Food, Power, and Politics: The Colonial and Modern Weaponization of Hunger

Food is a common thread among humanity. From diverse cultural meals to cooking traditions and eating with your community, food is more than just sustenance, it is a language and keeper of knowledge and culture. Therefore, the power of food makes it a sought-after and highly influential weapon of war, control, and political gain. Since the birth of imperialism, food has been weaponized as a tool of mass destruction, war, and control, with the colonization of Indigenous peoples, the Russia- Ukraine war, and the genocide in Gaza serving as stark examples. The deliberate manipulation of food access not only reinforces political power but also perpetuates the demonization, stereotyping, and 'othering' of marginalized global communities. Under capitalism, the global food systems have been subjected to corporate consolidation and control, dismantling the power of the people to control their own diets, farming, and cultural farming knowledge. The political rhetoric surrounding food consumption, scarcity, and aid amplifies harmful stereotypes of minorities, portraying them as dependent or uncivilized, such as Donald Trump's violent rhetoric regarding Haitian migrants during his presidential campaign in 2024. This paper will illustrate how the weaponization of food has historically fueled colonization and continues to intensify the 'othering' of minorities in America through political rhetoric that exploits food as a symbol of power and social hierarchy.

When society can’t connect on a human level due to political polarity, we always have biology. From the Greek myth of Demeter to the Cherokee legend of Selu, anxiety and collective fear of starvation is a genetic trait our species has not been able to dominate. The weaponization of food is not a new tactic in warfare or control. One of the earliest records for utilizing hunger as a weapon dates back to ancient Mesopotamian city-states and the practice of siege warfare, where armies would encircle city walls, cutting off the flow of food and water to those inside (Rodrigez, 2024). This type of warfare not only ensures the biological weakening of the enemy but also serves as a psychological strategy aimed at enforcing a quicker surrender or takeover. The weaponization of food and hunger can be defined as: 

Situations of organized, armed political violence where belligerents on one or both sides use food and hunger as weapons. Parties will intentionally disrupt food production, access to markets, or vital infrastructure like irrigation systems, effectively starving civilian populations as a tactic to gain military advantage; this can involve destroying crops, blocking humanitarian aid, and targeting agricultural areas, leading to widespread malnutrition and famine, constituting a serious violation of international humanitarian law (Messer, Cohen 2024). 

Historical examples of food weaponization are not sparse. From the colonization of Indigenous peoples by the Spaniards, English, and French to modern-day examples like the Russia- Ukraine War and the Genocide in Gaza, the weaponization of food has been a consistent tool for exerting control, suppressing populations, and reinforcing political dominance. This often leads to mass suffering, famine, and the strategic manipulation of resources to achieve military and ideological goals. Furthermore, political rhetoric and systemic inequalities in America’s food systems act as an off-shoot of food weaponization as it continues to disproportionately affect communities of color, low-income individuals, individuals with disabilities, and undocumented individuals (Domínguez, García, et al.). These examples showcase how food is manipulated as a means of social and political control. Whether physical blockades or politicians pushing political rhetoric on national platforms, the right to food access has become a political tool across the globe. 

COLONIZATION

The Colonization of the Americas by Spaniards and Europeans in the late 1400s and early 1500s showcases not only the colonization of land but of Indigenous peoples' food, culture, and bodies. When first arriving in Mesoamerica, the Spaniards turned to the indigenous groups, the Maya and Aztecs, for shelter and a basic understanding of the land. When ‘development’ began, so did the weaponization of food. Where Indigenous crops grew, colonizers uprooted them, disrupting thriving agriculture and claiming Indigenous diets were “inferior” to European diets, thus acting as a method of justification for their weaponization (Alvarez, 2022). Settlers began to spread the rhetoric that by eating indigenous crops (i.e. beans, pumpkins, chilies, avocados), they too would turn indigenous. Believing that their diet was inferior to the European diet and could not sustain their practices, the Spanish introduced a plethora of cattle not native to Mesoamerica. Among these were dogs, llamas, and turkeys. As these animals roamed the ‘new world’, they started to reproduce at a rapid rate and required more land for grazing and farming. Herds of cattle were permitted to roam wherever they pleased, most of the time being on Indigenous land and crops. Indigenous crops soon became depleted from the prolific grazing, resulting in an extraordinary decline in Indigenous populations (Alvarez, 2022). Many Indigenous tribes soon became malnourished and more susceptible to European diseases. This, combined with the evangelization of planting wheat instead of maize, depleted indigenous crops (Earle, 2012). From the introduction of foreign animals, diseases, and plants to the anti-Indigenous rhetoric spewed by the settlers, the traditional, cultural, and biological aspects of the Indigenous people of Mesoamerica were colonized. 

