Jim Bingen

Standards and corporate reconstruction in the Michigan dry bean industry

Since the turn of the lastcentury, Michigan farmers, elevators, and stategovernment have used production and processstandards to shape the dry bean industry totheir interests and set a worldwide standardfor quality dry beans. Over the last 20 years,however, multinational agro/food firms haveintroduced their market criteria into standardssetting, and recent changes in Michigan beanstandards largely accommodate the interests ofthese firms. A review of the changes in thesestandards over time allows us to explore howconcepts of accountability and control improveour understanding of changes in the structureand operation of food production and marketing.What is the measure of state governmentaccountability to corporate capital and to thestates bean farmers? In what ways can farmersuse standards to re-assert their priorities andgain a greater measure of influence overmarketing? What challenges do changing qualitystandards pose for public research as well asfor the institutions representing Michiganfarmers and elevators?

Shaping a Policy and Research Agenda

This chapter draws upon the case studies in this volume to suggest a continuing research and policy agenda on food and agricultural standards. We discuss this research agenda in terms of five themes that emerge from issues raised by the case studies in this volume, as well as continuing work at the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards. These themes are: private and public standards, the multiplicity of standards, third party certification, new technologies and standards, and standards and power. Each of these themes cuts across traditional disciplinary boundaries and offers opportunities to apply and expand upon an analytical framework based on the concepts of negotiation, access and outcomes. By way of introduction to a presentation of our agenda, a brief review of these concepts is useful. The concept of negotiation orients our inquiry toward an identification of the groups or interests represented during the creation, modification or maintenance of food and agricultural standards. It draws our attention to three characteristics of negotiations. First, standards are negotiated on a continuing basis; they are always being discussed, reformulated, redesigned in light of legal, institutional, and technological changes as well as other (possibly conflicting) standards. Second, standards are applied locally and thus subject to site-specific and local interpretation and negotiations. This is true even for standards that claim universality. Third, all standards negotiations raise issues of fairness and self-governance. This is the case because there are always winners and losers in the adoption of (changes in) standards. Food and agricultural standards are rules and as such allow or deny access to marketing opportunities. Meeting certain standards may require a level of capital investment that precludes certain groups from producing and selling in a particular market. Similarly, meeting standards may require certain organizational or technical skills or technologies; such skills and technologies are always distributed unevenly leading to uneven access. Finally, governments and private groups may also use standards strategically and deliberately to protect an industry or activity. The outcomes of food and agricultural standards include both distributive and environmental effects. Efforts to meet specified standards can and do redistribute income, wealth, power, status and prestige among different groups within a supply chain or even among third parties. For example, consider the concerns raised by farmers adhering to organic standards over decisions by their neighbors to plant crops that meet standards defining them as genetically modified. Similarly, the need

Organic and Non-Organic Farming: Is Convergence Possible?

Abstract In this chapter we discuss the dynamics of convergence-divergence between organic and non-organic farming systems. We are specifically interested in how and in what ways organic systems emerge into a new system that synthesizes the diverse qualities of competing systems. Or, will these systems continue to diverge because of their path dependencies and contradictory, unresolvable logics? Alternatively, are we confronted with conversion? Following a discussion of the origin of organic agriculture and the IFOAM Principles, we explore differentiation of two agricultural paradigms that was developed more than 20 years ago before the rise of GMOs. This comparison identifies the key features of both systems and a first interpretation on the potential of convergence-divergence. Third, we take a macro-look at agro-food chain that offers insights on the convergence-divergence potential in the context of global, economic, market, political, and societal dynamics. Fourth, we discuss convergence-divergence at the production level comparing the four agricultural systems. Finally, we reflect and assess on the explanatory potential of our study for the future development of organic and non-organic agriculture/farming. We conclude that there is more evidence for conversion than for convergence.

