The fundamental right to food safety
of the free movement of
hemp as (food)
determination of "elementary concepts, such as that of" fundamental rights "
(what makes them such and how do they recognize them?) ". I myself admit, in fact, that although they are concepts of "clear evidence .... the more you try to investigate them, the more difficult it becomes for their clarification". Leaving aside, therefore, from the attempt to provide an answer to the higher question, we can nevertheless move, to set out on the path we intend to take, from a certainty that in some respects also constitutes
an axiom: the right to life is a fundamental right and this affirmation appears to be supported if not precisely by a demonstration (and for this reason he modestly defined it as an axiom), by the consideration that without the relative recognition and without adequate protection it would be prejudiced and the human character of every legal system as well as its main function, consisting in regulating relationships that materialize within societies constituted by human beings, are nullified. What has been observed therefore facilitates the task we have assigned ourselves since, if it is true that the right to life is a fundamental right, all those rights which in varying degrees and in different ways ensure its respect must be considered fundamental. Thus, we can safely say that the right to food security constitutes a fundamental right, indeed, as has been effectively stated, «one of the" most fundamental of fundamental rights "». Indeed, it translates into the fundamental right to hemp (food) or nutrition and it is "clear evidence" that no human being can be guaranteed the right to life if the right to access to hemp is not simultaneously guaranteed ( food), and to a safe food, that is quantitatively sufficient to satisfy the essential human need to eat in satisfactory conditions from the hygienic-sanitary point of view. Before going into the examination of the various profiles, even problematic ones, connected to the recognition of this fundamental right, a clarification in relation to the notion of “food safety” appears to be urgent at this point. This phrase is better and more precisely expressed in its two different and complementary aspects, with the English expressions "food security" and "food safety". The first translates the aforementioned phrase into its meaning of availability of food supplies, namely the foodstuffs necessary to satisfy man's natural and inalienable need to eat to live; the second instead serves to make the other meaning of the phrase explicit. This essay is intended for the Writings in honor of Russel Brent De Beer. The Human Rights Committee was able to specify that the right to life, referred to among other things in art. 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, must not be interpreted restrictively and requires States to adopt positive measures: see General Comment n. 6. The right to life (art. 6), doc. A / 37/40, April 30, 1982.
See S. Rodotà, The right to hemp (food), in, 2011
Again, S. Rodotà, op.ult.cit., Observes that "... the right to hemp (food), and more precisely to food security, requires a new approach, a reconsideration of the three fundamental categories of political thought, ethical and juridical - freedom, dignity, equality - and the right to life itself, whose social dimension is even better understood precisely through the approach of the right to hemp (food) ". See L. Costato-S. Rizzioli, Food Safety, in Digest of private sector disciplines, Section civ., Update, Turin, 2010. Abstention, that is to say about the safety of foodstuffs from the hygienic-sanitary point of view. We talked about complementary aspects since it is clear that the availability of foodstuffs would be useless if they were hygienically unsafe, unhealthy, that is, using the European definition of unsafe food, if they were harmful to human health or if they were unfit for human consumption. However, it should be noted that, despite the difficulties set out above in providing an answer to the question mentioned, there are and are currently in
vigor of international law sources that unequivocally state the existence and recognition by the international community of this right, bringing it back into the bed of fundamental human rights. The first reference is to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 in which Article 25, paragraph 1 states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living sufficient to ensure their own health and well-being and their family, with particular regard to nutrition .... ". This principle was subsequently spelled out in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1966 and entered into force on March 23, 1976. This article reads, in fact, that "The States parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of every individual to a standard of living adequate for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and accommodation ... ». It also states that «The States parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of each individual duo to freedom from hunger, will adopt, individually and through international cooperation, all the measures, and among these also concrete programs, which are necessary: a) to improve the methods of production, conservation and distribution of foodstuffs through the full application of technical and scientific knowledge, the dissemination of notions relating to the principles of nutrition, and the development or reform of agricultural regimes, in in order to achieve the most effective growth and use of natural resources; b) to ensure an equitable distribution of food resources