Here, food acts as both a physical and rhetorical device for control. The physical uprooting and destruction of native land and crops, Spanish diets being forced on native peoples, and the evangelization of both food and religion resulted in a complete colonization of Mesoamerica and its people. The weaponization of food served as both a literal and symbolic tool of dominance, ensuring that Indigenous people were not only physically weakened but also culturally erased. By imposing European dietary norms and agricultural practices, colonizers disrupted Indigenous food systems, making self-sufficiency nearly impossible and reinforcing their control. Ultimately, the introduction of foreign animals, plants, and ideologies transformed the landscape of Mesoamerica, leading to devastating population declines and the erosion of traditional ways of life, solidifying colonial rule not only through violence but also through the very sustenance of the people.

UKRAINE  

Food has been deemed as a silent weapon by not just scholars but outwardly by authoritarians too. In early 2022, Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, declared food to be Russia’s “silent weapon” (Welsh, Glauber, 2024) amid the ongoing Russia- Ukraine war. Russia’s war on Ukraine has not only caused internal disruptions but major global marketplace disruptions in agricultural trade. As Russia targets Ukraine’s agricultural production, they are also sabotaging Ukraine’s export income. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Ukraine’s GDP contracted by more than 29 percent in 2022 compared to 2021, and the value of agriculture as a proportion of Ukraine’s GDP was 39 percent lower in 2022 than 2021”, while Russia’s exports increased the same year. At the beginning of the conflict, Ukraine’s shipping exports were put on an immediate halt as sea lanes were mined and patrolled by Russia. One-third of Ukraine’s Summer crops were shipped via land, most being traded with other parts of Europe. This left countries like Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia vulnerable, dropping their imports of wheat from 10% to 3% and 30% to 12%, respectively (Welsh, Gauber, 2024). Russia’s wheat production and exports hit a record high in the 2023-2024 market year and are likely to continue to increase in 2025. Data shows that more wheat shipments went to Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia in 2023-2024 than previously reported. This left parts of the world in shambles, unable to source enough food to feed their people, and raising food insecurity levels in Africa, Asia, and Ukraine. 

Hindered supply lines and the destruction of critical infrastructure have increased food insecurity levels in Ukraine and other import-reliant countries. An estimated 7.3 million people are considered food insecure in Ukraine, most being affected near the war’s frontline in the north and east. 27% of households in the north and 25% in the east faced severe food deficits (Vos, 2024). Furthermore, critical damage to infrastructure, such as houses, roads, dams, and energy plants, led to the abandonment of farms and farmland. Total cropland decreased by 7% due to abandonment caused by the war, resulting in a $2 billion loss in harvest. Furthermore, the major drop in the profitability of agricultural production has reduced farmers' incomes and the wages of millions of rural Ukrainians (Vos, 2024). Employment in the agricultural sector is estimated to have fallen by 18%, affecting citizens' livelihoods and food security. 

Russia’s weaponization of hunger and food has benefited the war efforts by making it exponentially more difficult for Ukraine to feed its citizens and neighboring countries. By blocking export routes, Russia is reducing Ukraine’s potential political influence in countries such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia while increasing its political power by stepping in and filling those trade gaps, therefore increasing Russia’s global influence. Here, the weaponization of food acts both as a physical and political means of control. However, this strategic use of food as a weapon is not unique to the war in Ukraine or any war for that matter. Across the world, conflicts have increasingly seen the deliberate restriction of food access as a means of exerting control and pressure over vulnerable populations, such as the ongoing Genocide in Gaza.

