The book has been very welcoming. Satisfied with the result?

When I launched the first edition of the book, it had a positive impact. I am pleased that the book is the result of a thorough analysis of the agri-food industry model, the work of many years. It is clear that this issue is increasingly interested in more people.

To what extent has the situation changed since you published the first edition of the book in 2014?

Unfortunately, not much. The forecasts for improving the situation were not too positive either. We have a food model in the hands of large companies, supported by different governments. Therefore, only citizen mobilization and awareness of the situation can allow for a change in this system. Furthermore, alternatives to the agri-food model are proposed because the mobilisation of civil society wants to influence the decisions of the institutions. After all, our requests will be better received according to the acronyms of the governments that are in the institutions.

How can one understand that the highest hunger rates occur at the very moment when more food is historically produced?

Fundamentally because food has become a business, although eating is a fundamental right. This right has been placed on the market, becoming the business of few multinationals in the agricultural industry. Consequently, these few companies have control of the agri-food industry and, of course, put their economic interests and greed before the needs of those starving to death. So it's easier to get rid of the food that's produced in the garbage than it is in our stomach.

In your book you critically criticize the market that is hidden in the shadow of food.

Yes, and the most serious thing is that these large companies condition the price of the product that we will subsequently buy on the market, as well as the remuneration that producers will have for doing their work. Farmers are therefore receiving less and less money in exchange for the products they sell, while we are paying more and more for it. The multinationals control the funnel between the producer, the farmer and the consumer and, bearing in mind that 80% of our purchases are made in supermarkets, the consequences are very serious.

Has this trend influenced the fact that instead of prioritizing local food, those from outside are brought in?

Just as textile production has been decoded, the same phenomenon has also occurred in the food model. Large companies take advantage of the job insecurity of countries abroad, producing at a very affordable price and selling products here at a competitive price. So supermarkets have a lot of weight to decide where what we eat comes from and to impoverish agriculture.

Are our food at risk?

The danger is not, it is a fact. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 75 per cent of food diversity disappeared in the twentieth century. And ours has not been an exception. You go to the supermarket and you see little possibilities beyond the iceberg lettuce, for example. We live in a kind of fascination with diversity, while our food is becoming more and more homogeneous. Not only that, large companies are betting on producing more profitable and therefore more artificial crops. Therefore, once again, the logic of the market on the cultivated product is imposed. By way of example, 95% of the rice produced worldwide is just five types.

The privatization of food is due to the Green Revolution.

The Green Revolution was a phenomenon that had a very negative impact on agriculture and the environment. It wasn't a revolution, it wasn't green. Despite its precedents in the 1940s and 50s, the Green Revolution was a phenomenon promoted in the 1960s by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, with the support of the U.S. Government, with the aim of increasing production. It had a slogan to end hunger in the world, pushing policies to modernize and make agriculture more productive. But what is behind this phenomenon is the commitment to privatise natural resources and to put agriculture in the hands of few companies.

Isn't there a lot of disinformation in society about critical consumption?

I'm optimistic with him. Because I think more and more people are interested in critical consumption. After all, we want to live healthy, and we have more and more information on how to choose food. That's why more people today eat organic food. The organic food sector is the emerging market. This trend is very interesting, but the challenge is to politicize the trend of critical consumption. If we do not take this step, which has already begun to happen, we may accept what we criticise in the conventional model in the organic food market. Beyond the “eco” label, the importance of the proximity label must be stressed.

Does the crisis in the commercial food model have a solution?

Of course, the situation may change. To this end, it is essential, on the one hand, to continue the struggle that the social movement has been promoting for years in favour of food sovereignty and, of course, political will. And it is that today there are first and second quality foods, and the logical thing is that public institutions work for food to reach all the stomachs of citizenship. That is true, there is still much to be done.

What would be the fundamental measures that public institutions should take?

Firstly, as regards production, making land available to farmers. It is also necessary to make it easier for small producers to be able to market their products. Of course, to inform about the negative impacts of conventional food on our health it is necessary to establish clear policies and, finally, to legally enforce a diet that promotes critical consumption in all dining rooms of public institutions.

The influence of globalisation has reached all areas of life. You say that childbirth has also become industrialised. What do you mean?

The capitalist system markets all areas of our lives, from food to childbirth. As a result, the capitalist and patriarchal system has had a great influence on the birth of women. The right to decide that we demand so much from women, unfortunately, remains at the door of the hospital when we leave. By way of example, we cannot decide how to give birth or who can be at the time of delivery.

You denounce the risk of obstetric aggression.

Of course, it is one of the last limits of gender aggression and, unfortunately, it is fully integrated into society. Obstetric violence can be psychological, disregarding women in childbirth, or physical, which is practiced daily through unnecessary cesarean sections, or through various practices such as episiotomy. It's hard, but a natural act like childbirth has become a disease. And the worst thing is that women don't have words in front of these practices. There is also a great deal to be done in this area. The data is terrible. In Spain, 25% of women start through cesarean section. However, data vary by territory. The lowest figures are observed in Euskal Herria, where 15.1% of the women who give birth are C-sections.

You cannot go without talking about politics before you finish. The referendum on self-determination in Catalonia is scheduled for 1 October. Is it going to be done?

Well, the answer depends on the political will of the Government of Catalonia. Certainly, if the determination to disobey Spanish legislation is maintained, it will be done. We will have to see how far they can go. It will be the responsibility of civil society to squeeze the government in that direction.

Is the pressure from the Spanish Government not, then, going to affect the referendum?

Yes, of course, we will have to see how far its repression will go. But if you repeat the trend so far, the more pressure comes from the Spanish Government, the more solidarity independence has had.

What do you think of the work of the Generalitat in these months?

What we have seen is that partisan interests have an important role in the Generalitat’s strategy and that, therefore, Junts pel Yes has fulfilled his commitment to the referendum. We recently heard David Bonvehí, the second head of the PDCat list, who according to the results of the PDCat referendum would change the strategy. I would therefore say that there are many doubts. It will have to be seen what weighs the most, whether independence or the interests of the parties.

It was part of the Procés Constituent initiative. Has it been a failed project?

Well, I think Procés Constituent was the forerunner of the new political projects. Thanks to him it has been possible to build a new way of making politics. This initiative laid the foundations for a fundamental debate, sowing the seed, to allow the creation of decisive political projects in the current Catalan policy.

In Catalonia a new scenario has been drawn. Who are you betting on with the CUP-Crida Constituent or the emerging project of Catalunya in Comú?

Following the change of consciousness caused by the economic crisis, the creation of new socio-political movements was essential. In this context, therefore, the new candidatures emerged, and I welcome the Barcelona initiative in Comú and also the Catalunya initiative in Comú.