Search

The challenge to study the embodied, practical experience of consumption is attracting increasing interest in agro-food studies (Lockie 2002). This paper argues for attention to be turned towards the bodies of animals, plants and humans, materially connected through the agro-food network, to enable a study of the embodied, practical experience of consumption. This paper apprehends the relationship between humans and nonhumans in two empirical examples from the agro-food network through applying a ‘relational materialist’ (Thrift 1999) approach. This approach is worked through by drawing upon the concepts of ‘affordances’ (Gibson 1979; 1982) and ‘intercorporeality’ (Weiss 1999) and through introducing the concept of ‘things becoming food’. A live art performance of sushi being made is discussed to show how embodied practices materially transform the fish into sushi, from production to consumption. Excerpts from the video diary of an organic food consumer and his talk are compared to explore the practice of eating or not eating between potato and human. The findings contribute to debates on nonhuman methodologies, embodied consumption practices, food quality and the intimate material connections between bodies that eat and bodies that are eaten. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does the rise of organic food as a social phenomenon mean politically? What political impact does this form of consumption have on society? Is it a small and unimportant “blip” in the overall march of globalized, industrialized food and rationalized consumption systems. Is it even, perhaps, complicit in this process? Or is it a radical break ? The array of answers to these questions forms the “production–consumption debate” currently taking place in the examination of agro–food systems. If agro–food networks are conceptualized as interactive, socio–ecological metabolic circuits linking agricultural nature, social labor, the corporeal and the symbolic, then this paper argues that analytical concern in agrofood studies has focused overwhelmingly on the production ‘moment’ in these circuits. Despite the lessons of numerous ‘food scares’, anti–GMO movements and the mad cow disease pandemic, an asymmetry now holds sway in agro–food studies between production and consumption even though in other fields, as Jackson (1999) notes, consumption has been “duly acknowledged” (p. 95). As this asymmetry is addressed, a contemporary reformulation of the ‘agrarian question’ might investigate the potential for new forms of progressive food politics, ranging from ‘weak’ struggles over the modes of social orderings, such as knowledge systems, to more formal alliances between producers and consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of international scholarship on the contemporary transformation of organic food and farming has been a rather narrow preoccupation with the ‘conventionalisation thesis’ that describes a process whereby the structure and ideology of the expanding organic sector is seen increasingly to resemble that of the conventional food and farming sector that it has traditionally opposed. This study seeks to contribute to this literature by examining the role of the UK government in shaping the British organic sector since 1980, when it first began to engage seriously with organic farming. It draws on the analysis of a wide range of government and organic movement publications for the period 1980–2006, as well as a programme of semi-structured interviews with key organic policy actors during this time frame. By analysing the way in which the UK government has discursively constructed three separate story-lines about organics, this study argues that the effects of government action on British organic food and farming are best described as a process of containment. Further, it posits the need to move on from the rather reductionist focus offered by the conventionalisation thesis to more nuanced approaches to the transformation of contemporary food and farming that account for different geographical contexts, and the particular roles of different actors actively constructing what ‘organics’ is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contrast with the uncritical optimism of popular narratives on organic food and agriculture, social scientists have debated at length the potential for the organic food sector to ‘conventionalise’; that is, to transform from an oppositional social movement promoting fundamentally different agroecologies and social relationships into a highly regulated and capital intensive food industry differing little from its conventional counterparts. Often, this is argued to result in a ‘bifurcation’ between industrial organic producers and a residual of small, artisanal social movement activists. Data from surveys of 397 certified organic and 434 conventional farmers in Australia call into question, however, the tendency of the bifurcation model to dichotomise small and large producers in this manner. Despite considerable polarisation in the economic scale of organic producers, there was no evidence that larger organic producers held significantly different values and beliefs to smaller organic growers. Nor were larger organic growers poised to capture greater market share through faster rates of expansion, or any less likely to support local consumption through sales direct to consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]