In this newsletter, I’m taking you along with me to a December conference of food insecurity researchers from all over North America, the UK, and Australia — all concerned with proving a progressive diagnosis and remedy for food insecurity, at least as it presents itself in relatively affluent countries like the ones they live in.
To me, the big takeaway from the conference — which I found so powerful that I’m going to turn into one of my top New Year’s resolutions — is that advocates need to hold themselves to a very high standard of proof when it comes to food advocacy.
That’s my topic for this newsletter — why proof is important in today’s social and political environment, what kinds of points need to be proved, and how the process of argumentation and evidence-gathering needs to proceed.
As always in this newsletter, the thinking is pitched to people working on food issues that are most relevant at the local government level.
If you are interested in the broad topic of food insecurity, as was discussed at the conference, please see the long form article (you’ll need 14 minutes) on my blog, which Hypenotic helped me set up, and taught me to use — which is no small feat.
The first point to stress is that the burden of proof inevitably rests on the group proposing change.
The work toward proving a case needs to be well along BEFORE going public with a campaign, I believe, because first impressions count and a campaign has to leap out of the starting gate with a strong evidence base and a universally-respected group of people who will vouch for it.
WHY PROOF IS KEY
One reason for that is that the premise of democracy, which after all has almost always been identified with popular respect for capital R Reason, rests on the ability of citizens to appeal to fellow citizens on the basis of a rational argument about the public interest — as opposed to the power of might that belonged only to warrior classes. You show respect for democracy when you proceed on the basis of strong evidence.
Many people fear that this underlying principle of democracy is threatened in these days of rage, but all the more reason we should rely on appeals to reason if we believe that right trumps might (pardon the pun).
A second reason is that the homework of proving something leads people to think through what has to be responded to and proven to win a majority’s support.
I think three things need to be proven or established beyond reasonable doubt before majority support is won on any issue.
- One is that the present situation isn’t working for people in need, or for society at large.There are two sides to that particular coin. That means, for example, that you have to establish that food insecurity doesn’t work for the poor, and it doesn’t work for working people and the middle class either.
- The second point that needs to be established is that there are viable alternatives at the ready to today’s problem, and preferably that we have already had a taste of success with good policy in other realms that we can adapt.This is what the people at the PROOF food insecurity conference had — in the form of seniors’ pensions in Canada that solved the bulk of the problems of food insecurity among the aged, with no fuss nor muss, and no major cost to taxpayers. People don’t like venturing into policy unknowns, and we need to respect that they want proof that a reform will actually solve the problem.
- The third point that needs to be proved by a group that has done its homework is that solving the problem at hand is beneficial to everyone, including people who do not have the problem that needs to be reformed. A good food security program or environmental program will either reduce taxes overall or increase the well-being of all in some meaningful way that can be described.
Having proof for these three points is key to winning any issue, so why not start with the information you need to win?
WHY WE SAY PROOF POSITIVE
A campaign must be conducted to put proof in a good light, since we’ve already learned the hard way enough times that proof is not sufficient on its own — that it has to be presented in a way that proves the case to non-believers. What “proves” human-caused global warming to physics professors may not prove it to farmers or factory workers or restaurant workers. The evidence that proves and explains a point has to be tailored to the evidence needs of the people being addressed.
The non-believers are the audience for any campaign that is moving beyond early adopters toward an early majority.
SPEAK TO NON-BELIEVERS
You don’t need to speak to the leaders of the non-believers or the spokespeople for non-believers but the non-believers themselves.
Like any argument you want to win — as distinct from an argument where you want to prove yourself a blowhard and the smartest guy in the room — you have to listen to the reasons why people don’t get your solution and try to figure out how to convince them.
To get the proof you need, in other words, you have to listen and show some understanding of the misgiving that is holding people back. In short, you must speak in a respectful way to the people who don’t agree with you.
Trudeau and Notley, for example, have reasons for supporting a pipeline. Our job is not to polemicize with them, but to find out what’s what behind their argument and more important, why good people think there’s merit to their argument. Those are the people we must prove our case to, and we can only prove it to them if we address them respectfully.
Dump the high-school debating club style!!!
If you think the only reason why people disagree with you is that they are stupid or racist or anti-woman, then you are not listening to them; at best, you are listening to their leaders.
When you understand their argument, your argument can be strengthened, and you can gather the proof you need to convince people to change their mind — which, I think, is what we’re about.
THE PROOF IS IN THE CITY
For today’s food ideas, the proof is in the city, not the pudding.
There are so many cities in the world, so many cities keen on innovation with practical programs…. so many opportunities to prove what works and what doesn’t.
Cities should see themselves as labs, moving toward best practice as quickly as it is tested and passes the proof test. Indeed, when city council adopts a proposal, it should also adopt a proposal that implementation staff keep statistics and reports that allow other cities to learn from the experience.
The ideal situation to aim for is where each city strives to be first in one area, and follows as second third and so on when the proof is in for other cities that went first in their area.
Toronto has just established a bulk-buying program allowing food non-profits, social services, food banks and community agencies, and others to buy food (eventually mostly local food) in bulk at a significant discount. As soon as that proves a success, other cities should follow.
Cities can also take care to make sure their programs are measured for certain benefits. Do their new programs create new jobs in nearby rural areas? Do their new programs benefit air quality? Do their new programs create good jobs with career potential? The proof can be part and parcel of promoting the programs as fostering benefits for all.
One advantage of local government programs is they can deal with economics where people live — what is sometimes called pocketbook economics. How is government using the power of collective action to make life better for everyone, in the same way that fire departments do? In my view, no program should be adopted that does not create at least ten benefits — more local jobs, better air quality, fewer traffic jams, stronger neighborhood cohesion, more opportunities for disadvantaged groups (I’m writing this in a cafe that hires a person with mental disabilities to perform basic tasks, for example), more opportunities to connect with rural neighbors, improved nutrition, increased knowledge of food-related issues, reduced food waste, and so on. All of these should be measured and proved as part of the new proof transparency.
One thing will become immediately clear as soon as we measure benefits. In this day and age, there are many divisive and polarizing issues. As a result, governments are often seen as a divisive force.
Food can change that because food is very much a win-win-win issue — good for the environment, good for human health, good for the local economy.
Food is also win-win for almost every person and group. Some programs may be designed to primarily help people on low income, for example. They can also be redesigned to serve everyone — the kinds of universal programs that are common in Canada and Europe. That way, all groups in society see themselves as beneficiaries of healthy lunch programs and so on, and they enjoy universal support.
Even if programs are not designed as universal programs, they can still ensure benefits are passed on throughout the community. Doing that and pricing that need to be part of the design of all food programs.
One of the successes of Toronto food programs is they have almost always done that. That’s why they have been immune to ultra-conservative attacks. Organizations such as FoodShare and The Stop in Toronto are proof that this works.
So the next time someone challenges you with a big sneer on their face: Oh yeah! You say…. Delighted by your invitation! Let’s get to work!