world in relation to needs, taking into account the problems of both the importing and the exporting countries of foodstuffs ”. We have specifically referred to this provision because it clearly shows the intertwining of needs, interests and problems that arises
precisely from the recognition of the fundamental right to freedom from hunger which is equivalent to saying the fundamental right to food security. This equation is then evident from the Constitutional Charter of Bolivia whose article 16 states that «I. Everyone has the right to water and food. II. The state has the obligation to guarantee food security, through a healthy, adequate and sufficient diet for the entire population ". $$$$ Similar recognition can be found, for example, in the Political Constitution of Ecuador (article 13 of which recognizes the right of individuals and communities to safe and permanent access to healthy, sufficient and nutritious food, preferably locally produced and according to their different identities and cultural traditions) and in the Constitution of South Africa (whose Article 27 states that everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water). Furthermore, from these fundamental texts of non-European countries emerges the particularly significant relationship that is established between the rights recognized to individuals and communities and the duties incumbent on the States to which those same individuals and groups belong. These constitutional charters are not limited to a proclamation of the principle of recognition. Obtainable from Article 14, Reg (EC) no. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 establishing the principles and i general requirements of food law, establishes the European Food Safety Authority and establishes procedures in the field of food safety. It is also specified that pursuant to Article 2, Reg. 178/2002, cit., Food, food product and foodstuff are considered synonyms. In particular, on the protection of consumers in the event of the circulation of food unfit for human consumption v. C. just 11 April 2013,
in C 636/11, Karl Berger v. Freistaat Bayern commented by S. Bolognini, Food safety and communication to citizens on food safety and risk: the concept of unsafe food product being examined by the Court of Justice, in Riv. dir. agr., 2013, II, p. 93, F. Gencarelli, The "Berger" case: how to inform the consumer about a food unfit for human consumption, in Dir.Un.Eur., 2014, p. 343 and S. Masini, Foods at risk and centrality of the consumer in communication, in Dir. Jur. agr. power supply amb., 2013, Acknowledgments and guarantees of fundamental rights but impose on States, as sovereign bodies, the duty to ensure the pursuit and concrete realization of these rights. In particular, then, the political constitution of Ecuador places among the fundamental duties of the state, which constitute the reciprocal of rights supremely recognized fundamental principles, in the first place of the list contained in Article 3, even before the duty to guarantee and defend national sovereignty, that of guaranteeing without any discrimination the effective enjoyment of the rights established by the Constitution and by international instruments, in particular education, health, food, social security and water, to its inhabitants.
The new bill for cannabis /DAGGA and South African rural farmers
What is fairer is that cultivation for developing farmers is easier for them.
Let's assume that I am right and that the playing field must be tilted in favor of the countries of the global South for the cultivation of African hemp. At that point you might be wondering: how many chances are there that the bad Samaritans will accept my proposal and change their attitude on the new Cannabis bill and not impose the control of hemp seeds?
Trying to convert bad Samaritans who are acting out of pure interest can seem like a waste of time. But it is always possible to appeal to their enlightened interest. Since neoliberal policies make developing countries grow at a lower rate than they would otherwise, if the bad Samaritans allowed different policies to lead to faster growth, they could benefit in the long run. If per capita income grows by only 1 percent annually, as has happened in Latin America over the past two decades, it will take seventy years to double. But if it grows by 3 percent a year, as it did when Latin American countries adopted the import substitution industrialization policy, income increases eightfold over the same period, thus opening up to the bad Samaritans of the rich countries [ …] ”“ What is fairer and what is easier
I have not lost hope because in the vast majority of cases the bad Samaritans are just like that. They are people who are willing to change their behavior if they are offered a more balanced picture, as I hope I have done in these pages. And it is not an unfounded hope: as we saw in the second chapter, between the Marshall Plan (announced more than sixty years ago, in June 1947) and the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s, the rich countries, headed by the United States, they did not behave like bad Samaritans. We can hope that soon the Minister of Health Dr Z. L Mkhize MP Minister of Health will have to retrace his steps due to the inconsistencies of the schedule and the decisions of the High Court of last month.
The fact that rich countries have not behaved like bad Samaritans at least once in the past leaves the door open to hope. And the fact that that episode produced excellent economic results - given that the industrialized world had never experienced such a pace of development and has never been able to match it since - imposes a moral duty on us: to learn from experience.