Food, Farms, and Solidarity by Chaia Heller

7/30/2019 Food, Farms, and Solidarity by Chaia Heller

1/52

French Farmers Challenge

Industrial Agriculture and

Genetically Modifed Crops

Food, Farms,

& Solidarity

Chaia heller


2/52

Food, Fms & Sodty

New ecologies for thetweNty-first ceNtury

Series Editors: Arturo Escobar,

University of North Carolina, Chapel HillDianne Rocheleau, Clark University


3/52

Food, Farms

& SolidarityFrench Farmers Challenge Industrial Agriculture

and Genetically Modied Crops

Chaia hllr

Duke uNiversity PressDurham & London 2013


4/52

2013 Duke Unvesty Pess

A gts eseved

Pnted n te Unted Sttes of Amec

on cd-fee ppe

Desgned by Jennfe HTypeset n Foune by

Tseng Infomton Systems, Inc.

Lby of ongesstogng-n-Pubcton Dt ppe on

te st pnted pge of ts book.


5/52

Dedicated to Alan Goodman

& Ruby Heller-Goodman


6/52

coNteNts

About the series xAckNowleDgmeNts x

1

Intoducton: etng New Rtonty of Agcutuen Postndust Wod 1

ar iToward a ew ationality of griculture

2

Te New Pysn Movements:Fenc Industzed Agcutue nd te Rse

of te Postndust Pysn 393

Te onfdton Pysnne:Posopy, Stuctue, nd onsttuency 69


7/52

ar iiThe onfdration Paysannes arly nti- ampaign,

from isk to lobalization

4

Unon Actvsm nd Pogms:Ey mpgns nd Pysn Agcutue 89

5

We Hve Awys Been Moden:Towd Pogessve Ant- mpgn 112

6

Te T of te s:Depoyng Dscouses fom Rsk to Gobzton 137

ar i iiow rance rew ts Own lter-globalization ovement

7

vns, s, nd McDo:Te mpgn ontnues 163

8

Opeton Roquefot, Pt I:Tveng to Wsngton, D.. 198

9

Opeton Roquefot, Pt II:Te Btte of Sette 221

10

Postndust Pysns n Post-Sette Wod:New Movements, New Possbtes 248

11

oncuson:Fenc Lessons; Wts to Be Lened? 291

Notes 307

works citeD 311iNDex 323


8/52

Ts sees ddesses two tends: ctc convestons n cdemceds bout ntue, sustnbty, gobzton, nd cutue, ncud-ng constuctve enggements between eseces wtn te ntu-ral, social, and uman sciences; and intellectual and political con-vestons mong tose n soc movements nd ote noncdemcknowledge producers about alternative practices and socionaturalwods. Te objectve of te sees s to estbs synegy between

tese teoretical and political developments in bot academic andnoncdemc ens. Ts synegy s sne qu non fo new tnk-ng bout te e pomse of emegent ecooges. Te sees ncudeswoks tt envson moe stng nd just wys of beng-n-pce ndbeng-n-netwoks wt dvesty of umns nd ote vng ndnonvng bengs.

New Ecologies for te Twenty-First Century aims to promote adogue between tose wo e tnsfomng te undestndng of

te etonsp between ntue nd cutue. Te sees evsts exst-ing elds suc as environmental istory, istorical ecology, envi-

About the series


9/52

x

About the Series

ronmental antropology, ecological economics, and cultural and politicalecology. It addresses emerging tendencies, suc as te use of complexitytheory to rethink a range of questions on the nature-culture axis. It also deals

wt epstemoogc nd ontoogc concens, n ode to bud bdges be-tween te vous foms of knowng nd wys of beng tt e embedded nte mutpcty of pctces of soc ctos, wodwde. Ts sees opes tofoste convegences mong deenty octed ctos nd to povde foumfor autors and readers to widen te elds of teoretical inquiry, profes-sional practice, and social struggles tat caracterize te current environ-ment en.


10/52

I especy wnt to tnk membes of te onfdton Pysnnefor opening their meeting rooms and barn doors to me during the rst

yes of esecng ts book. Te geneosty of spt I expeencedtee w foeve be unpeed. I wnt to tnk Buno Ltou ndMcee on fo owng me to py thesards esec feowt te ente de Soct de Innovton t Lcoe des Mnes. Tenteectu go nd my ton wt ts unquey Fenc pest-

gious institution provided me the golden key to the city and through-out outre Ps (nypce n Fnce tts not Ps) s we. I so ex-press gratitude to Claire Marris and Les Levidow for keen insigtand encouragement. I tank te National Science Foundation andte Unvesty of Msscusetts fo mkng te esec nncpossibility. Jackie Urla and Ric Fantasia, members of my disserta-ton commttee, you e snng sts. I w wys be ndebted to tevson, mentosp, nd fendsp of te fte of geen ecoogy,

te potc teost Muy Bookcn. My s sou est n te uto-pn gt e emnted we ve. Bck n te 1980s, e eped me

AckNowleDgmeNts


11/52

Acknowledgments

x

undestnd te coson couse between cpt, ntue, nd cutue tt sso ppbe n ts stoy.

Ts book woud not be possbe f t weent fo te goous gudnceand support of Arturo Escobar. My gratitude is boundless, transcendingwods. Wt e nd ege mnd. Wo ese coud bng poststuctusm,postcoon teoy, potc economy, potc ecoogy, nd ntopoogytogete wt suc cetve nd potc convcton?

