admin
The National Black Food and Justice Alliance (NBFJA), through a powerful statement co-authored by Dara Cooper, co-founder and senior advisor for the NBFJA, HEAL Food Alliance, and LIFE Resource Collaborative, has unequivocally rejected the proposition of finding common ground between the food justice movement and the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) initiative. This definitive response comes in the wake of an op-ed published in Civil Eats on February 23, 2026, by Nicholas Freudenberg and Marion Nestle, which posed the question, "Can Food Justice and MAHA Find Common Ground?" Cooper’s collaborative rebuttal, featuring contributions from Cicely Garrett, Dr. Jas Jackson (both NBFJA), Navina Khanna (HEAL Food Alliance), Jose Oliva (HEAL, Food Chain Workers Alliance), Shantell Bingham (Liberated Investments in Food and Farm Ecosystem), Dr. Monica White (NBFJA Blackademics), LaDonna Redmond, and Malik Yakini (NBFJA Co-founder), asserts a firm "No. Absolutely not." This declaration highlights fundamental ideological and historical divides that, for the food justice movement, are irreconcilable with the premises of MAHA.
A Clash of Ideologies: Paternalism and Disrespect
The primary objection raised by Cooper and her collaborators centers on what they describe as "disrespectful, paternalistic undertones" embedded in the original op-ed. They argue that the very act of "white academics telling frontline communities of color what we ‘need to be doing’" undermines the principles of mutual respect and autonomous leadership crucial for genuine allyship. This perspective emphasizes that communities of color involved in the food justice movement possess their own well-developed strategies, visions, and agendas, which should be recognized and respected rather than subjected to condescending directives. The statement posits that any constructive engagement would necessitate the original op-ed being framed as questions to the food justice movement, rather than a series of presumptuous pronouncements. This critique underscores a broader sentiment within racial justice movements regarding the need for authentic partnership over prescriptive guidance, particularly from those outside the directly impacted communities. The implication is clear: true collaboration requires acknowledging and valuing the lived experiences and expertise of those most affected by systemic injustices.
The Historical Roots of Food Justice: Beyond Dietary Reform
The NBFJA’s response vehemently challenges the historical understanding of the food justice movement presented by Freudenberg and Nestle, labeling it "wildly ahistorical." The article clarifies that the movement’s foundations are not merely about reforming food systems or improving diets, but are deeply rooted in "organizing, power-building, anti-violence, and liberation." A crucial point of reference is the Black Panther Party’s Free Breakfast Program, launched in the 1960s. While often (and rightfully) credited as a progenitor of the food justice movement, the program was simultaneously perceived by figures like FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as "the greatest threat" to efforts to dismantle the Black Panther Party. This historical context reveals that providing food was never just a charitable act but a radical act of self-determination and resistance against state-sanctioned violence and neglect.
The statement further elaborates on the historical targeting of these liberation efforts by the U.S. government through programs like the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). This program waged a deliberate war against various civil rights and liberation movements, including the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, and the Young Lords, among others. COINTELPRO’s tactics included surveillance, infiltration, psychological warfare, and even violence, all aimed at disrupting and discrediting these organizations. This historical precedent, the NBFJA argues, is critical to understanding the food justice movement’s current focus on systemic change rather than incremental reform. The current global landscape, marked by U.S. interventions, economic destabilization, and the destruction of Indigenous food systems, is seen as a continuation of this historical pattern of violence and exploitation, against which communities continue to "fight back, defend ourselves; strategize, innovate, restore, and lead cultural work as we build new systems."
Systemic Violence and Racial Capitalism: The True Focus of Food Justice
The NBFJA firmly asserts that the food justice movement has never "long focused on reforming the food system and improving diets." Instead, its core mission has always been justice, explicitly addressing the multifaceted violence perpetrated against communities of color. This includes, but is not limited to, food and nutritional violence, housing discrimination, policing brutality, mass incarceration, settler colonialism, land displacement, and labor exploitation. These issues are understood not as isolated problems but as direct "byproducts of racial capitalism."
Racial capitalism, a concept central to the NBFJA’s framework, describes how capitalism inherently relies on and perpetuates racial hierarchies to accumulate wealth and power. In the context of the food system, this manifests as:
- Corporate Consolidation: A few large corporations dominating the food supply chain, often at the expense of small farmers and local economies. The U.S. food system is highly concentrated, with a handful of companies controlling vast sectors, from seed production to retail. For example, just four companies control over 80% of the beef packing industry.
- Agricultural Subsidies: Government subsidies disproportionately benefiting large-scale, industrial agriculture ("Big Ag") over small, sustainable, and often BIPOC-led farms. Data from organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) consistently show that commodity programs primarily benefit the largest farms and the wealthiest landowners.
