Leaders in the food justice movement respond to a recent opinion piece and set forth their own agenda for frontline communities.
Leaders in the food justice movement respond to a recent opinion piece and set forth their own agenda for frontline communities.
March 18, 2026
Dara Cooper is the co-founder and senior advisor for the National Black Food and Justice Alliance, HEAL Food Alliance, and LIFE Resource Collaborative. Contributors include: Cicely Garrett (NBFJA), Dr. Jas Jackson (NBFJA), Navina Khanna (HEAL Food Alliance), Jose Oliva (HEAL, Food Chain Workers Alliance), Shantell Bingham (Liberated Investments in Food and Farm Ecosystem), Dr. Monica White (NBFJA Blackademics), LaDonna Redmond, and Malik Yakini (NBFJA Co-founder).
Expand your understanding of food systems as a Civil Eats member. Enjoy unlimited access to our groundbreaking reporting, engage with experts, and connect with a community of changemakers.
Already a member?
Login
Civil Eats recently published an op-ed by Nicholas Freudenberg and Marion Nestle asking, “Can Food Justice and MAHA Find Common Ground?”
The answer? No. Absolutely not.
Aside from the disrespectful, paternalistic undertones of white academics telling frontline communities of color what we “need to be doing,” the questions, assumptions, and even the focus could not be further from what is necessary in this political moment.
First, the regression around racial justice and equity is astounding. Anyone who would remotely consider themselves an ally of communities of color would understand the basics around mutual respect.
Part of respect is recognizing the leadership and insights of your counterpart—understanding they have strategies, vision, and an agenda. At best, the op-ed could have been delivered as questions to the food justice movement as opposed to what reads as a series of condescending directives.
Second, the read of the food justice movement is wildly ahistorical. Is it willful ignorance to invoke the 1960s and completely miss the focus on organizing, power-building, anti-violence, and liberation that grounds our movement?
Launched in the 1960s, the Black Panther Party’s Free Breakfast Program is often (rightfully) credited with contributing to the origins of the food justice movement, and yet was also described as the greatest threat to the FBI’s effort to destroy the Black Panther Party, according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
We know the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) waged an entire war on our people and our movements, including the Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement, Young Lords, and so many more. 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.
In the midst of the war on our communities, however, we fight back. We choose to defend ourselves; we strategize, innovate, restore, and lead cultural work as we build new systems instead of begging to be accepted into a conversation with a so-called “health” arm of a racist, xenophobic, sexist regime.
In the middle of ICE raids, bombings, coups, threats, and economic attacks waged against our communities and communities in Palestine, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, Sudan, Haiti, and so many more sovereign nations around the world, choosing to focus on winning favor among supporters and agents of this regime misses the mark of this moment so deeply.
So no, the food justice movement has not “long focused on reforming the food system and improving diets.” While not a monolith, the organizations as named in the op-ed leading the food justice movement have always focused on justice and have been crystal clear about the violence against our communities via COINTELPRO, food and nutritional violence, housing, policing, mass incarceration, settler colonialism, land displacement, and labor exploitation.
We understand these issues are a byproduct of racial capitalism, and thus our focus has always been on fighting for and modeling a much more just economy. There is no reforming a system that is rotten to its core. And while we understand health as an integral part of liberation, we know full well it goes far beyond simple “diets.”
Which leads to our third issue: Corporate power and extractive racial capitalism is what got us here. We know that in continuing to build collective power, socialist and cooperative economics are our real priorities. And while we engage in work to transform policies such as the farm bill and fight back against the attacks on SNAP, the authors of the recent op-ed hurl directives at POC-led food justice organizations, but never once indict the so-called “movement” that runs the Department of Health and Human Services, an arm of the regime running the White House.
We understand clearly that corporate consolidation is an issue and that the subsidies for Big Ag need to be shifted to local POC- and ally-run food economies, that workers need to be protected and should actually own the means of production, and that regulation of corporations is needed to protect our food.
We are not convinced by the empty rhetoric, superficial lip service, and shallow policy shifts of the MAHA madness. In fact, we reject the whole concept and premise of “making America healthy AGAIN,” as if health can happen without radical changes, cultural practices, food traditions, and community care. More than anything, we reject the idea that this America has ever been healthy for our communities.
We suggest the authors hurl their concerns towards the lack of decency amongst MAGA and MAHA followers, and instead of attempting to direct us, direct them to truly stand up to this administration—and defect. To even call into question whether these two “movements”—as if they weren’t camps that are diametrically opposed—can come together under one big, unfocused, watered-down, compromised, raggedy tent is insulting.
