Recently alternative food networks have garnered recognition within the mainstream media and the political sphere as a pioneering social movement, in doing so contributing to the paradigm shift in our collective views of food. The mobilizing efforts of AFNs have become widespread, as it has become impossible nowadays to go shopping, check Twitter, go on Facebook, or watch TV without seeing some type of rhetoric advocating locally-grown, organic, and/or sustainable food methods. Initially originating from the organic food movement that began over 50 years ago, the main purpose of AFNs has been centered on looking for alternatives to our conventional food system, one which has been chastised for its use of unethical, unsustainable and mass-produced food production methods. In addition, documentaries such as Food Inc. and In Organic We Trust have helped to catapult AFNs into mainstream consciousness and popular culture. But are AFNs everything that they are cracked up to be? There is a growing consensus of people who question their legitimacy and whether or not a model of its kind can flourish on a large scale. Scholarly critiques point to issues of power and privilege, ambiguity in policy, economic considerations among others. In hopes of contributing to the conversation, I take an in-depth approach in examining these institutions to identify how they can be improved. Let’s check it out… What are Alternative Food Networks? Feenstra (2002) identifies alternative food networks as, “A collaborative effort to build more locally based, self reliant food economies – one in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution and consumption is integrated to enhance the economic, environmental and social health of a particular place.” Overarching, AFNs represent a paradigm shift in food production, from that of conventional methods (which employ a large-scale distribution model and increase distance between producer and consumer, to an alternative method, that of which is geographically localized and promotes close proximity between producer and consumer. In popular discourse, AFNs take on many different aliases, being referred to as: local food movement, Alternative Agrifood Movement (AAM), organic food movement, among others. These various designations manifest themselves in the form of farmer’s markets, community supported agriculture programs (CSA’s) and a number of other sustainable agricultural practices. While AFNs have gained traction recently as a noteworthy cause, they have been around for decades. In fact, the seeds of AFNs trace back all the way to 1933 with the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), an amendment which would set the stage for today’s agricultural subsidies and farmer support systems (Dimitri, Effland, & Conklin, 2005). Initially implemented to protect family farms from economic collapse during the Great Depression, these government subsidy programs slowly gained control over time with the help of the USDA (Rausser, 1992). Along with providing a safety net for local farmers, the AAA allowed “commodity crops,” such as corn, wheat and soybeans to be bought at subsidized rates and used as primary ingredients in a number of cheaper, “value-added” food products. This framework would ultimately set the stage for the “commodity crop” market, which was marked by an overabundance in production of wheat, corn, soy, etc. products. Throughout the late 1970s and 80s, narrow profit margins forced many food and farm businesses to adhere to the “commodity crop” ideology and scale up production to survive. In addition, there was an emphasis placed on the consolidation of farms to increase efficiency, which would lead to the creation of large food corporations, and essentially kill off the local farming market, making it almost impossible for these businesses to stay afloat. Moving into the turn of the century, the idea of local food was non-existent at worst, a fledgling niche market at best, as food that had traditionally come from regional markets was now being outsourced where labor cost was cheaper. However, as small farms tried to stay in business, they began selling directly to customers and specialty retailers, hoping to forego the production costs of a middleman (Stevenson et al., 2011). These survival strategies, along with a growing consumer interest in the ethics of food production has prompted a resurgence in the local food market. Today, AFNs are a booming trend and continue to grow at a rapid pace. According to the Agricultural Marketing Service (2013), farmer’s markets have grown in size from 1,755 markets in 1994 to 8,144 in 2013, and community supported agriculture (CSAs) have grown from only 2 in 1985 to over 3,000 in 2009. The Benefits of Alternative Food Networks Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 20 years, you probably have heard in some context or another the purported benefits of AFNs and locally-grown food. Recently, AFNs have engendered a mainstream following from a growing population of people who are excited about the notion of “ethical eating.” Ask any self-proclaimed “locavore,” and they will jump at the chance to tell you the benefits of AFNs. The goals of these networks are wide-ranging, and include: improved access by community members to a fresher, more