GAZA

While the conflict between Israel and Gaza is widely convoluted and dates back centuries, the ongoing attacks, sieges, and state violence against Palestinians have reached a record high. The Genocide has accounted for more than 45,500 Palestinian deaths, the most since the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (Rotz, Levkoe, et al.). The United Nations deemed the war as a Genocide in October of 2024, a year after the initial attack on October 7th by Hamas. Since then, the United Nations General Assembly stated that Israel was using “starvation as a method of war” and that its policies and practices “are consistent with the characteristics of genocide” (Rotz, Levkoe, et al.). As seen by many colonial powers, the manipulation of starvation to control Indigenous populations not only shapes food systems but global food sovereignty as well. Roughly 96% of the population in Gaza is facing life-threatening food insecurity and extreme famine. There have been reports of Palestinians eating cattle feed and drinking heavily polluted water just to survive. The International Criminal Court charged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant with war crimes of using starvation as a method of warfare. 

After the brutality committed by Hamas on October 7th, Israel declared an all-out siege on the Gaza Strip, blocking all commercial imports and halting all electricity, food, and aid services. Gaza relies heavily on imports for goods and produces very little food independently. In November 2023, the World Food Program estimated that Gaza was only getting 10% of the necessary food supplies (Konyndyk, Marks, 2024). A halt in bread production followed this siege, and in the same month, Israel bombed Gaza’s largest wheat mill. These first few months of bombardment laid the groundwork for over a year of political and physical sieges on Gaza’s food source. The first official warning of widespread famine occurred in December of 2023, according to the Famine Review Committee. As the situation worsened, the IDF planned strategic attacks on humanitarian aid. The IDF struck a UN aid convoy in February after approving its arrival and held the convoy stationary at one of their checkpoints to do so. Shortly after, they suspended all food aid deals with the UN. Israel dropped 75,000 tons of explosives on Gaza, destroying over 70% of Gaza’s tree cover (Al Jazeera, 2024). Israeli tanks decimated fruit orchards, crops, and olive fields and filled the land with pollutants such as asbestos and other heavy chemicals. As the genocide worsened, Israel refused to open any more crossing points for aid to come in. In March of 2024, UN officials reported a harrowing 34 deaths due to malnutrition and dehydration, and due to the restricted access for aid convoys to enter, the majority of those suffering from malnutrition suffered silently and invisibly. 

The situation continued to worsen and Gaza was reaching a critical famine threshold. On March 29, 2024, the International Court of Justice told Israel to act without delay and to provide humanitarian services. On April 1, the IDF struck a World Central Kitchen food aid convoy, killing seven aid workers in the process. Global protests and outcry prompted the Biden administration to offer an ultimatum, stating that if Israel did not provide aid, it would lose U.S. support. Immediately, Netanyahu reversed his siege and agreed to open additional border crossings and increase aid into the strip. However, the situation in Gaza is still dire, and a ceasefire deal between the two nations is underway. 

Here, the weaponization of food acts physically, as Israel made it impossible for Palestinians to receive, grow, or attain any source of food or nourishment for months. Political tensions and influence shine through, unmasking the utter horror of the lengths taken for political and rhetorical gain. The harm done by food aid blockages, bombings, and chemical releases will continue to impact Gaza and Palestinians for decades.

FINANCIALIZATION OF FOOD AS A MEANS OF COLONIZATION

The financialization of the agricultural industry not only transformed food production but also marginalized small-scale farmers worldwide. As large financial institutions funneled capital into farmland and industrial agricultural practices, the landscape of food production shifted dramatically. Small farmers, who relied on traditional and sustainable farming methods, found themselves unable to compete with the economies of scale, technological advancements, and mechanization that came with corporate and investor-driven agriculture. The push for monocropping, heavy pesticide and fertilizer use, and high-yield farming, all hallmarks of the Green Revolution, favored large agribusinesses, further displacing independent farmers who could not afford the costly inputs or infrastructure necessary to meet industrial standards.

Corporate control of food systems was further commodified during the 2007/2008 food crisis, which affected multiple parts of the world, such as Egypt, Mexico, and Haiti. During this time, the FAO Food Index shot up by 125%, exposing just how deeply financial markets had become entangled in the global food system. Financialization in agriculture refers to the increasing role of institutional investors—pension funds, private equity firms, hedge funds, and sovereign wealth funds—who saw farmland as a prime investment opportunity (Stephens, 2022), where financial investors became increasingly interested in farmland specifically. As the agricultural industry tends to be unpredictable and unstable, farmland provides a stable and high commodity price and risk-adjusted returns on investment, making farmland very attractive to investors.  Between 2005 and 2007 alone, wealthy investors funneled $45 billion into farmland, setting off a wave of land grabs, particularly in developing countries.

