When consumers choose to abstain from purchasing meat, they face some uncertainty about whether their decisions will have an impact on the number of animals raised and killed. Consequentialists have argued that this uncertainty should not dissuade consumers from a vegetarian diet because the “expected” impact, or average impact, will be predictable. Recently, however, critics have argued that the expected marginal impact of a consumer change is likely to be much smaller or more radically unpredictable than previously thought. This objection (...) to the consequentialist case for vegetarianism is known as the “causal inefficacy” (or “causal impotence”) objection. In this paper, we argue that the inefficacy objection fails. First, we summarize the contours of the objection and the standard “expected impact” response to it. Second, we examine and rebut two contemporary attempts (by Mark Budolfson and Ted Warfield) to defeat the expected impact reply through alleged demonstrations of the inefficacy of abstaining from meat consumption. Third, we argue that there are good reasons to believe that single individual consumers—not just individual consumers taken as an aggregate—really do make a positive difference when they choose to abstain from meat consumption. Our case rests on three economic observations: (i) animal producers operate in a highly competitive environment, (ii) complex supply chains efficiently communicate some information about product demand, and (iii) consumers of plant-based meat alternatives have positive consumption spillover effects on other consumers. (shrink)

Concerns about the unsustainability of the conventional food system have brought attention to so called alternative food networks, which are widely thought to be more sustainable. However, claims made about AFNs’ sustainability have been subject to a range of criticisms. Some of them present counterevidence, while others have pointed to problematic underlying features in the academic literature and popular discourse that may hamper our understanding of AFNs’ sustainability. Considering these criticisms, together with the fact that the literature often addresses a (...) specific type of AFN or a specific sustainability-related issue, it is hard to form a clear overall picture of the sustainability promise of AFNs. In this article, we seek to contribute to a clearer understanding of this promise through a structured review, focusing on links between AFN characteristics and sustainability. Through an analysis of AFN conceptualizations reflected in the literature, we identify and consolidate their key characteristics. We then synthesize claims of how these characteristics may translate into sustainability, finding a wide range of potential direct and indirect impacts. Examining these from different angles, we find that the sustainability promise of AFNs found in these claims is qualified by the presence of potentially unaddressed issues, by criticisms regarding for example the evidence base of the assumed impacts and their power in addressing sustainability, and by considerations of how these impacts might play out in actual, real-life food networks. Indirect impacts of learning and participation may be highly significant for sustainability. We conclude with recommendations for research and practice. (shrink)

Spatial localization, often demarcated by food miles, has emerged as the dominant theme in movements for more socially just and environmentally benign alternative food systems, especially in industrialized countries such as the United States. We analyze how an emphasis on spatial localization, combined with the difficulty of defining and measuring adequate indicators for alternative food systems, can challenge efforts by food system researchers, environmental writers, the engaged public, and advocacy groups wanting to contribute to alternative food systems, and facilitates exploitation (...) by the mainstream players using “localwash” to maintain the status quo. New indicators are urgently needed because research shows that spatial localization in general and minimized food miles in particular are not adequate or even required for most of the goals of alternative food systems. Creating indicators to operationalize goals for alternative, local food systems requires asking the right questions to make sure indicators are not misleading us: What are the goals of alternative food systems? What actions and policies will most effectively achieve those goals? What is the potential of reducing food miles as an action and a policy for achieving goals? What are the best indicators for measuring progress toward goals? We discuss how these questions can be answered for a wide range of alternative food system goals via four categories according to the role of food miles reduction as an action and policy in promoting them: necessary and sufficient, necessary but not sufficient, potentially important, and potentially supportive. (shrink)

Local food systems seem virtuous in the larger context of the neoliberalization of global food systems and increasing food insecurity. However, local food systems are critiqued for reproducing neoliberalism when they prioritize niche-market consumerism over enhancing access for poor people. Advocates, in contrast, insist local food systems contribute to an equitable political economy of food if they are place-based and inclusive. Local food systems must not, according to them, be condemned monolithically in light of their neoliberal tendencies, but evaluated instead (...) on a case-by-case basis regarding their potentially innovative solutions to food insecurity. We heed this call by investigating how a regionally-renowned local food system addresses food insecurity in an impoverished corner of rural Appalachia. Specifically, we use qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document analysis, to evaluate the local food system in Athens County, Ohio. Our findings indicate that extra-local processes under neoliberalism, including austerity and economic marginalization, create a large-scale context of malign neglect in which local food security initiatives operate. Place-based strategies for food security, in response, emphasize producer profitability and consumer responsibility as solutions to extra-local constraints. These localized processes of benign neglect, however, reproduce stifling neoliberalisms within the Athens local food system, giving it a defensive stance that fails to promote innovative modes of inclusion despite its sustainable reputation. Malign and benign forms of neglect, working in creative tension, perpetuate a problematic paradox of food insecurity amidst a seemingly robust local food system as neoliberalization operating at a variety of scales remains unchallenged. (shrink)

Food security is a fundamental element of community health. Informal house-lot food growing, by providing convenient access to diverse varieties of affordable and nutritious produce, can provide an important support for community food security. In this exploratory assessment of the contribution home food gardening makes to community food security, in-depth interviews were conducted with gardeners in two contrasting neighborhoods in Toronto, Canada. A typology of food gardeners was developed, and this qualitative understanding of residential food production was then assessed from (...) a community food security perspective. It was found that growing food contributes to food security at all income levels by encouraging a more nutritious diet. The sustainability of household food sourcing and gardeners’ overall health and well-being also increased with food production. Secure access to suitable land to grow food and gardening skills were the most significant barriers found to residential food production. (shrink)

Buying local is a prominent form of ethical consumption. We commonly assume that products that are local are in some respect ethically superior to ones that are not. This article contributes to research on local food by scrutinizing this assumption in light of some central values of the locavore movement. It identifies four central ethical causes from prior literature on locavorism: protecting the environment, promoting community, promoting small business, and contributing to the prosperity of one’s local economy. It then analyzes (...) whether the contribution of buying local to these causes can justify the general perception that buying local is a good way to be an ethical consumer. Its main finding is that these justifications fail to provide a strong positive ethical reason for consumers in general to adopt the practice of buying local. (shrink)

As demand for locally grown food increases there have been calls to ‘scale-up’ local food production to regionally distribute food and to sell into more mainstream grocery and retail venues where consumers are already shopping. Growing research and practice focusing on how to improve, expand and conceptualize regional distribution systems includes strategies such as value chain development using the Agriculture of the Middle framework. When the Ohio Food Policy Advisory Council asked how they could scale-up the distribution of Ohio fresh (...) fruits and vegetables to Ohioans, we decided to use this practical opportunity to not only provide recommendations to this council, but to simultaneously contribute to the literature on AOTM, value-based and spatially–proximate relationships, and conceptualizations of food system hybridity. We do this while examining an entire sub-sector of the Ohio agricultural economy, namely fruit and vegetables and applying the AOTM framework beyond the farm, namely to distributors and retailers. Through interviews with Ohio retailers and a survey of all fresh fruit and vegetable distributors Ohio we: Describe current distribution systems within the state; Identify firms interested in scaling-up distribution, and; Inform state-level policy efforts by identifying opportunities to better target any state-level policy and program efforts. We demonstrate support for the concept of AOTM applied beyond the farm, for value chain development strategies that can transmit ‘quality’ via spatially proximate supply chains, and support for considering hybrid solutions, such as piggybacking for scaling-up local food systems. This work highlights the role a statewide food policy council can have in facilitating market development and their unique position to provide public sector and institutional support to facilitate meaningful connections in the food system. (shrink)