, ranching, and fishing to replace current use of fossil fuels with renewable energy-efficient fuel sources. It would also remove all subsidies for transportation and infrastructure serving the petroleum and automotive industries, and replace them with incentives for a rapid transition to a fossil-fuel-free food system. The global food system is completely dependent on non-renewable petroleum supplies at present for almost every phase of production and processing, including fertilizer needed to grow modern seed varieties, diesel fuel to run tractors and trailer trucks, and plastic packaging materials. The criterion of no impingement on meeting these criteria in other locales prevents the people in one place from externalizing their social and environmental costs onto other people or other places. This criterion might be met through regulations that prohibit dumping crops below the cost of production, shipping garbage to other countries, buying food from companies or countries that allow workers to be exploited, and importing food or other agroecosystem goods produced in ways that degrade environmental quality. The RBFS concept recognizes that food system boundaries are porous and food system paths link different locales; attention to human rights fulfillment therefore must transcend country borders and follow each value chain back to its source. The rights-based approach to human development focuses on people as rights bearers, entitled to demand accountability of their governments and other powerful entities for their policies and actions. This entails meaningful political voice and ability to participate in decisionmaking, which require in turn that the public understands impacts of their choices through education and full access to information about those choices. Broad public participation allows vital concerns such as public health, access for people who cannot afford to buy food, ability to exercise choice over food production methods and technologies, and environmental quality to be debated and for results to become part of public food policy. In the absence of participation by citizens and residents beyond a passive consumer role, economic factors drive food system choices and these qualities tend to be externalized. This is one drawback to market-based solutions to food system problems (another important drawback being exclusion of all people who cannot afford to participate in the market). Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform 601 123 The right to food underpins RBFS, since food production is the main purpose of food systems, and reinforces the importance of public participation in food system decisions. This right is best implemented through food democracy because food is more than just nutrients. By claiming a right to food, people claim the right to control over how that food reaches them, or food sovereignty. The first of the guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food, endorsed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in November of 2004 (FAO 2004b), addresses democracy and good governance. It stresses that States must empower individuals and civil society to make demands on their governments and ensure the accountability and transparency of governments and state decision-making processes. In the rights-based framework, social relationships must be reframed so that there is distributive equity of resources; participatory equity in determining how distributive rights will be claimed; and equity of ownership by workers of the means of production, the conditions under which they work, and the distribution of proceeds (Fields 2003). These three kinds of redistribution are interconnected and mutually supportive, and decisions about redistribution must be made through public participation. Providing food aid in emergency situations in ways that do not incapacitate local food production is the most extreme form of food redistribution, and is both humane and politically expedient. However, the right to food cannot be met long-term through external donations. It requires local control over practices and policies to reinforce the ability to grow or buy stable amounts of nutritious food for ones household and community. Putting food in the category of universal rights, rather than privileges available to those able to pay for them, is a radical notion in the US. Recognizing and implementing this right would require a turnaround in the ethos of individual responsibility that prevails in government messages about food access, diet and related health problems, and environmental harm caused by food production and distribution. In the US at present, choices about foodand therefore accountability for those choicesare deemed to be up to the individual. However, individual retail consumers are diverse and usually unconscious of their collective influence: they can be badly organized and they carry most of the health costs of current food supply, yet they are made responsible for their own diet-related (ill) health since they are ultimately accountable for what they eat(Lang and Heasmann 2004, p. 15) Framing dietary choices as the ultimate responsibility of the individual is congruent with the larger neoliberal agenda to downplay governmental obligation for the public good. Making individuals responsible for their own diets and problems arising from eating unhealthy food removes the governments obligation to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill citizens rights to food. This shift in responsibility has been perversely construed as a right itself. The Center for Consumer Freedom defends the right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves by fighting the growing cabal of food cops, health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know whats best for you (Center for Consumer Freedom nd 2008). Consumer freedom may be a convenient justification for continuing to promote unhealthy food, but it is hardly a recognized ESCR.A. By doing all the things that are necessary to do human rights the government will be overloaded with duties and never William Schanbacher (Professor, Univ. of Southern Florida) The Politics of Food 2010 p.24Aside from concerns about how current human rights language (and policy) pigeonholes activists into passive participation, negative rights theorists also highlight a problem Alan Girwith call an overload of duties. Given, for example, the millions of people suffering from poverty, malnutrition, disease, homelessness, and so forth, a positive rights approach (or the duty to actively secure certain rights or objects of rights) invariably involves unlimited, open-ended positive obligations that require drastic, indeed revolutionary, change in whole ways of life. In other words, the inherent demands human rights place on individuals, governments, multilateral organizations, and so forth, make them palpably impossible to guarantee. This is a warranted concern that should not be underestimated. With respect to our current examination of food security and food sovereignty, given the fact that upwards of 840 million people suffer annually from hunger and malnutrition, how can individuals thousands of miles away and far removed from situations of extreme deprivation be held responsible for securing other peoples right to food?