nutritious diet; better marketing practices that create more direct links between farmers and consumers; improved working/living conditions for farm and other food system labor and improved food and agricultural policies that promote local food production, processing and consumption (Feenstra, 2002). In addition, many argue that these institutions help to build community and participatory democracy, and serve as sites of contestation against a globalized food system (Kloppenberg, Henrickson, and Stevenson, 1996). By allowing the local consumer to choose where he/she buys their food and where it comes from, AFNs generate resistive agency pathways for local communities by challenging the traditions and ideals of big-business agriculture. Due to the sheer number of individuals involved with the movement, AFNs are considered one of the larger social justice movements in the modern era. Additionally, as it relates to community involvement, AFNs are celebrated for their ability to promote dialogue and community interaction through the dissemination of health information and related discourse. In terms of economic impact, research has found that food (typically fruits and vegetables) produced and consumed locally creates more economic activity in an area than does a comparable food produced and imported from a non-local source (CEFS, 2013). In addition, for local communities, an often overlooked benefit of AFNs is the role they play in propagating an entrepreneurial culture. Along with contributing to the local economy, AFNs can offer youth a place to find meaningful work without leaving the community (CEFS, 2013). A Critical Analysis of Alternative Food Networks Over the past 20 years, AFNs have gone from a diminutive, counter-culture fad to a legitimate threat to our corporatized modern food system. Through their ability to mobilize resources and garner support, AFNs have helped to usher in a new consciousness in how we regard food as a resource. However, while AFNs have proven their potential to offer new and promising alternatives to our food crisis, there are many ideological issues that they do not address. For one, their claim as a true “participatory democracy” and equal access institution is problematic in many ways. For example, AFNs are commonly praised for their ability to offer quality, nutritious food to all members in a community, regardless of gender, class or socio-cultural background. By providing directly to consumers, farmers and growers can cut production costs and make food more readily available and affordable. This rhetoric is discursively constructed and reinforced through idealistic portrayals of nature and agriculture. Essentially, AFNs are depicted as “food utopias,” a place where the ethical and social issues of our everyday culture are kept out and everyone comes together through the common theme of good food. However, by adopting this romanticized view of agriculture and the food production process, AFNs simultaneously work to re-write the narrative of our country's agricultural past; a past which has been predicated historically upon, among others: disparities in access, poor/unfair labor conditions, and gendered/racial discrimination. This “revisionist history” allows those harsh conditions to be appropriated and transformed into commodities (local food), which allows them to be more palatable and accepted within the mainstream. Furthermore, while AFNs have traditionally been praised for their ethical and moral stances towards equality, a closer examination finds that they remain highly politicized institutions and carry many of the same cultural values and patterns as other social realms of society. Particularly as it relates to issues of access and privilege, AFNs unintentionally reinforce dominant ideologies through hegemonic discourse. Allen et. al (2003) note similarly the lack of attention that has been given to questions of power and privilege in the contemporary US alternative food movement. Speaking from a base level, AFNs are typically available to those consumers who have the agency to access them. Along these lines, Guthman (2008) notes that AFNs have tended to cater to relatively well-off consumers, in part because organic food has been positioned as a niche product, and in part because many of the spaces of alternative food practice have been designed and located to secure market opportunities and decent prices for farmers. Guthman (2003) also notes that while organic food used to be a form of counter-culture cuisine, it has now been relegated to “yuppie chow.” While eating local has in fact become somewhat of a novelty among upper class circles, the more important implication is that the spatiality of these institutions allows for an embedded elitist ideology to persist, in doing so limiting agency to lower income and marginalized communities and further contradicting the ideal of equal access. Another problematic with the discursive construction of AFNs “food utopia” framework is that it fails to account for the larger issue of health disparities. Because AFNs are commonly recognized for their ability to provide all members of a community a place at the proverbial table, any issues pertaining to health and nutrition are pushed aside and located at the individual level. Along this