 This land acquisition led to widespread land disposition, specifically in ‘developing’ nations, as well as complete financial and corporate control of the farming and food economy. Globally, 1% of the world’s largest farms control 70% of the world’s farmland, and between 2008 and 2022, land prices nearly doubled globally – and tripled in Central-Eastern Europe (Chomba, 2024). Increasing corporate concentration of ownership and control influences the way that the land is farmed, as well as the wages, lifestyle, and rights of those farmers. The United States is widely credited with pushing economies of scale with the agri-food sector, combining both horizontal ownership and vertical integration, thus forming complete capitalistic control over farms and farmland. This massive concentration of ownership doesn’t just affect land access; it dictates how farming is done, how much farmers are paid, and what rights they have. 

The massive concentration of control extends its influence to the type of farming permitted across the globe. Since the spread of the Green Revolution in the 1960s, the industrial agricultural model and the creation of genetically modified seeds changed the future of farming forever. Transnational corporations funneled money into research and college labs to find the best, “highest-yielding” type of seed that could only perform at its best when farmed with the “matching” pesticide and fertilizer inputs. Under the control of transnational corporations, high-yielding variety seeds and inputs became protected by patents and considered intellectual property (Shiva, 2016). When this barrier was placed on farmers, they were forced to purchase seeds rather than exchange them with fellow citizens like they had been doing 10,000 years prior. Where HYV seed came, extreme use of pesticide and fertilizer followed, disrupting not only the environmental biodiversity and integrity of the ecosystem but often displacing communities and polluting water sources with excessive chemical inputs. 

Globally traded food products reached a value of $1.7 trillion in 2017. The United States has continued to control international trade and expand the distance between growers and consumers (Clapp, 2020). While the U.S. government has taken extensive efforts to control domestic farming and food production, such as implementing tariffs on imported foods and providing subsidies for domestic farmers, this has had many negative consequences on international trade. Furthermore, the interconnectedness of the agricultural sector has resulted in high reliance on other countries for specific goods and production quotas. A tractor made in the United States will be used in Asia, exotic goods such as coffee and cocoa are an idealized necessity to many Americans, and a crop failure in Latin America could raise food prices in Africa. The largely Western-held ideas of property rights, technological advancements, and institutions have served as gate-kept tools of control in many countries in the Global South. This market control of global production grew to be more economically concentrated, with industrialized countries controlling 70% of the global economy (Podolskaya, Alekseeva, 2021). These corporations influence the rules and operating norms of the economy, going so far as to control the pricing power at which they buy and sell food and agricultural products (Clapp, 2020). This puts small-scale farmers in non-industrialized countries at high risk and at the mercy of these TNCs. The integrated nature of agribusiness not only raises concerns for monopolistic tendencies but puts the food economy at higher risk for emergencies or disruptions. 

This type of control is a more subtle example of the weaponization of food. With Western ideals of trade, industrialization, and business practices dominating the global economy, it leaves conflicting views and methods of food trade at the will of the Global North. Small-scale farmers have little to no control over where or how their goods are grown, processed, and sold, as well as their wages between the corporations. The lack of financial mobility and control for these farmers results in industrialized countries in the global food economy engaging with human rights violations such as slave labor and environmental degradation. 

FOOD INSECURITY AND RACE

Domestically, 13.5% of the United States population is considered food insecure. The USDA defines food insecurity as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food”, with long-term effects including higher rates of diabetes and hypertension, self-reported fair or poor health, maternal depression, behavioral problems/developmental delays in early life, and poor academic achievement (Odoms-Young, 2019). While food insecurity rates have steadily risen over the last 20 years, non-white households are disproportionately impacted by food deserts, rates being doubled for Hispanic and Black households compared to white households. This pattern of systemic inequality illustrates the intertwined relationships of determinants of food insecurity, such as disability, unemployment, and incarceration, with the concentrated social and economic disadvantage among people of color (Odoms-Young, 2019). The weaponization of food here is more subtle, becoming an actor in structural racism and control. An intersectional lens of addressing systemic food insecurity and poverty levels reveals a long-standing history of racist zoning practices and real estate laws, permitting people of color from living in more “suburban” areas. As a result, grocery stores and markets were where one could purchase nutritious food items that did not develop in lower-income areas, recognizing that building in more affluent areas would make them more profitable. This system is further perpetuated through political rhetoric spewed regarding SNAP and welfare programs, framing food assistance as a “hand-out” rather than a fundamental human right. These inequitable systems are not accidental but rather deeply embedded mechanisms of control that continue to disadvantage and dismantle minority communities, widening economic and social disparities. Addressing this crisis requires dismantling these barriers and prioritizing policies that ensure equitable food access for all. 