C.ONLY US CAN DO IT--The ENTIRE ANDERSON Article only talks about the United States as a possibility for thishe has not justified the resolution because he --Utopian- even if US can do it they will fail due to B ! card, small nations will fail, destroys resolution by cutting out all small nations D. Evaluate the resolution as a standardif you think a rights based approach means a government would never be able to E. This evidence clearly indicates that a rights based approach to food would lead to a slippery slope resulting in communismAnderson 08Molly Anderson, 2008, Rights Based Food Systems and The Goals of Food System Reform http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226404273_Rights-based_food_systems_and_the_goals_of_food_systems_reform Date Accessed:3/27/15 NRLSummary of impacts on ESCR of current trends Focusing on ESCR that one might reasonably expect from the food system, the following conditions stand out: Working conditions of many farmworkers and foodprocessing workers are dangerous and unhealthy, and their abilities to form unions and bargain collectively are restricted. Sustainable livelihoods through income from food system jobs (hourly wages for wageworkers, and prices for crops received by farmers) are not possible for most farmers or food system workers, with the exception of large-scale farmers and some farmers raising highvalue crops. Farmworkers, waiters and waitresses, fast food cooks, and combined food preparation and serving workers earn wages below the official poverty threshold for a household of three. The right to food (which is not recognized in the US) was not met for the 12.6 million households characterized by food insecurity in 2006 (Nord et al. 2007), with disproportionately high numbers in rural areas dependent on agriculture and in agriculture-related jobs. Food security is achieved in the US as a whole with steadily increasing amounts of imported food (ERS FATUS data set). Public investment in research and technology has contributed to growing concentration in agriculture. It has not focused on improving human rights for agriculture-related occupations that employ the most people, or improving the viability of livelihoods through agriculture for the majority of farmers. The right to a clean, health-promoting environment is violated by food industries that contaminate water and soil in rural areas. Advertising and massive promotion of unhealthy food interfere with the right to maintain traditional foodways, as a part of cultural participation. Acceptance of the continuation of current trends in the US is an affirmation that people who grow food, maintain working landscapes, process food, and sell it do not deserve full ESCR. But many citizens are bucking these trends with their purchasing decisions and political activities. How would a food system look, if protecting, respecting, and fulfilling ESCR were a priority? And does current interest in localization and sustainability move the US food system in that direction? These questions are addressed in the next sections. Criteria of rights-based food systems This section sets forth six criteria of rights-based food systems, or food systems that can address ESCR comprehensively: Absence of human exploitation. Democratic decision-making on food system choices that have impacts on people in more than one sector of 600 M. D. Anderson 123 the system (e.g., consumers and producers, or distributors and producers). Fair, transparent access by producers to all necessary resources for food production, including knowledge. Multiple independent buyers. Absence of resource exploitation. No impingement on the ability of people in other locales to meet these criteria (e.g., through trade relationships that undermine decent wages, fair prices, environmental quality, and transparency of access to information in other countries). Each of these characteristics is important alone, but also supports the others. The criterion prohibiting human exploitation (which would result in living wages, fair prices, decent working conditions for farmers and wageearners in other sectors of the food system, and the ability to form unions and bargain collectively) needs no further explanation because it is a direct transfer from human rights declarations. Meeting this criterion requires a combination of defensive strategies against actors and institutions that exploit workers, and proactive efforts to set up meaningful social justice standards, with mechanisms in place to implement decisions made by food system stakeholders. Democratic decision making across sectors of the food system contributes to meeting this criterion, as each person tries to protect his or her rights. Access for producers to the necessary resources for food production is essential to allow freely chosen work for those who wish to farm. It also allows a population to avoid dependence for food on food systems that are not rightsbased. Meeting this criterion might involve legal strategies to obtain clear rights to land or water, to save farmland and give priority to farming over other potential land uses, or to allow farmers to acquire seeds and other inputs cheaply. It would involve reconsideration of Intellectual Property Rights law and company retention of proprietary information to ensure that producers can access necessary resources. It also would involve policies to make access to credit and other financial services more equitable. The criterion of multiple independent buyers protects independent producers, processors, packers, and distributors (i.e., those that are not vertically integrated into global value chains) by preventing an imbalance of power between sectors. This requires transparent access to information, systematic enforcement of existing anti-trust legislation, and stronger legal strategies to break open concentrated power in the food system. The criterion of no resource exploitation (i.e., no use of resources beyond their capacity to regenerate) is essential to allow the locale to endure. If community resources are being mined faster than they can renew, the people who live there will not be able to sustain their livelihoods over time and will be forced to emigrate. Meeting this criterion requires incentives and rewards for environmentally sound