- Labor Exploitation: Farmworkers, predominantly immigrants and people of color, often face exploitative wages, unsafe working conditions, and lack of protections. The Food Chain Workers Alliance reports that food system workers often endure poverty wages and high rates of injury.
- Food Apartheid/Deserts: The systemic lack of access to healthy, affordable food in low-income communities and communities of color, often a legacy of discriminatory housing policies like redlining. A 2014 USDA study found that 2.3 million Americans live in low-income, low-access areas more than a mile from a supermarket.
- Land Displacement: Historical and ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples and Black farmers from their land, hindering their ability to control their food sources and build generational wealth. The Science journal reported that Native American tribes have lost 99% of their historical land base in the United States.
For the NBFJA, health is indeed an "integral part of liberation," but it extends "far beyond simple ‘diets.’" It encompasses economic justice, environmental justice, and the dismantling of oppressive systems. Therefore, the movement’s priority is to fight for and model a "much more just economy" through socialist and cooperative economics, rather than seeking to reform a system deemed "rotten to its core."
The MAHA/MAGA Divide: A Call for Defection
The NBFJA’s critique extends to the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) initiative, which they view as inextricably linked to the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) ideology. The statement explicitly rejects the "whole concept and premise of ‘making America healthy AGAIN’," arguing that such a phrase implies a past era of universal health that has never existed for communities of color. This rhetoric, they contend, ignores the historical and ongoing racial injustices that have systematically undermined the health and well-being of Black, Indigenous, and other marginalized communities.
The NBFJA points out the inconsistency of the original op-ed’s authors in "hurling directives at POC-led food justice organizations" while failing to "indict the so-called ‘movement’ that runs the Department of Health and Human Services, an arm of the regime running the White House." This highlights a perceived double standard, where grassroots organizations are scrutinized, while powerful governmental entities, seen as complicit in maintaining systemic inequalities, escape direct criticism.
The statement draws a stark line, declaring that "to treat MAHA as separate from MAGA is absurd." It argues that the current political administration has actively rolled back progress on racial equity, demonized discussions of race, and unleashed attacks on marginalized communities and institutions. Examples cited include ICE raids that use race as a legitimate profiling indicator, despite claims from different government departments. For the NBFJA, this demonstrates a fundamental alignment between the health initiative and the broader political agenda, making any attempt to find common ground insulting and unproductive. They suggest that the authors of the original op-ed should instead direct their concerns towards the "lack of decency amongst MAGA and MAHA followers" and encourage them to "truly stand up to this administration—and defect."
Implications for the Future of Food Systems Advocacy
The NBFJA’s forceful rejection of common ground with MAHA signals a critical juncture in the discourse around food systems. It underscores a deepening ideological schism between those who advocate for systemic transformation rooted in racial justice and those who seek reform within existing frameworks. The statement makes it clear that for the food justice movement, neutrality in the face of racism and attacks on freedom is not an option. "There is a clear line in the sand right now and a right and a wrong side of history," the article asserts, challenging all stakeholders to choose their allegiance.
This stance carries significant implications for future collaborations and policy efforts within the food movement:
- Redefining Collaboration: Any future engagement must be predicated on genuine mutual respect, recognition of the food justice movement’s leadership, and an understanding of its historical and systemic analysis. Superficial "lip service" and "shallow policy shifts" will be rejected.
- Focus on Power: The emphasis on "collective power, socialist and cooperative economics" indicates a commitment to fundamental structural change that challenges corporate power and wealth distribution, moving beyond incremental policy adjustments like those debated around the farm bill or SNAP, though these remain important sites of struggle.
- Unwavering Anti-Racism: The demand for an unambiguous stance against racism and "any attempts at neutrality" highlights that racial justice is not an ancillary issue but the core principle guiding the food justice movement.
- Internal Work within Dominant Structures: The NBFJA’s message to the original op-ed authors suggests that those within more mainstream or academic circles have their own critical work to do—specifically, to challenge and dismantle oppressive structures from within, rather than attempting to guide or "fix" frontline communities.
In conclusion, the National Black Food and Justice Alliance, through Dara Cooper and her esteemed collaborators, has issued a powerful and comprehensive statement that not only rejects a specific proposition but also reasserts the foundational principles, historical context, and radical vision of the food justice movement. It serves as a potent reminder that for many, justice is not a negotiable endpoint, but the very starting point for any meaningful conversation about a healthy and equitable future. The invitation to "join us—with focus and actual mutual respect" remains open, but on terms dictated by the movement itself.