The colonization of the food industry, as well as the seed, furthered political and rhetorical control of food across the globe, thus weaponizing it for the United States' gain. As less and less power lies with small-scale farmers and consumers, transnational corporations chose to ignore the widespread poverty level, chronic illnesses, and spreading loss of biodiversity occurring all over the globe on our farmlands. The capitalist nature of short-term benefits has acted as a catalyst for the industrial agricultural model, justifying its displacement and control methods under the guise of “high-yielding” crops and return on profit. This weaponization furthers political rhetoric by reinforcing that the only “right” way to produce food is through industrialized mechanisms and chemical inputs, or “Western” methods. The colonization of Indigenous farming methods being replaced by the industrial agricultural model not only destroyed centuries of historical and cultural knowledge but also the livelihoods of thousands of small-scale Indigenous farmers. Furthermore, as more data has emerged regarding the negative impacts of industrial agriculture, the U.S. government and corporations ignore the findings and refuse to create change. Small-scale farmers are still living in poverty while producing thousands of pounds of edible food for the globe. When our food systems are controlled at a capitalist level, citizens lose control over every aspect of their diets, health, and historical knowledge. Systemic racism and inequalities continue to utilize food as a weapon of control within structural food deserts and insecurity, impacting people of color disproportionately compared to whites. The political rhetoric furthers social consciousness regarding domestic food insecurity and federal aid, demonizing food-insecure populations even further. 

POLITICAL RHETORIC UNDER THE GUISE OF TRUTH

As the United States is emerging into a new era of political control and influence, political rhetoric regarding food has also been weaponized. On September 14, 2024, during the first Presidential debate, Donald Trump made a baseless claim, “In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there" (Trump, 2024). These claims followed a polarizing conversation regarding immigration, one of Trump’s most popular stances in his campaign. The second those words left Trump’s mouth, he continued the historical pattern of using food as a political weapon. While city officials in Ohio confirmed they had received no such reports, the rhetoric was already spreading like wildfire via social media. The sound bite began trending on both X (formally Twitter) and TikTok, receiving national attention, and soon became a part of meme culture on both of the apps. However, this did not stop Trump’s followers from believing his lie, with a staggering 52% of his supporters stating that they believed that claim was true (Aaron, 2024). Political violence against marginalized communities is not new to American politics, or global politics for that matter. Tropes of immigrants eating “dirty” or “weird” food date back to colonization, as illustrated by the colonization of Mesoamerica. Western and White cultures often place themselves as superior to other races and ethnicities and choose to deploy xenophobic rhetoric to illustrate institutionalized racism. 

Demonizing immigrants based on falsehoods about their diet soured during the height of anti-Chinese sentiments in 1882. Grover Cleveland’s campaign for president included cartoonish and racist sketches of Chinese men eating rats to degrade his opponent, Benjamin Harrison, on the stance of Chinese immigration (Aaron, 2024). As anti-Chinese rhetoric continued, harmful stereotypes deepened, depicting Chinese immigrants as a “civilization threat” and “dog eaters”. As dogs and cats are considered “honorary humans” in American culture, the slur of “dog and cat eater” carries serious ramifications, presenting immigrants as a threat to beloved members of the family, thus encouraging violence and a protectionist attitude towards immigrant groups. Making minorities seem “uncivilized” through untrue rhetoric surrounding diets and cultural meals acts as a justification to enact harmful laws and acts of discrimination against them. 

Economic policy and rhetorical justification from politicians are a blunt example of systemic racism. Many poverty-based stereotypes, such as the “welfare queen,” perpetuate the racial bias towards people of color and the disproportionate number of individuals suffering from food insecurity. Generalizing and spreading baseless rhetoric about individuals who receive government aid such as SNAP programing perpetuates the societal belief that poor financial situations and poverty are a result of the individual rather than a collection of systemic inequality within our societal systems. This rhetoric furthers the justification for the government not to take responsibility for its shortcomings, specifically in communities of people of color. 

