Shopping for change? Neoliberalizing activism and the limits to eating non-GMO

While the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and the spread of genetically engineered (GE) foods has gone largely unnoticed by the majority of Americans, a growing number of vocal civil society groups are opposing the technology and with it the entire conventional system of food provision. As with other alternative food movements, non-GMO activists focus on changing individual consumption habits as the best means of altering the practices of food manufacturers and thereby what and how food is produced. In this paper I argue that the increasing use of consumerist tactics reflect the neoliberalization of food activism in the United States – a process that rather than heralding sustainable agricultural and economic futures may reinforce the status quo. Using the emerging non-GMO movement, and the associated market for non-GMO products, I challenge the assumptions that consumer sovereignty and freedom of choice will bring about the small-scale, localized alternatives espoused by activists and scholars in the field. Specifically, I explore three critical limitations of contemporary alternative food politics. First, the neoliberalization of activism shifts the responsibility for social reforms from the state and manufactures to individual consumers, bringing with it important social justice implications. Second, focusing on choice opens new spaces for the profit without seriously threatening contemporary market structures or agro-ecological practices. Third, contemporary consumerist politics focus on eating right not less and thereby provide few alternatives to the current trends towards convenience and processed foods. Robin Jane Roff is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Geography at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada. She received a Bachelors of Art in Geography and Political Science from the University of Toronto in 2003. Her research focuses on the political-economy of American food and the dimensions of counter-culture and environmental activism in late capitalist societies. Her dissertation, which examines on the power and influence of the American anti-biotechnology movement, is currently funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.     

The Political Construction of Free Trade Visions: The Geo-Politics and Geo-Economics of Australian Beef Exporting

This article contributes to emergent scholarship that questions neoliberal discourses in agricultural policy, through a case study that challenges assumptions about the role of “the market” in explaining the recent expansion of Australian beef exports. Australia is the world’s largest beef exporter and its beef exports more than doubled between the mid-1980s and the turn of the 21st century. This expansion, however, can be explained through a particular conjunction of political conditions, which are unlikely to be repeated with equal force in the current decade. Specifically, recent growth hinged upon a combination of (1) rapid growth of Japanese and Korean beef consumption in the early 1990s; (2) the operation of the US “cattle cycle” in the mid-1990s; and (3) the privileged position of Australian beef during this period, vis-à-vis Latin American competition, because of concerns over foot and mouth disease. However, because of their adherence to neoliberal assumptions about the supposed inevitability of trade liberalization, agricultural economists have mistaken these specific circumstances for a general condition in which Australian beef exports will continue growing. This deceptive envisaging of the bounty from liberalization leads not only to false expectations among industry participants, but encourages politics in which industry growth is fallaciously prioritized. Bill Pritchard, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in Economic Geography at the University of Sydney, Australia. He specializes in agri-food globalization.     

Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: assembling the “citizen consumer”

With “consumer demand” credited with driving major changes in the food industry related to food quality, safety, environmental, and social concerns, the contemporary politics of food has become characterized by a variety of attempts to redefine food consumption as an expression of citizenship that speaks of collective rights and responsibilities. Neoliberal political orthodoxy constructs such citizenship in terms of the ability of individuals to monitor and regulate their own behavior as entrepreneurs and as consumers. By contrast, many proponents of alternative food networks promote the idea that food citizenship is expressed through participation in social arrangements based on solidarity and coordinated action rather than on contractual and commoditized relationships between so-called “producers” and “consumers.” This paper thus focuses its analysis on the strategies used to mobilize people as consumers of particular products and the ways, in turn, in which people use their consumption choices as expressions of social agency or citizenship. In particular, the paper examines how the marketing, pricing, and distribution of foods interact with food standards to enable and constrain specific expressions of food citizenship. It is argued that narrow and stereotypical constructions of the “ethical consumer” help to limit the access of particular people and environmental values, such as biodiversity, to the ethical marketplace.

