Christine McCullum

Economic and Environmental Benefits of Biodiversity

A ll ecosystems and human societies depend on a healthy and productive natural environment that contains diverse plant and animal species. The earths biota is composed of an estimated 10 million species of plants, animals, and microbes (Pimm et al. 1995). In the United States, there are an estimated 750,000 species, of which small organisms, such as arthropods and microbes, make up 95%.1 Although approximately 60% of the worlds food supply comes from rice, wheat, and corn (Wilson 1988), as many as 20,000 other plant species have been used by humans as food. Some plants and animals provide humans with essential medicines and other diverse, useful products. For instance, some plants and microbes help to degrade chemical pollutants and organic wastes and recycle nutrients throughout the ecosystem. The rapidly growing world population and increased human activity threaten many of these species. The current extinction rate of species ranges from approximately 1000 to 10,000 times higher than natural extinction rates (Kellert and Wilson

The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: An empirical study from New York's North Country

Participatory planning and policy analysis has gained increasing attention in recent years because of its potential to improve the knowledge base for policy design (substantive benefits), increase the likelihood of stakeholder compliance and support (instrumental benefits), and strengthen the democratic legitimacy of public policies (normative benefits). Deliberation among stakeholders is considered essential for participatory policy analysis, representing a democratic process for clarifying the particular as well as the collective goals and values as well as the potential impacts of alternative policies. This study examines the effects of democratic deliberation on participants viewpoints of the policy domain (the local food system), based on two-and-a-half day participatory planning events in each of six rural counties in northern New York. Participant viewpoints were assessed several weeks before and after these events, using Q methodology. The results reveal three major viewpoints, representing concerns for social justice, the viability of conventional agriculture, and the potential environmental and social externalities associated with conventional agriculture. The substance of these viewpoints remain unchanged before and after the deliberative events, but the salience of the conventional agriculture viewpoint increased and the salience of the social justice and alternative agriculture viewpoints decreased significantly, even among those participants who most clearly defined the latter two viewpoints. These findings, together with an analysis of the action agendas emerging from these planning events, suggest that local deliberative processes may produce outcomes that are neither fair nor efficient and that reflect the values and interests of certain stakeholders more than others, even in the absence of overt conflict. Moreover, it appears that such processes may cause some participants to alter their viewpoints in ways that appear contrary to their values and interests as expressed prior to the deliberative event. The implications for participatory policy analysis are explored.

Values, public policy, and community food security

Values and beliefs regarding communityfood security were investigated among participants in2–3 day participatory planning events related to thelocal food system in six rural counties from oneregion of upstate New York. The results of Qmethodology reveal three distinct viewpoints: a) theSocial Justice viewpoint, which is primarily concernedwith hunger and the potential harm caused by welfarereform; b) the Pragmatist viewpoint, which values thecontributions agriculture makes to local communitiesand is not concerned about environmental or socialexternalities of the dominant food system; and c) theVisionary viewpoint, which also values agriculture inthe community but is very concerned aboutenvironmental and social externalities. After theplanning events, the Pragmatist viewpoint experiencedan 88% increase in members and the other twoviewpoints became less salient. Various categories ofprofessionals (e.g., nutrition, social welfare,agriculture, environmental) tend to express theviewpoints associated with their professions and/orthe client groups they serve. Despite thesedifferences among participants, the planning events inall six counties resulted in a wide range of goals andobjectives centered on a theme of re-localizing avariety of food system activities. These results arediscussed in relation to the desirability ofdeveloping an explicit philosophy of food andagriculture and the ideal processes required to doso.

Community food security: Salience and participation at community level

Community food security (CFS) is an incipient movement based on the re-localization of many food system activities in response to values concerning the social, health, economic, and environmental consequences of the globalizing food system. This study examines the salience of these values based on the action agendas and accomplishments emerging from community planning events in six rural counties of New York, and the nature and type of participation and local support. The study finds a high level of agreement between CFS values as articulated by national leaders in this incipient movement and the action agendas. Further evidence of the salience of these themes is seen in the levels and types of activities and accomplishments taking place 8--12 months after the planning events. However, these follow-through activities appear to have been impeded by a variety of government regulations, uneven levels of support from community organizations and agencies, and a policy environment of fiscal austerity, narrow outcome-oriented accountability, and allocation of agency staff toward special-purpose grants and contracts. Many of these constraints are likely to exist in other communities and are beyond the scope of what community volunteers and practitioners can be expected to address on their own.