Trump’s use of political rhetoric here enforces the idea of the “other”, that those who are not like the majority (i.e. white people) are to be feared and scapegoated in times of crisis. By weaponizing food-related terminology to stoke racial divisions, whether through rhetoric on false claims about foreign diets or systemic inequalities, Trump and politicians strategically reinforced nationalist sentiments that positioned marginalized communities as threats. This pattern highlights how food, language, and political maneuvering intertwine to reinforce power structures and shape public perception, often at the expense of vulnerable populations. 

WHAT CAN WE DO TO RECLAIM POWER?

This overwhelming amount of control leaves food sovereignty activists wondering one question: What can we do to reclaim power? While many nonprofit and mutual aid organizations are making tangible changes in their local communities, political control and weaponization of the global food system remain largely untouched. A shift in focus to agroecology and sustainable farming practices have been cultivated to combat environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, while many social movements are calling for the democratization of the food economy. With the colonization of indigenous peoples' land, cultures, and bodies, the traditional knowledge of farming practices has become widely wiped out and forgotten. To begin to reform our food system, we must first go back to the roots of agriculture: Indigenous practices. 

The Cheyenne River Youth Project, an Indigenous organization dedicated to giving Lakota youth and families access to culturally relevant opportunities and knowledge to strengthen Native communities, runs a program for Native Food Sovereignty. Stretching between the Dakotas, their food sovereignty program includes educational materials, outdoor classrooms, and the Winyan Toka Win Garden, where students and community members alike can receive a comprehensive understanding of indigenous farming practices. This hands-on learning style not only ensures a long-lasting understanding of these practices but also makes the benefits tangible. 

In regions dominated by industrialized agriculture, Indigenous farming practices offer valuable solutions to long-standing sustainability and environmental degradation issues. However, efforts to globalize these practices face significant challenges, as knowledge and expertise have been systematically stripped from farmers for decades. On the First Nations reserve lands in the Saskatchewan Prairies, Indigenous farmers have been actively organizing, practicing, and expanding their agricultural traditions within the broader agribusiness sector. Frustrated by inaction, limited access to funding and training, and slow-moving policy changes, they have turned to data-driven research initiatives and panel discussions to amplify their voices (Arcand et al., 2020). The absence of contemporary academic literature on Indigenous agriculture, combined with the lingering effects of colonization and food weaponization, has created institutional barriers for First Nations farmers. To establish a sustainable and protected market for Indigenous farming, there must be a concerted push to develop policies that lead to targeted programs and services addressing the needs and challenges of First Nations farmers and agricultural managers. Integrating land-based knowledge and traditional food cultivation practices into education systems at local and regional levels would not only preserve these traditions but also foster a deeper understanding among Western agricultural thinkers. Increased inclusion of Indigenous agricultural expertise in policy and education is essential for creating a more sustainable and equitable future for Indigenous farming communities.

On top of empowering Indigenous voices and movements, using individual power as consumers can further demand more sustainable and ethical farming practices. For example, organic farming generated $48 billion in the U.S. and $114 billion globally in 2018 (Shiva, 2016), increasing the demand for more farming to be done with pesticides and chemical fertilizers. As movements regarding food sovereignty and food access are picking up steam across the United States, more and more everyday people are becoming familiar with the importance of sustainable and indigenous agriculture to protect not only human health but environmental health as well. As long as the United States functions within a capitalist economy, policy changes regarding the economy and transnational corporations will be a massive feat to fix. However, small, everyday movements such as shopping from your local farmer or supporting local business will not only enhance one’s community relationships but materialize the opinions and demands of consumers. Of course, financial freedom and mobility play a role, and not everyone can afford to buy exclusively from local shops. However, making conscious choices within your means can still contribute to a more sustainable and equitable food system.