methods and the absence of toxic waste generation throughout the food system, from manufacture of farming inputs to waste disposal, and penalties for violating these constraints. If the criterion were interpreted strictly, it would require massive public investment in research on energy technology to allow farming, ranching, and fishing to replace current use of fossil fuels with renewable energy-efficient fuel sources. It would also remove all subsidies for transportation and infrastructure serving the petroleum and automotive industries, and replace them with incentives for a rapid transition to a fossil-fuel-free food system. The global food system is completely dependent on non-renewable petroleum supplies at present for almost every phase of production and processing, including fertilizer needed to grow modern seed varieties, diesel fuel to run tractors and trailer trucks, and plastic packaging materials. The criterion of no impingement on meeting these criteria in other locales prevents the people in one place from externalizing their social and environmental costs onto other people or other places. This criterion might be met through regulations that prohibit dumping crops below the cost of production, shipping garbage to other countries, buying food from companies or countries that allow workers to be exploited, and importing food or other agroecosystem goods produced in ways that degrade environmental quality. The RBFS concept recognizes that food system boundaries are porous and food system paths link different locales; attention to human rights fulfillment therefore must transcend country borders and follow each value chain back to its source. The rights-based approach to human development focuses on people as rights bearers, entitled to demand accountability of their governments and other powerful entities for their policies and actions. This entails meaningful political voice and ability to participate in decisionmaking, which require in turn that the public understands impacts of their choices through education and full access to information about those choices. Broad public participation allows vital concerns such as public health, access for people who cannot afford to buy food, ability to exercise choice over food production methods and technologies, and environmental quality to be debated and for results to become part of public food policy. In the absence of participation by citizens and residents beyond a passive consumer role, economic factors drive food system choices and these qualities tend to be externalized. This is one drawback to market-based solutions to food system problems (another important drawback being exclusion of all people who cannot afford to participate in the market). Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform 601 123 The right to food underpins RBFS, since food production is the main purpose of food systems, and reinforces the importance of public participation in food system decisions. This right is best implemented through food democracy because food is more than just nutrients. By claiming a right to food, people claim the right to control over how that food reaches them, or food sovereignty. The first of the guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food, endorsed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in November of 2004 (FAO 2004b), addresses democracy and good governance. It stresses that States must empower individuals and civil society to make demands on their governments and ensure the accountability and transparency of governments and state decision-making processes. In the rights-based framework, social relationships must be reframed so that there is distributive equity of resources; participatory equity in determining how distributive rights will be claimed; and equity of ownership by workers of the means of production, the conditions under which they work, and the distribution of proceeds (Fields 2003). These three kinds of redistribution are interconnected and mutually supportive, and decisions about redistribution must be made through public participation. Providing food aid in emergency situations in ways that do not incapacitate local food production is the most extreme form of food redistribution, and is both humane and politically expedient. However, the right to food cannot be met long-term through external donations. It requires local control over practices and policies to reinforce the ability to grow or buy stable amounts of nutritious food for ones household and community. Putting food in the category of universal rights, rather than privileges available to those able to pay for them, is a radical notion in the US. Recognizing and implementing this right would require a turnaround in the ethos of individual responsibility that prevails in government messages about food access, diet and related health problems, and environmental harm caused by food production and distribution. In the US at present, choices about foodand therefore accountability for those choicesare deemed to be up to the individual. However, individual retail consumers are diverse and usually unconscious of their collective influence: they can be badly organized and they carry most of the health costs of current food supply, yet they are made responsible for their own diet-related (ill) health since they are ultimately accountable for what they eat(Lang and Heasmann 2004, p. 15) Framing dietary choices as the ultimate responsibility of the individual is congruent with the larger neoliberal agenda to downplay governmental obligation for the public good. Making individuals responsible for their own diets and problems arising from eating unhealthy food removes the governments obligation to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill citizens rights to food. This shift in responsibility has been perversely construed as a right itself. The Center for Consumer Freedom defends the right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves by fighting the growing cabal of food cops, health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know whats best for you (Center for Consumer Freedom nd 2008). Consumer freedom may be a convenient justification for continuing to promote unhealthy food, but it is hardly a recognized ESCR.

