The international organic agricultureand fair trade movements represent importantchallenges to the ecologically and sociallydestructive relations that characterize the globalagro-food system. Both movements critique conventionalagricultural production and consumption patterns andseek to create a more sustainable world agro-foodsystem. The international organic movement focuses onre-embedding crop and livestock production in ``naturalprocesses,'' encouraging trade in agriculturalcommodities produced under certified organicconditions and processed goods derived from thesecommodities. For its part, the fair trade movementfosters the re-embedding of international commodityproduction and distribution in ``equitable socialrelations,'' developing a (...) more stable and advantageoussystem of trade for agricultural and non-agriculturalgoods produced under favorable social andenvironmental conditions. The international market forboth organic and fair trade products has grownimpressively in recent years. Yet the success of thesemovements is perhaps better judged by their ability tochallenge the abstract capitalist relations that fuelexploitation in the global agro-food system. While theorganic movement currently goes further in revealingthe ecological conditions of production and the fairtrade movement goes further in revealing the socialconditions of production, there are signs that the twomovements are forging a common ground in definingminimum social and environmental requirements. I arguefrom a theoretical and empirical basis that what makesfair trade a more effective oppositional movement isits focus on the relations of agro-food trade anddistribution. By demystifying global relations ofexchange and challenging market competitiveness basedsolely on price, the fair trade movement creates aprogressive opening for bridging the wideningNorth/South divide and for wresting control of theagro-food system away from oligopolistic transnationalcorporations infamous for their socially andenvironmentally destructive business practices. (shrink)

Observers of agriculture and theenvironment have noted the recent remarkable growth ofthe organic products industry. Is it possible for thisgrowth in the organics market to contribute toprogressive environmental and social goals? From theperspective of green consumerism, the organics marketis a powerful engine for positive change because itpromotes greater environmental awareness andresponsibility among producers and consumers alike.Given its environmental benefits and its ability touse and alter capitalist markets, organic agricultureis currently a positive force for environmentalism.Still, there are contradictions between organic idealsand (...) practice – e.g., the reductionism of organicstandards, the limitations of private organiccertification, and the widespread practice ofinput-substitution – that emerge through thedynamics of the capitalist market. As the marketmatures, these contradictions will increasinglyundermine the very environmental benefits that are thefoundation of organic agriculture. Fundamental change,therefore, is not likely to occur through the marketalone. There are ways, however, that the organicsmarket could contribute to a broader movement leadingto collective action. For instance, the organicsmarket tends to undermine commodity fetishism in theagrifood system, thereby strengthening civil society.In addition, the market provides space and resourcesfor social movement activity, such as in the struggleover the National Organic Standards. (shrink)

The proposed federal regulation oforganic agriculture in the United States raisesquestions both about the nature and character oforganic farming, as well as its relation to theagro-food system at large. The regulatory process hasengendered a public debate about conventional andalternative approaches to agricultural production,which in turn raises issues of environmental politicsand society-nature relations. An analysis oftranscripts from public hearings, organic farmingmovement literature, and interviews with organicpractitioners and advocates reveals the broaderecological, social, and political ramifications. Inexamining the proposed federal rule and its (...) criticalopposition, we encounter two different worldviews; twoconflicting visions of agriculture, rural life, andnature itself. Whether this is a fundamental impasse,or a controversy that can be fruitfully resolved,remains an open question. But organic farming hasarrived at a critical juncture, both fraught withperil, and full of opportunity. The enormous publicresponse to this issue indicates the renewed potentialon the part of civil society to participate ingrassroots environmental social movements in supportof alternative agriculture. (shrink)

This paper reports on a relationship between the University of Toronto and a non-profit, non-governmental (“third party”) certifying organization called Local Flavour Plus (LFP). The University as of August 2006 requires its corporate caterers to use local and sustainable farm products for a small but increasing portion of meals for most of its 60,000 students. LFP is the certifying body, whose officers and consultants have strong relations of trust with sustainable farmers. It redefines standards and verification to create ladders for (...) farmers, Aramark and Chartwells (the corporations that won the bid), and the University, to continuously raise standards of sustainability. After years of frustrated efforts, other Ontario institutions are expressing interest, opening the possibility that a virtuous circle could lead to rapid growth in local, sustainable supply chains. The paper examines the specificities of the LFP approach and of the Toronto and Canadian context. Individuals in LFP acquired crucial skills, insights, experience, resources, and relationships of trust over 20 years within the Toronto “community of food practice,” located in a supportive municipal, NGO and social movement context. (shrink)

This introduction situates key themesfound in papers given at a recent workshop on thechanging material practices, meanings, and regulationof US organic food production. The context is theemergence of an international bio-politics ofagriculture and food and, more particularly in the US,the contradictions of sustainable agriculturemovements catalyzed by the rapid scaling up of organicagriculture from a niche activity to nascentindustry.

This paper examines the social implications of sustainable consumption through an empirical study of a local organic food initiative. It sets out an analytical framework based upon Douglas's Cultural Theory to categorise the range of competing value perspectives on sustainable consumption into 'hierarchical', 'individualistic' and 'egalitarian' worldviews, and considers how these various worldviews might each adopt locally-grown organic food as a sustainable consumption initiative. Tensions between the paradigms are evident when attention is turned to a case study of a local (...) organic food producers' cooperative. Research with both producers and consumers reveals that the values embedded in its practice are both partisan and pluralistic, but are principally 'Egalitarian'. Its interactions with policy regimes and social and economic institutions are examined, to illustrate the value conflicts inherent, and understand the barriers it faces in operation and the institutional factors inhibiting the growth of grassroots 'bottom-up' sustainable food initiatives of this kind. In addition to addressing these barriers, the policy implications of these findings for sustainable consumption policy and practice are discussed. (shrink)

Organic food standardization is an increasingly important strategy for dealing with consumer concerns about the environment, animal welfare, health, and the economic structure of food production. But the ways in which this consumer-oriented strategy is introduced, organized, and debated vary considerably across countries. In Sweden, a nongovernmental organization [KRAV (Association for Control of Organic Production)] – consisting of social movement organizations, associations for conventional and organic farmers, and the food industry – has been quite successful in promoting organic food labeling (...) as an eco-label. KRAV has developed a complementary position vis-à-vis the state and EU regulatory framework. In the US, the federal government controls standardization. The government frames the label as a “marketing label,” thus rejecting the idea that organic food production would have any significant advantages for the environment or, indirectly, for human health. This framing is separate from the ones created by organic constituencies, leading to deeper controversies than in Sweden. The purpose of this paper is to examine why standardization has followed different patterns in the two settings. We analyze context factors (i.e., political culture, pre-regulatory arrangements, and organizational structures) and process factors (i.e., framing and organizing). What are the benefits of a state-centric versus a nonstate-driven approach regarding powerful standardization? The paper shows that both settings provide not only “threats of regulatory occupation” from actors not committed to organic principles but also avenues for substantial standardization in the future, albeit through different channels. (shrink)