We reject any obfuscation around racism and any attempts at neutrality in the face of clear attacks and threats to our freedom aims. Not only has this administration rolled back any semblance of progress around racial equity, it has deemed any mention of race illegal and unleashed a rollout of unabashed attacks on our communities and universities.
Meanwhile, their courts claim race as a legitimate profiling indicator for ICE raids. And while we understand that these are different departments and players, to treat MAHA as separate from MAGA is absurd. There is a clear line in the sand right now and a right and a wrong side of history. Which side will you choose?
Furthermore, we see the splinters among MAGA but we are not pawns or chess pieces to be manipulated. Do not attempt to divide and conquer us. We suggest you do your own work to further whatever split you would like to see between MAHA and MAGA.
You’re welcome to join us–with focus and actual mutual respect.
March 17, 2026
Proponents claim the shift to artificial intelligence will make production more efficient and help feed the world. But will it actually?
March 12, 2026
March 17, 2026
Like the story?
Join the conversation.
Facts Only
Dara Cooper is the co-founder and senior advisor for the National Black Food and Justice Alliance, HEAL Food Alliance, and LIFE Resource Collaborative.
Contributors to the response include Cicely Garrett, Dr. Jas Jackson, Navina Khanna, Jose Oliva, Shantell Bingham, Dr. Monica White, LaDonna Redmond, and Malik Yakini.
The response was published on March 18, 2026.
The original op-ed by Nicholas Freudenberg and Marion Nestle was published in Civil Eats and titled “Can Food Justice and MAHA Find Common Ground?”
The food justice movement leaders rejected the idea of common ground with MAHA.
The Black Panther Party’s Free Breakfast Program is cited as a foundational influence on the food justice movement.
The FBI’s COINTELPRO program targeted movements like the Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement, and Young Lords.
The response critiques the current political administration for rolling back racial equity progress and attacking communities of color.
The food justice movement prioritizes socialist and cooperative economics over corporate power and extractive racial capitalism.
The leaders argue that health cannot be achieved without radical systemic changes.
The response calls for a clear distinction between MAHA and MAGA, rejecting any attempt to align the food justice movement with either.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is a principled rejection of compromise with systems and movements that perpetuate racial and economic injustice. The food justice leaders articulate a clear, unapologetic stance against co-optation, emphasizing their movement’s roots in liberation struggles and its focus on systemic change. They rightly highlight the historical and ongoing violence against marginalized communities, framing their work as part of a broader fight against racial capitalism. This narrative is compelling because it refuses to dilute its demands for justice in the name of political expediency.
However, the response also employs patterns of emotional exploitation and distortion. The tone is combative, framing the original op-ed as paternalistic and disrespectful without engaging with its substantive arguments. This could be seen as a form of strawmanning, where the opposition’s position is caricatured to make it easier to dismiss. Additionally, the response conflates MAHA with MAGA, which may oversimplify the complexities of political alliances and policy debates. While the critique of systemic racism and corporate power is valid, the refusal to engage with potential allies—even flawed ones—could limit opportunities for incremental progress.
The root cause of this narrative is a deep distrust of institutions and movements that have historically marginalized communities of color. The assumption is that any alignment with mainstream health initiatives would require compromising core principles. This echoes historical patterns of radical movements rejecting reformist approaches, often at the cost of broader influence. The implications for human agency are significant: by rejecting collaboration, the movement risks isolation, but by maintaining its integrity, it preserves its moral authority. The second-order consequences could include missed opportunities for policy changes that, while imperfect, might still benefit marginalized communities.
Bridge questions: What would a productive dialogue between food justice advocates and health policy reformers look like? How can movements balance ideological purity with pragmatic progress? What evidence would change your mind about the possibility of common ground with MAHA?
Counterstrike scan: If this narrative were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve amplifying divisions to prevent coalition-building, using moral absolutism to discourage compromise, and framing any criticism as an attack on the movement’s legitimacy. The actual content aligns with this pattern to some extent, as it dismisses the original op-ed without engaging its substance and frames the debate in binary terms. However, the response is also a genuine expression of frustration with systemic injustice, so it does not fully match a cynical manipulation playbook.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey, ARC-0024 Ambiguity, ARC-0012 Emotional Exploitation
Sentinel — Uncertain
This analysis suggests the text exhibits characteristics of AI-generated content due to its uniform sentence structure, excessive hedging, and argumentative template, alongside a lack of genuine engagement and nuanced perspective. While human-written content can certainly adopt a passionate tone, the degree of stylistic rigidity and strategic use of historical references raises significant concerns about synthetic origin.