Mechanisms of Power Within a Community-Based Food Security Planning Process

A community food security movement has begun to address problems of hunger and food insecurity by uti-lizing a community-basedapproach.Althoughvarious models have been implemented,little empirical researchhasassessed howpoweroperateswithincommunity-basedfoodsecurityinitiatives.Thepurposeofthisresearchwas to determine how power influenced participation in decision-making, agenda setting, and the shaping ofperceived needs within a community-based food security planning process, with particular reference to disen-franchised stakeholders. Power influenced participation in decision-making, agenda setting, and the shaping ofperceived needs through managing 1) problem framing, 2) trust, 3) knowledge, and 4) consent. To overcomethese mechanismsof power, practitionersneed to address individual-,community-,and institutional-level barri-ers to participation in community-based food security planning processes. Practitioners and researchers canwork with disenfranchised groups to determine which agents have the power to create desired changes by utiliz-ing theory-based methods and strategies that focus on changing external determinants at multiple levels.

Use of a participatory planning process as a way to build community food security.

The purpose of this study was to determine the multiple meanings of community food security among stakeholders with diverse interests and to assess the degree to which these stakeholders could find common ground around community food security during a participatory planning process called a search conference. The conceptual framework of citizen politics guided all aspects of the research design. In-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with 44 participants purposefully recruited to attend a 2 1/2 h-day search conference. Open-ended questionnaires were distributed to all participants during the search conference, and a document review was performed. Prior to the search conference, 4 community food secruity groups emerged: anti-hunger advocates (n=12), agricultural visionaries (n=12), food traditionalists (n=10), and agricultural entrepreneurs (n=8). Participants were able to find common ground around 6 community food security action agendas: distribution of surplus food, education, family and community values, food processing and marketing, legislative initiatives and action, and new agriculture. Other salient community food security issues emerged, but they were not included on any of the action agendas. Formal training in facilitation, negotiation, conflict resolution, and how to influence the public policy-making process will enable dietetics professionals to effectively collaborate with community-based groups that have a stake in food security issues.

Application of Modern Biotechnology to Food and Agriculture: Food Systems Perspective

The purpose of this article is to provide nutrition educators with an introduction to a range of considerations and forces that are driving the application of modern biotechnology in the food and fiber sector based on a food systems perspective. In doing so, the following issues are critically assessed: (1) the global debate on how to regulate genetically engineered (GE) foods and crops, (2) cultural differences in public perceptions of GE foods, and (3) evaluation of selected GE traits against the principles of social, economic, and ecological sustainability, including the potential of modern agricultural biotechnology to enhance global food security. Where appropriate, we also review other agricultural technologies and the broader political, social, and economic contexts in which these technologies have been introduced. Finally, we offer recommendations for how multiple stakeholder groups, including policy makers, biotechnology advocates, and nutrition educators, can move toward a more informed dialogue and debate on this issue.

Agenda setting within a community-based food security planning process: the influence of power.

OBJECTIVEnTo determine the effectiveness of using citizen politics as a framework for empowering citizens to build a community food security agenda.nnnDESIGNnA critical perspective, case study design, and multiple qualitative methods were used.nnnPARTICIPANTS/SETTINGnForty-four participants were purposefully recruited to participate in a community-based planning process called a search conference (SC). Seven additional disenfranchised stakeholders who did not attend the SC were also recruited to participate.nnnPHENOMENON OF INTERESTnTo assess how power influenced agenda setting and to determine the extent to which disenfranchised stakeholders most salient interests were incorporated into the final SC action agendas.nnnANALYSISnThe constant comparison method, content analysis, and consensus were used to produce the final analysis.nnnRESULTSnPower influenced agenda setting by managing knowledge, problem framing, trust, and consent. Two of seven of disenfranchised stakeholders most salient interests, including need for adequate food preparation skills and increased availability of locally produced foods, were incorporated into the final SC action agendas.nnnCONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSnCitizen politics can be used to build a community food security agenda on issues that are not at odds with stakeholders in positions of power. To bring about change on issues in which power differences between groups are substantial, additional theoretical frameworks and public policy-making models are needed.

Moving from Debate to Dialogue About Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Insights from a Land Grant University

ABSTRACT Land Grant Universities (LGUs) are major centers of research on genetically engineered foods and crops. Cooperative extension plays an important role in planting decisions at the farm level and food acceptance at the consumer level. Using Q methodology, this study explored how LGU faculty and extension educators view complex and interrelated issues related to GE food crops. Three distinct viewpoints emerged: Precautionary, Promoting, and a minor viewpoint, Cautiously Supportive. With the exception of the role of LGUs, the two dominant viewpoints diverged in response to eight issue areas explored: public health, environmental sustainability, consumer choice, the food and agricultural system, food security, animal welfare, LGU responsibilities, and regulatory and policy processes. These findings have implications for the ways in which university faculty and cooperative extension stakeholders might engage in a meaningful and productive dialogue about agricultural genetic engineering.