Can multicriteria assessment tools help build trust into organic products

In a continuously expanding, globalizing, and industrializing organic market, organic consumers confront increasing complexity in organic product representation, labeling, and information that challenges how they build trust in organic products. We present a conceptual framework to analyze how consumers might build and practice trust in the organic agrifood chain. We asked specifically about the role of multicriteria assessment tools (MCATs) for trust building. We identified three consumer trust types: uninformed trust in labels (type 1); informed trust in extensive information, control, and certification (type 2); and informed and engaged trust in forms of close farmer–consumer relationships (type 3). Three concepts of “reflexivity”—unreflective, reflective, selfreflective—are used to explain how these three consumer trust types are operating. We see MCATs as tools accepted and applied mainly by the informed and reflective type. We further examined how reflexivity about two aspects—ethics and systems thinking—in the context of the organic agrifood chain can affect how people trust. Hedonistic, materialistic-oriented consumers might not care about MCATs to deepen their trust in organic, while anthropocentric-oriented consumers were identified as those applying MCATs; ecocentric and holistic-oriented consumers perceive MCATs more as a confinement that limits their self-reflexive and holistic understanding of organic. Awareness of, and interest in, systems thinking by unreflective and uninformed consumer trust types is rather limited; any MCAT is therefore without relevance. The reflective and informed consumer trust type uses a bundle of systems thinking methodologies, and in this context, MCATs would serve as an orientation. The self-reflective, informed, and engaged consumer trust type applies systems theory to learn how to become independent and to better learn how to protect against power interventions; e.g., from industries into the local agrofood chain system. MCATs might play a role, however, would be seen critically because of the high degree of selfdetermination of this type. The unreflective consumer type will not ask for any governance process or related MCAT because they are not sensitized for any bottom-up processes in the agrofood chain. The reflective consumer, however, appreciates more transparency and participation, and would welcome in this context any MCAT that supports more voice for the consumer. The self-reflective consumer who asks for independence and full voice in creating the relation to farmers would at least develop their own MCAT in collaboration with the processors and farmers. Single, double, and triple loop learning are seen as the learning processes that take place when a consumer engages reflexively in the organic agrifood chain. The uninformed consumer type is a single loop learner not heavily interested in MCATs, while the informed is a double loop learner, where MCAT might be a useful tool, and the triple loop learner is seen as the consumer type being engaged in the agrofood chain and would ideally develop their own MCAT. We conclude that MCATs are not relevant for the uninformed consumer to build trust, while the informed consumer would like to apply a predefined MCAT as a tool that allows proof if they can trust in the organic chain. The informed and engaged consumer mostly would not be interested in predefined MCATs, but in some cases might develop their own together with their partners. Their concept of trust is based mainly on being an active partner in the organic agrofood chain and knowing the system by their own experience and contributions. Further theoretical elaboration and empirical research is needed to validate these conceptual reflections on consumer trust.

The Transformation to Organic: Insights from Practice Theory

This paper draws on practice theory to frame and understand the process of converting from non-organic (conventional) to organic farming. Within this context we seek to deepen our understanding of the transformation1 processes that occur, including the on-farm experiences of farmers in the course of conversion to organic practices. More specifically, our aim is to  Introduce general characteristics of the transformation process;  Develop a theoretical framework based on practice theory which helps us understand the complexity of the transformation processes and  Apply this framework in discussing selected aspects of transformation of an organic farm in the plant production sector; We close with findings that are of theoretical and practical interest in understanding the transition to organic. Practice theory offers a useful analytic means to identify and describe the essential or defining farms and related systems and dynamics of both non-organic and organic farming characteristics, as well as the related transformation processes from non-organic to organic systems. We look to practice theory for insights and understanding in the dynamic and reflexive inter-relationships between structures and individual performance, materiality and embodiment of practices and cognitive-mental processes. Practice theory draws attention to the inter-relatedness of: the farmer’s physical activity; the materiality of the things and artifacts with which the farmer works and which help to define the farmer’s physical environment; and, the interactions between nature and the farmer as a social actor. We illustrate this process by looking at selected practices mainly in plant

Seven myths of organic agriculture and food research

Organic agriculture and food research (OAFR) is well established and there is an ongoing and vibrant discussion about the future research needs of organic farming. However, reviews of the research features of OAFR have been less common. During the editorial work on a collection of book sections about the state of the art of OAFR, we felt that the differences between the ideals of OAFR and the actual research practices invited critical debate. In this article, we label these differences—somewhat provocatively—as myths about OAFR. We identified seven myths: (1) OAFR follows a systemic research approach, (2) OAFR is guided by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Principles and organic regulations, (3) research priorities are defined in collaboration with practitioners, (4) transdisciplinarity is a key strategy in OAFR, (5) OAFR produces results that are directly applicable in practice, (6) the methods applied in OAFR differ fundamentally from those in research on conventional farming, and (7) organic researchers are fully integrated in the scientific community. We assume that our reflections will also inspire a broader discourse in the light of Organic 3.0, where a critical review of research practices should be central for the future development of OAFR.

Positioning Organic Ethics

Olivier De Schutters provides the starting point for our final reflections on ethics in the organic agrofood chain. In his report for the Human Rights Council (De Schutter 2010, p. 1) he writes: “The reinvestment in agriculture, […], is essential to the concrete realization of the right to food. However, in a context of ecological, food and energy crises, the most pressing issue regarding reinvestment is not how much, but how. This how should contribute to the progressive realization of the human right to adequate food.” The report itself highlights the significance of agro-ecology and similar agricultural approaches such as organic farming to fulfill the human right to food.