Maize,food insecurity,and the field of performance in southern Zambia

This paper explores the interrelationship between maize farming, the discourse of modernity, and the performance of a modern farmer in southern Zambia. The post-colonial Zambian government discursively constructed maize as a vehicle for expanding economic modernization into rural Zambia and undoing the colonial government’s urban modernization bias. The pressures of neo-liberal reform have changed this discursive construction in ways that constitute maize as an obstacle to sustained food security in southern Zambia. Despite this discursive change, maize continues to occupy a central position in the farming systems of the region. I argue that the continued prevalence of maize in southern Zambia can be understood as a performance that allows farmers to maintain their identities as modern rural subjects. The paper concludes with the policy implications of the field of performance on two contemporary debates in Zambian food security: the use of GMO crops and the promotion of cassava as a drought tolerant alternative to maize. Nicholas Sitko is a doctoral student in the geography department at the University of Colorado. His research interests include multi-disciplinary approaches to food studies, critical development, and Sub-Saharan Africa. This paper presents initial findings from field work conducted in Zambia in 2006. His dissertation research will further develop the relationship between neo-liberalism, food security, and agricultural production by employing analytical concepts derived from political-economic and cultural studies.     

“No place for wilderness”: Urban parks and the assembling of neoliberal urban environmental governance

For well over a decade, urban political ecology has been concerned with the neoliberalization of infrastructure as a key site of struggle in the reproduction of urban space. While urban forests, trees, and parks have not featured as prominently in that literature as other resources (e.g., water), they are increasingly managed and promoted as a form of “green” infrastructure by city governments eager to ally themselves with new environmentally-oriented framings of the modern city. Yet, the relationship between these new forms of green infrastructure and the neoliberalization of the city, in particular their ability to enable new ways of taking about the city and nature, and to constrain others, has been understudied. In this paper, I examine the ways in which urban parks are enrolled in political struggles to reorient the techniques of urban governance toward entrepreneurialism as the only viable model for economic development. Through a case study of Philadelphia's Fairmount Park System, I examine a series of events during the previous three decades in which Fairmount Park has become subject to this reorientation toward entrepreneurialism. Specifically, I examine how parks, no longer treated as spaces of “nature”, have been reframed as self-supporting constituents of a business-minded urbanism, promotional tools for the attraction of new labor to the city, and a reinforcement of the notion of entrepreneurialism as the inevitable urban development strategy for the 21st century. Yet, I also argue that these transformations are always in a process of negotiation. Even as parks become subject to these dominating discourses, new park construction is a site in which the conceptual assumptions that underpin neoliberal urban policy aren’t frictionlessly transferred from one instance to another but, even when successful, require significant work to overcome competing visions of urban nature.     

From “old school” to “farm-to-school”: Neoliberalization from the ground up

Farm-to-school (FTS) programs have garnered the attentions and energies of people in a diverse array of social locations in the food system and are serving as a sort of touchstone for many in the alternative agrifood movement. Yet, unlike other alternative agrifood initiatives, FTS programs intersect directly with the long-established institution of the welfare state, including its vestiges of New Deal farm programs and public entitlement. This paper explores how FTS is navigating the liminal terrain of public and private initiative, particularly the ways in which it interfaces with neoliberalism as both a material and discursive project. It examines the political emergence of school food programs and finds that FTS is strikingly similar to traditional school programs in objectives, but differs in approach. Yet, in their efforts to fill in the gaps created by political and economic neoliberalization, FTS advocates are in essence producing neoliberal forms and practices afresh. These include those associated with contingent labor relationships, private funding sources, and the devolution of responsibility to the local, all of which have serious consequences for social equity. The paper also discusses how FTS programs are employing the rhetoric of neoliberal governmentality, including personal responsibility and individual success, consumerism, and choice. While these may be tactical choices used to secure funding in a competitive environment, they may also contribute to the normalization of neoliberalism, further circumscribing the possibilities of what can be imagined and created to solve social problems.