CONCLUSION

The weaponization of food, both physically and rhetorically, has been used to control minority groups for political gain. Whether it's destroying native crops, blocking humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, or a more subtle example like the "othering" of ethnic groups via food stereotypes, colonizers manipulate food as a means of control. As the United States enters a new era of populism and political tyranny, patterns of political rhetoric used to demonize groups and the refusal to listen to science regarding environmental degradation will only continue to further the weaponization of not just hunger but also food as a status symbol. This tactical control of nourishment has perpetuated institutional racism, xenophobia, and a history of exploitation and inequality. Mutual aid and Indigenous groups have been working to mitigate policy changes and humanitarian crises around the globe and fight food insecurity as well as weaponization within their local communities. While small steps begin the tidal wave, an amplification of Native voices, knowledge, and practices combined with a demand for a change in global trade policy are larger steps consumers can take to demand action. Finding power for the individual within a capitalistic system, particularly one that feeds on the suffering of the working class, can lead to larger protests that rely on the purchasing power and amplification of the voices of the individuals. While we continue to fight for global food sovereignty during unprecedented times, a focus on community, individual, and political power will catalyze tangible change. 

Sources

Al Jazeera. (2024, April 23). 200 days of Israel’s war on Gaza in photos. https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2024/4/23/photos-200-days-of-israels-war-on-gaza

Bentley, A. (2024). Food as a weapon: Political, social, and historical perspectives. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Food Studies. https://oxfordre.com/foodstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780197762530.001.0001/acrefore-9780197762530-e-17

Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2024). Food as a silent weapon: Russia’s gains and Ukraine’s losses. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/food-silent-weapon-russias-gains-and-ukraines-losses

Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. (2024). CAPAC leaders condemn Trump’s use of racist term ‘Kung Flu’ that deliberately endangers Asian Americans. https://capac.house.gov/press-release/capac-leaders-condemn-trumps-use-racist-term-kung-flu-deliberately-endangers-asian

eCampus Ontario. (n.d.). Financialization of food: The new frontier of agricultural control. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/foodstudies/chapter/financialization-of-food/

EBSCOhost. (n.d.). Mesoamerica and the colonization of indigenous food systems. EBSCOhost. https://viewer-ebscohost-com.du.idm.oclc.org/EbscoViewerService/ebook?an=451718

Food Empowerment Project. (n.d.). Colonization, food, and the practice of eating. https://foodispower.org/our-food-choices/colonization-food-and-the-practice-of-eating/

Frontiers in Communication. (2021). The role of political rhetoric in shaping public attitudes. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.624643/full

International Food Policy Research Institute. (2024). War in Ukraine continues to undermine food security for millions. IFPRI. https://www.ifpri.org/blog/war-ukraine-continues-undermine-food-security-millions/

IPES-Food. (2024). The land squeeze: Soaring land prices and their impact on food production. https://ipes-food.org/land-squeeze-soaring-land-prices-grabs-carbon-schemes-threaten-food-production/

Land Coalition. (2024). The shocking state of land inequality in the world. https://www.landcoalition.org/en/uneven-ground/shocking-state-land-inequality-world/

MDPI. (2024). The financialization of agriculture: Economic impacts and policy responses. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/12/4/121

Odoms-Young, A. M. (2018). Examining the impact of structural racism on food insecurity: Implications for addressing racial/ethnic disparities. Family & Community Health, 41(Suppl 2), S3–S6. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000183

ProQuest. (2024). Political rhetoric and misinformation in modern campaigns. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3105555687?accountid=14608

ProQuest. (2024). Ukraine’s food crisis: Economic and social impacts. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2696514135?accountid=14608

Refugees International. (2024). Untangling the reality of famine in Gaza. https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/untangling-the-reality-of-famine-in-gaza/

Rodriguez, C. (2024). The history of food as a weapon in warfare. Journal of Historical and Social Geography. https://revistes.uab.cat/jhsgl/article/view/v3-rodriguez/42-pdf-en

Rotz, S., & Levkoe, C. (2024). Food sovereignty and the blockade of Gaza. Canadian Food Studies. https://canadianfoodstudies.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cfs/article/view/710/608

Springer. (2024). The role of financialization in food security. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-031-25399-7_56-1

The Guardian. (2024, September 14). The racist history of Trump’s pet-eating immigrant claim. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/14/racist-history-trump-pet-eating-immigrant

USFCA Repository. (n.d.). The psychology of food and its social implications. University of San Francisco. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=psyc

Unknown Source. (n.d.). Native food sovereignty. Lakota Youth. https://lakotayouth.org/programs/native-food-sovereignty/

The EUrASEANs: journal on global socio-economic dynamics. (n.d.). Article on food studies. [file:///C:/Users/parke/Downloads/239-Article%20Text-460-1-10-20210329.pdf]