Contention Two is the concept of false hope. It is morally wrong to promise a man food, then not give him any. This is critically worse than letting him know the true nature of the unjust system of the resolution. We deserve the justice in knowing the system, rather than falling under false assumptions. This is morally wrong, a claim warranted by the veil of ignorance and this false assumption undermines justice to the point where we cannot vote affirmative.A. Providing a false hope, such as promising food security and not giving it, is morally wrong, and leads to a pessimistic self-deception. Roger Scruton, a Senior Fellow at the Ethcis and Public Policy Center in 2010 explains:Roger Scruton (Sr. Fellow, Ethics and Pubic Policy Center) The Uses of Pessimism 2010 http://books.google.com/books?id=vsq-wHxh2p4C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=falseBut I have no doubt that hope, detached from faith and untempered by the evidence of history, is a dangerous asset, and one that threatens not only those who embrace it, but all those within range of their illusions. At first, the old myth tells us, the only mortals on earth were men, to whom Prometheus brought fire in defiance of Zeus. In revenge Zeus ordered the creation of the first woman, who was given in marriage to Prometheuss brother. Her name was Pandora the all-giving one. And as a wedding gift Zeus gave her a box, instructing her never to open it. Giving way to her curiosity at last, she opened the box, releasing into the world death, disease, despair, malice, old age, hatred, violence, war and all the other evils that we know. Pandora closed the box at once, and one gift remained inside the gift of hope: the only remedy, but also the final scourge. My concern, in the first instance, is with certain fallacies that seem to justify hope, or at least to make disappointment bearable. My examples come from many areas, but they share a common characteristic, which is that they show, at the heart of the unscrupulous optimists vision, a mistake that is so blindingly obvious that only someone in the grip of self-deception could have overlooked it. It is against this self-deception that pessimism is directed. A study of the uses of pessimism will reveal a most interesting feature of human nature, which is that obvious errors are the hardest to rectify. They may involve mistakes of reasoning; but their cause lies deeper than reason, in emotional needs that will defend themselves with every weapon to hand rather than relinquish the comfort of their easily-won illusions. One of my purposes is to trace these emotional needs to their prehistoric source, and to show that civilization is always threatened from below, by patterns of belief and emotion that may onces have been useful to our species, that are useful no longer. The belief that human beings can either foresee the future or control it to their own advantage ought not to have survived an attentive reading of the Iliad, still less of the Old Testament. The fact that it did so is a sober reminder or that the argument of this book is entirely futile.

All of the promises from Contention one will not be able to be held up creating more injustice to the people.

We can clearly see that governments giving false hope to its citizens is morally wrong and unjust, but we also need to consider the injustice done to the governments. It is clearly wrong to set a standard in which not all actors can possibly reach. We deserve to know the injustice of a flawed system.

Leonard Nimoy was right, false assumptions are wrong. We can only hope that the Vulcan within us, will have no ego to bruise, and fall victim to the resolution.