admin
Dara Cooper, a prominent figure in the food justice landscape and co-founder of the National Black Food and Justice Alliance (NBFJA), HEAL Food Alliance, and LIFE Resource Collaborative, has issued a forceful repudiation of any perceived common ground between the food justice movement and initiatives aligning with "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA). In an op-ed published by Civil Eats, Cooper, alongside contributors Cicely Garrett, Dr. Jas Jackson, Navina Khanna, Jose Oliva, Shantell Bingham, Dr. Monica White, LaDonna Redmond, and Malik Yakini, declared an unequivocal "No. Absolutely not" to the possibility of such collaboration, directly responding to a previous Civil Eats op-ed by Nicholas Freudenberg and Marion Nestle titled "Can Food Justice and MAHA Find Common Ground?" This definitive stance highlights a profound ideological chasm within the broader discussions surrounding food systems, public health, and social justice in the United States.
The Catalyst: A Call for Common Ground
The debate ignited following the publication of an op-ed by esteemed academics Nicholas Freudenberg and Marion Nestle. While the precise details of their argument were not fully elaborated in Cooper’s rebuttal, it can be inferred that their piece explored potential areas of convergence between the evolving food justice movement and the "MAHA" initiative, presumably seeking pathways for collaboration to address public health challenges and food access issues. The premise likely centered on identifying shared objectives in improving dietary outcomes and reforming aspects of the food system, perhaps under the assumption that health, regardless of political affiliation, could serve as a unifying goal. This perspective, however, was met with sharp criticism from Cooper and her collaborators, who viewed it as fundamentally misinterpreting the historical context, objectives, and foundational principles of the food justice movement.
A History of Disrespect and Ahistorical Framing
Central to Cooper’s critique is the accusation of "disrespectful, paternalistic undertones" from what she describes as "white academics telling frontline communities of color what we ‘need to be doing.’" This sentiment underscores a long-standing tension between academic or mainstream institutions and grassroots, community-led movements, particularly those led by people of color. The op-ed argues that such framing not only dismisses the existing strategies, visions, and agendas of these communities but also betrays a fundamental lack of "mutual respect" essential for genuine alliance-building. Cooper suggests that any engagement should, at minimum, take the form of respectful inquiry rather than condescending directives.
Furthermore, the response vehemently rejects what it terms an "ahistorical" understanding of the food justice movement. The original op-ed, by allegedly focusing on "reforming the food system and improving diets," is accused of willfully ignoring the movement’s deep roots in "organizing, power-building, anti-violence, and liberation." This distinction is crucial for understanding the ideological battle being waged. For the food justice advocates, their movement is not merely a subset of public health or dietary improvement initiatives; it is a direct descendant of civil rights and Black liberation struggles, fundamentally concerned with systemic change and the dismantling of oppressive structures.
The Black Panther Party and the Roots of Food Justice
To illustrate this historical grounding, Cooper’s op-ed prominently features the Black Panther Party’s Free Breakfast Program, launched in the 1960s. While often rightfully credited as a progenitor of the food justice movement, its significance extends far beyond mere food provision. The program was a radical act of self-determination, community empowerment, and direct challenge to state authority. J. Edgar Hoover, then Director of the FBI, famously deemed the program "the greatest threat to the FBI’s effort to destroy the Black Panther Party." This historical anecdote serves as a stark reminder of the state’s aggressive response to Black liberation movements, highlighting the inherent political and revolutionary nature of providing basic necessities when the state fails to do so.
This historical context is further deepened by referencing the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which waged a comprehensive war against various liberation movements, including the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, and the Young Lords. COINTELPRO employed tactics ranging from infiltration and psychological warfare to assassinations, aiming to disrupt, discredit, and destroy these organizations. For Cooper and her allies, this history is not distant; it informs their understanding of ongoing systemic violence, both domestic and international, against communities of color and sovereign nations. The op-ed draws a direct line from historical oppression to contemporary issues, arguing that the U.S. continues to "wage war and violence, thus destabilizing economies, inciting civil wars, and advancing U.S. corporate interests while wiping out entire Indigenous food systems all around the world today." This perspective positions the food justice movement as a defensive and proactive force engaged in strategies of self-defense, innovation, restoration, and cultural work aimed at building entirely new systems, rather than seeking acceptance into or reform of existing ones.
Beyond Diets: Food Justice as Systemic Liberation
A core tenet of Cooper’s argument is that the food justice movement’s focus has "always been on justice" and has been "crystal clear about the violence against our communities." This violence is multifaceted and extends far beyond individual dietary choices. It encompasses:
- COINTELPRO: The historical and ongoing legacy of state surveillance and repression.
- Food and Nutritional Violence: Systemic practices that deny access to nutritious food, promote unhealthy options, and undermine community food sovereignty, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. Data consistently shows that communities of color experience higher rates of food insecurity and diet-related diseases. For instance, according to USDA data, Black and Hispanic households experience food insecurity at rates significantly higher than the national average.
- Housing: Discriminatory housing policies (like redlining) that concentrate poverty and limit access to grocery stores, often creating "food deserts" or "food swamps."
- Policing and Mass Incarceration: The criminalization of poverty and race, which destabilizes families and communities, impacting economic opportunities and access to resources, including food. The Sentencing Project reports that Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans, contributing to systemic instability.
- Settler Colonialism and Land Displacement: The historical and ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands, which devastates traditional foodways, cultural practices, and economic autonomy. Studies indicate that Native American tribes have lost over 99% of their historical land base in the United States.