scope, any interventions to improve diets and related health outcomes have largely targeted individual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Huang & Glass, 2008). However, by focusing exclusively on the individual without addressing larger systemic issues, AFNs reinforce hegemony through their suggestion of a bootstrap mentality. As Neff et. al (2009) note, “Health disparities go deeper than individual choice, nutrition, or price. They reach outwards to community factors like access and deeper to broad social, economic, and political forces that impact food supply, nutrient quality, and affordability” (p. 283). A further issue with the current framework of AFNs is their ambiguous use of the term “local” when referring to local food. Currently there is no generally accepted definition of “local” food. According to the USDA (2011), although “local” has a geographic connotation, there is no consensus on a definition in terms of the distance between production and consumption. Definitions related to geographic distance between production and sales vary by regions, companies, consumers, and local food markets. For the casual local food enthusiast, this is simply a case of semantics. But for the majority of “locavores” who support local food campaigns such as “Buy Local” and “Think Globally act Locally” (which go by the mantra that buying local food supports particular communities and economies, which in turn maintain certain lifestyles and cultural values) (Doherty, 2006), the term “local” becomes significant as distance takes great meaning. The question then becomes: how local is local enough? Since the term gets socially constructed, it takes on a plethora of other socio-economic questions, such as: determining who holds the power to interpret its meaning, zoning issues, etc. By definition, the term “local” is exclusionary, and it is this exclusivity that is the essence of AFN’s critique. Discussion The purpose of this post was to provide a context into the local food and alternative food network phenomenon and hopefully foster a dialogue and promote critical thinking. While there are no short term solutions, by simply creating a conversation we can begin to get the ball rolling. As it stands, AFNs are a much better alternative for sustainability than that of our current food system, but they are still extremely flawed. The bottom line is that we live in a capitalistic society and money will always talk. While I think that the focus of AFNs are in the right place, implementation will always be a challenge because of the corporatization of our modern food systems. Any legitimate solutions will have to take place at the structural level. Unless we can change the infrastructure to de-emphasize competition among businesses, this problem will always exist (it will just manifest itself in different ways). However in the meantime, that doesn’t change the fact that the cost of organic food is extremely overpriced. Especially considering only 80 years ago there was no such thing as “organic,” there was just food. Now because there is so much poorly manufactured food out there, we have to delineate the good stuff with an organic label, in turn charging way more than necessary. It’s like the bottled water phenomenon. Back in the day, there was just water. It didn’t have to be treated, it didn’t have to be filtered, it was just water! But now because water is so contaminated, we have to bottle the good stuff and sell it way overpriced too. It’s a vicious cycle. What do you think? How we fix this food crisis? More importantly, how can we eat more healthily, sustainably, and ethically without making six figures a year? References: Allen, P., Fitzsimmons, M., Goodman, M., & Warner, K. (2003). Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of rural studies, 19(1), 61-75. Dimitri, C., Effland, A. B., & Conklin, N. C. (2005). The 20th century transformation of US agriculture and farm policy. Dunning, R. (2013). Research-Based Support and Extension Outreach for Local Food Systems. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from http://www.cefs.ncsu.edu/ Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(2), 99-106. Doherty, K. E. (2006). Mediating the Critiques of the Alternative Agrifood Movement: Growing Power in Milwaukee (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Guthman, J. (2008). Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. cultural geographies, 15(4), 431-447. Huang, T. T. K., & Glass, T. A. (2008). Transforming research strategies for understanding and preventing obesity. Jama, 300(15), 1811-1813. Martinez, S. (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from http://ers.usda.gov/ Neff, R. A., Palmer, A. M., McKenzie, S. E., & Lawrence, R. S. (2009). Food systems and public health disparities. Journal of hunger & environmental nutrition, 4(3-4), 282-314. Rausser, G. C. (1992). Predatory versus productive government: The case of U.S. agricultural policies. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(3), 133-157. Stevenson, G. W., Clancy, K., King, R., Lev, L., Ostrom, M., & Smith, S. (2011). Midscale food value chains: An introduction. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1(4), 27–34.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
June 2015
Categories
|