C. Clare Hinrichs

The practice and politics of food system localization

Abstract As an apparent counterpoint to globalization, food system localization is often assumed to be a good, progressive and desirable process. Such thinking rests on a local–global binary that merits closer scrutiny. This paper examines the social construction of “local”, by analyzing the practice and politics of food system localization efforts in Iowa, USA. It argues that desirable social or environmental outcomes may not always map neatly onto the spatial content of “local”, which itself involves the social construction of scale. These contradictions in turn relate to differing political inflections discernible in food system localization. Localization can be approached defensively, emphasizing the boundaries and distinctions between a culturally and socially homogeneous locality needing protection from non-local “others”. But through the experience of new social and gustatory exchanges, localization can also promote increased receptivity to difference and diversity. More emergent, fluid and inclusive notions of the “local”, however, may challenge the very project of crafting and maintaining distinctive food identities for local places. These themes are explored through a case study of food system localization efforts and activities in Iowa, an American state that has been a stronghold of conventional commodity agriculture. Demographic and agricultural histories are drawn on to understand recent food system localization practice that has come to emphasize a definition of “local” that coincides with sub-national state boundaries. The emergence and popularization of the “Iowa-grown banquet meal” and the shifting meaning of “local Iowa food” further illustrate the potential tension between defensiveness and diversity in food system localization.

Social Inclusion in a Midwest Local Food System Project

ABSTRACT Local food system projects often incorporate explicit or implicit attention to social inclusion, but actual outcomes have rarely been closely examined. This article develops the concept of social inclusion, drawing particularly on notions of class and community. These themes are explored through a 1997 case study of a Midwest community supported agriculture project (CSA), which sought to increase low-income participation by providing financial subsidies. Analysis is based primarily on a telephone survey conducted with 41 member-households. Although subsidized households had lower incomes than non-subsidized, overall the CSA sample was more advantaged in terms of income, occupation and education than local or regional reference populations. Reasons for CSA participation and levels of participation varied by income, occupation and education, with more advantaged members emphasizing food quality and less advantaged members emphasizing food access reasons for participation. Perceptions of community in the CSA project differed little across income groups, education levels or occupation groups. The article concludes that projects striving for social inclusion may inadvertently serve the “advantaged” poor and offers recommendations for how efforts in local food system development might increase social inclusion.

The effects of the industrialization of US livestock agriculture on promoting sustainable production practices

US livestock agriculture hasdeveloped and intensified according to a strictproductionist model that emphasizes industrialefficiency. Sustainability problems associatedwith this model have become increasinglyevident and more contested. Traditionalapproaches to promoting sustainable agriculturehave emphasized education and outreach toencourage on-farm adoption of alternativeproduction systems. Such efforts build on anunderlying assumption that farmers areempowered to make decisions regarding theorganization and management of theiroperations. However, as vertical coordinationin agriculture continues, especially in theanimal agriculture sectors, this assumptionbecomes less valid. This paper examines how thechanging industrial structure in four USlivestock sectors (poultry, hogs, beef, anddairy) affects possibilities in each forpromoting more sustainable productionpractices. Comparisons between the sectors arebased on the relative ability to employ anintensive pasture or alternative (deep-bedded)housing system, which are widely seen assustainable livestock alternatives. While thehighly integrated poultry sector appearsimpregnable to traditional sustainableagriculture approaches, the cow-calf sub-sectorof the beef industry, non-feedlot dairyoperations, and small parts of the hogindustry, especially in the Midwest, stillretain some potential for effectively targetingthe farmer. Building on the presentation ofbarriers and opportunities in the fourlivestock sectors, the paper concludes byevaluating several structurally-orientedapproaches to promoting a more sustainablelivestock agriculture that should complementmore traditional approaches. They includedeveloping alternative coordinated networks inlivestock agriculture, pressing integrators topermit more sustainable production practices,and working for legislation that shifts moredecision-making within integrated systemstowards growers.