- Labor Exploitation: The systemic exploitation of agricultural workers, predominantly people of color and immigrants, who often face low wages, unsafe working conditions, and limited rights. Organizations like the Food Chain Workers Alliance document pervasive issues of wage theft, exposure to pesticides, and lack of benefits.
These interconnected issues, the op-ed asserts, are "a byproduct of racial capitalism." Racial capitalism, a framework articulated by scholars like Cedric Robinson, posits that capitalism inherently relies on and perpetuates racial inequality to accumulate wealth and power. Therefore, the food justice movement’s primary objective is not to reform a system "rotten to its core" but to fight for and model "a much more just economy," rooted in socialist and cooperative principles. While acknowledging health as "an integral part of liberation," Cooper clarifies that this understanding "goes far beyond simple ‘diets.’"
Corporate Power, Extractive Capitalism, and Policy Transformation
The third major point of contention revolves around corporate power and extractive racial capitalism. The food justice movement prioritizes "socialist and cooperative economics" as the true path forward. While engaging in efforts to transform policies like the Farm Bill and resist attacks on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Cooper criticizes the Freudenberg/Nestle op-ed for directing critiques at "POC-led food justice organizations" without "indict[ing] 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 asymmetry in accountability, where grassroots movements are asked to compromise while institutional powers are shielded from direct challenge.
The op-ed explicitly states the food justice movement’s clear understanding of systemic issues:
- Corporate Consolidation: The monopolization of the food industry by a few large corporations, which stifles competition and often prioritizes profit over public health and worker welfare.
- Subsidies for Big Ag: The redirection of massive government subsidies from industrial agriculture to local, POC- and ally-run food economies.
- Worker Ownership: The belief that workers should own the means of production, ensuring fair labor practices and equitable distribution of wealth.
- Corporate Regulation: The necessity of robust regulation to protect the food system from corporate malfeasance.
Rejecting "MAHA" and the "MAGA" Connection
The rejection of "MAHA" is categorical. Cooper dismisses its promises as "empty rhetoric, superficial lip service, and shallow policy shifts." The very premise of "making America healthy AGAIN" is deemed problematic, implying a past state of health that never existed for marginalized communities and suggesting that health can be achieved "without radical changes, cultural practices, food traditions, and community care." For the authors, "this America has ever been healthy for our communities."
Critically, the op-ed draws a direct and unwavering link between "MAHA" and "MAGA" (Make America Great Again). It argues that treating "MAHA as separate from MAGA is absurd," especially given the current administration’s perceived rollbacks on racial equity, its attacks on communities and universities, and its use of race as a "legitimate profiling indicator for ICE raids." This perspective views "MAHA" not as a neutral health initiative but as an extension of a political ideology that has demonstrably harmed communities of color. The piece challenges the authors of the original op-ed to "hurl their concerns towards the lack of decency amongst MAGA and MAHA followers" and to "direct them to truly stand up to this administration—and defect."
The notion of finding common ground between these two "camps" is deemed "insulting," particularly given their diametrically opposed positions. The food justice movement "reject[s] any obfuscation around racism and any attempts at neutrality in the face of clear attacks and threats to our freedom aims." The op-ed also warns against attempts to "divide and conquer" the food justice movement by exploiting perceived "splinters among MAGA." Instead, it suggests that those seeking such divisions should "do their own work to further whatever split you would like to see between MAHA and MAGA."
Implications for the Future of Food Systems Advocacy
This powerful rebuttal from Dara Cooper and her collaborators carries significant implications for the future of food systems advocacy and public health initiatives. It underscores a fundamental and unbridgeable divide between approaches that seek reform within existing political and economic structures and those that demand radical transformation rooted in racial justice and liberation.
- Deepening Ideological Splits: The op-ed signals a hardening of ideological lines within the broader food movement. While some may advocate for broad coalitions and incremental change, the food justice movement, as articulated by Cooper, emphasizes that compromise on core principles of racial justice and liberation is not an option. This could lead to more segmented advocacy efforts, with distinct movements pursuing different strategies and objectives.
- Reframing the Health Conversation: The rejection of "MAHA" challenges the prevailing narratives around health, moving beyond individual responsibility and diet to encompass systemic issues of power, history, and economic justice. This reframing demands that any meaningful discussion about health equity must confront racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and state violence.
- Prioritizing Grassroots Leadership: The op-ed firmly asserts the leadership and strategic autonomy of frontline communities of color. It demands that allies engage with "actual mutual respect" and a deep understanding of the historical context and lived experiences of these communities, rather than imposing external agendas.
- Political Engagement: The explicit linking of "MAHA" to "MAGA" and the call for allies to "defect" highlights the intensely political nature of food justice. It pushes the conversation beyond policy debates into the realm of fundamental political alignment and moral choice, positioning food justice as an integral part of a larger struggle against systemic oppression.
In conclusion, Dara Cooper’s op-ed is a clarion call for clarity, historical accuracy, and unwavering commitment to liberation within the food justice movement. It serves as a critical intervention in ongoing dialogues about food systems, demanding that any conversation about health and equity confront the deeply entrenched issues of racial capitalism, state violence, and systemic injustice. For those seeking to engage with the food justice movement, the message is unambiguous: true collaboration requires not just shared goals but a shared understanding of history, an unwavering commitment to anti-racism, and a willingness to dismantle oppressive systems, not merely reform them. The invitation remains open to those willing to join "with focus and actual mutual respect," signaling a path forward for genuine solidarity rooted in transformative justice.
