Since the economic crisis hit ground in 2008, poverty has increased substantially in the Netherlands. The amount of the Dutch population living under the poverty line increased from 7.4% in 2010 to 10,3% in 2013. The poverty report of 2015 shows, no matter what way of calculating poverty rates, that the poverty has increased. (Wahlen 2016). Wahlen also
adjust to more and more restrained budget. Thus, this section aims to relate the discussion to a broader context of an emerging concern of contemporary food system – the argument for food justice. The social aspect (as opposed to the ecological aspect) of food justice is comprised of food accessibility and food sovereignty (Alkon & Agyeman 2011). To make it more relevant to the thesis, I reframe these two concepts as food inequality and alternative food movement respectively, in avoidance of too extensive discussion yet still being able to maintain the essence of each concept. This serves as an extension the previous discussion, and an substitute for the oft-used policy recommendation, since the findings of thesis do not allow making such ambitious suggestions.
Food inequality
It is not within the thesis’ limit to claim whether inequality in food consumption exist in the case of Amsterdam. In addition, inequality in food is not easy to quantify, especially when consumers’ perspective is not take into consideration. However, based on previous discussion, there seem to exist certain preferences between which shop. Certain deductions can be made from these preferences.
Studies tend to focus on supermarkets as reliable supply of healthy and reasonably-priced food. This seems to reflect Steel’s observation of overreliance of supermarkets of modern societies: “Supermarkets, and the industrial food system that supply them, have been making themselves indispensable to us for almost a century – it is only now that they have achieved their aim that we are starting to worry about the consequences” (2009). Regardless of the other ethical, environmental and social consequences supermarkets might cause, it is clear in the case of Amsterdam that these supermarkets favour areas with higher social-economic status, which cast question over how the less privileged are affected by this. This, in addition to the rise of discount supermarkets9, seem to indicate a clear segregation among community food environment.
Without being pessimistic, independent food shops in the Britain is closing at the rate of more than 2,000 a year, with a recent study in 2006 predicting that there will be none left in 2050 (Steel 2009). Thus, in order to survive, some are forced to close or change to a more high-end nature. Similar situation is happening in Amsterdam, with the number of non- chained grocers and specialty shops declining (Gemeente Amsterdam’s O+S 2011). This
9 The establishment of discount supermarkets, to a certain extent, can be considered as an acknowledgement and acceptance of segregation between food shoppers.
Spatial Distribution of Food Retailers in Amsterdam points to two scenarios. The first is that these stores are replaced by chained ones10, which can make shopping for food more difficult for the less privileged residents. Another scenario is that the chained supermarkets keep on their current trend, leave those areas prone to lack of proper food supply.
Another potential trace of inequality might be implied by foreign food shops. In his UK study, May (1996) examined the ways in which the consumption of foreign foods is deployed by gentrifiers to connote with ethnic diversity and a sense of the cosmopolitan. The study emphasises that gourmet food can jeopardize the supply of low-cost staple produce for people of low incomes11. This seems to be similar to Amsterdam case, considering their concentration in gentrifying area, such as De Pijp. However, the results from this thesis are not sufficient to confirm whether foreign food shops in Amsterdam is falling victim to this phenomenon.
Alternative food movement
Food sovereignty is introduced by Vía Campesina as “the right of people to define their agricultural and food policy” (Gottlieb & Joshi 2010). It is based on this ideal that a new movement has been established, known as alternative food movement. It rejects the global, industrial and environmentally degrading conventional food system (DuPuis & Goodman 2005), with three major objectives: (i) redistribution of value through the network in the opposite direction of the bulk commodity system; (ii) re-instilling trust between the producer and the consumer, and (iii) articulation of a new political coalition and market governance (Morgan et al. 2006). This movement covers a wide range of initiatives. I will discuss two specific aspects that are relevant in Amsterdam, the first is organic food consumption, and the second is community kitchen.
Regarding organic food, while there are various definitions of ‘organic’, the general emphasis is on production and consumption of food without the use of synthetic chemical inputs, promoting resource recycling, ecological balances and biodiversity (Lang et al. 2009, E.C. Regulation 2092/91). Examples of organic shops in the Amsterdam are Marqt or Ekoplaza. Brisman (2009; 2013), among others, has criticised the consumption of organic
10 This can be linked to gentrification as well, which requires more evidence on temporal changes to claim validity.
11 This market gentrification can also have an ethnic dimension. In Britain, markets are among the public spaces where migrant communities are most visible, and in some cases migrants are said to be sustaining their economic
food as the epitome of environmental elitism. In doing so, the sustainable consumption is only available to the privileged, those who can afford the price tag. Marqt has been criticised as it
“seems to be targeted mainly at the elites, a group of articulate and well-informed people that know the way to information about healthy food. It is a bit confined to a certain group, its reach is limited” (De Vré 2013). The spatial distribution of healthy food shops in this case clearly resonates with this claim.
Regarding community kitchen, a number of variety can be found in Amsterdam. I choose to focus in Buurtbuik, since they offer their service for free, and previous conversation with project coordinators have provided certain insights into how the spatial distribution of food retailers can be linked to these kitchens. Figure 5.1 and 5.2. illustrate this example.
Figure 5.1. Operation scheme of Buurtbuik (Source: buurtbuik.nl)
Figure 5.2. Meals at BuurtBuik (Source: Author)
While the main focus of BuurtBuik is recycling food waste as well as providing weekly healthy and free meals for the disadvantaged, current spatial distributions can pose certain challenges. According to founder Roel Raterlink, in order to maintain the stability and
Spatial Distribution of Food Retailers in Amsterdam frugality of food supply, the locations of the kitchen have to be in close proximity of donors, currently including Albert Heijn, Marqt and some others (Dorrestijn 2014). Here a dilemma can rise. The kitchen tends to choose to locate in areas with higher proportion of disadvantaged population, yet most of their donors, among the most supportive ones are Albert Heijn and Marqt, are located in areas with higher socio-economic status. Thus, the kitchen finds difficulties in expansion, both in terms of day per week and location. While not directly related to food consumption inequality, such an example proves that spatial distribution of food retailers can have more than expected influences over the urban food system.
Though not directly relevant to this research, the case of markets should be mentioned as well. Outside the inner city, especially in neighbourhoods in close proximity to the inner city, are living areas that are popular because of their proximity to the inner city, in combination with their characteristic nineteenth-century or early twentieth century housing stock and presence of lively street markets, for example, Albert Cuypmarkt in De Pijp and Dappermarkt in Indischebuurt (Sleutjes 2016). These have been argued to represent the diversity of not only the local foodscape but also of neighbourhood characteristics, enhancing the multicultural feature of these neighbourhoods (Kloosterman 2014; Hiebert et al. 2014).
However, appreciation of such a feature of markets seems to indicate a lack of effort to put these outdoors market in the context of the whole food system and take them seriously as a source of food supply. Certainly these markets offer more than just food, yet little is known about how what role, if any, these markets might have as a potential alternative food supply.
In addition, the declining of these markets, as well as ‘suspicious’ attitude of planning officials of Amsterdam has contributed to downplaying the role of these places (Janssens & Sezer 2013).
If markets are to play any important role as a food retailer, it is necessary to look beyond the singular appearance as a cultural attraction and be more open to the complexities of it (Janssens 2014)