My doton to Lynn nd Jm Mogn fo beng fmy fends nd wmwecomes s Ive tptoed gngey toug te gtes of cdem. I tnkDonal OShea at Mount Holyoke College for having the generosity and dedi-

cton to ep keep me ound. So mny tnks to coegues nd students t

Mount Holyoke College who continue to make my head spin in a good direc-ton. I tnk Eeno Townsey fo e dzzyng nteectu embce. I tnkMy Rend fo e ptence s I found my feet gn n gende studes ftemy long sojourn into antropology land. Tanks to Debora Heat, wittt wm wy sme nd tt psson fo , food teoy, nd coo desgeney.

Ts poject s scented wt te utopn om of te Insttute fo SocEcoogy (i). Some peope sy tt one smpy wtes te sme book ove

nd ove. And I guess I m guty of wtng vtons on teme: ookngfor sparkling chips of what is utopian and solidarity based within a neoliberal

wod. My fends nd coegues t te i ve kept my eyes on te dz-zng moed b of ope fo deent wod. How cn I tnk you ?Dan and Betsy Codorko, Brian Tokar, Brooke Leman, Ben Grosscup,Bevey Ndus, Bob Spvey, Ben Pu, Ec Toensme, nd Mce Dosey:ec of you, n you own wy, ve kept te ug fom competey sppngout fom unde ou coectve opefu feet. Wt commendbe buden nd

dspy of good sense.On te fmy font, ts poject s been touced, ed, ed, nd eed

by so many wonderful people. How to count tem? My parents, Audreyand Bill Heller, forever stand at te sidelines of book road, ceering meon, oping my labors migt eventually bear fruit. I suppose I wont maket to nege H, nd I wont eve wte, s my fte ments, te getAmerican novel, but tis is te best I can do for now. I tank my sisters,o nd Lu; Snd nd Dck Smt; nd Aen nd Judy Konck fo

being te kind of family one would not just acquire, but would activelycoose wtout estton.


12/52

Acknowledgments

x

Too mny fends to st, but I w ty! Some fends woked decty onpieces of tis book, oters oated ideas, yet oters crossed teir ngers:Lizzie Donaue, Jessie Weiner, Ilana and Neil Markowitz. Newer folks inmy life since I became a mom: Deb and Kris Tomson- Bercuvitz, SaraSwesey nd Je Wggenem, tn Heey, Eeno Fney, Owen Jmes,S nd Pete Acke, Pm Lews, Joy Ldn. Ode fends to wom I mso ndebted: Sy Beeose, Debo oen, Jme nd Mess mpbe-Moton. So mny od fends ew te coop fom ts fbuous vey, but Iemembe nd tnk you fo beng pt of ts jouney.

I wnt to tnk of te peope t Duke Unvesty Pess fo detemnngtt ts stoy soud nd woud ndeed be tod. Vee Mond nd e

wondefu st ve been d t wok to bng ts book out nto te wod.Fny, my et s pomegnte, bmmng wt jeweed seeds, wen I

tnk of An Goodmn nd Ruby Hee-Goodmn. An, you ve epedme tuy undestnd te menng of bocutu syntess. To Ruby, s oneof te moe ppbe poducts of tt syntess, I tnk you fo puttng upwt suc busy mm wo oves you even wen dowsng bey-eyed be-fore te screen. And Alan, ow can one complete suc an endeavor wit-out te ongong suppot, encougement, nd nteectu poddng of tue

soul mate? Tankfully, I will never know tat answer because, Alan, youave come troug in resplendent colors. You are my best friend and tesmtest guy n te oom. Wt bessng.


13/52

And so it all began wit overproduced, spilled milk. In te early1990s, small dairy farmers in France were dumping milk and pro-testng pce dops nked to ovepoducton. At te sme tme, tkbout genetcy moded ognsms (s) sktteed toug tententon dy wod. A new ws destned fo te dy n-dusty. A genetcy moded omone woud be njected nto cowswodwde, ncesng poducton nd benetng ge-sce fmes

operating industrial dairies. News of te new milk poured trougte unon of sef-dented paysans (pesnts) fom te onfd-ton Pysnne, Fnces second-gest gcutu unon, composedmny of smodes. Mny d ed bout s fom gcutunewsettes tt epoted on fmes n Vemont nd ecoogy goupstrying to comprehend a new form of agricultural science, agricultural

botecnoogy. Te pysns d even eceved few e-m messgesvia te unions newly installed Internet connection at its national

edqutes just outsde Ps.In 1993 three members of the Confdration Paysanne left their vil-

1Intoducton

reating a ew

ationality of griculture in

a Postindustrial World

It all started wit te milk. We eard Vermont farmerspaysanswere gtinggnst genetcy moded mk. Teyd ed bout t, ed t ws gong to be p-poved soon, nd wee gtng t. Its gowt omone, genetcy moded, tt

mkes cows poduce moe. Apaysans know tt moe mk mens te end. And sosomewee n 1993, some of us tveed to Vemont to tk topaysans tee. Wenwe cme bck, we decded to tke up te ssue of mk ee nd o, dd we mke uckus [bordel]. Wtn just few monts, we d te mk bnned Euope wde.

mArcel boNitAire (peson communcton, Febuy 4, 1999)


14/52

Chapter ne

2

ges (most neve vng eft te county) to y to cent Vemont to do tehomework. In return, local Vermont dairy farmers cheerily received the union

membes. Te fmes oeed nfomton nd wnng bout te economcptfs of te newy ppoved genetcy moded mk. Ts mk, tey ex-pned, s poduced by cows njected wt ecombnnt bovne gowt o-mone, called r-h. Te idea of milk presented a dismaying prospectto dy fmes edy stuggng to suvve n n e of ovepoducton.Foted wt fcts nd gues, te sm contngency of te onfdtonPysnne etuned to Fnce. Monts fte te etun, tey fougt fo ndwon n -wde bn on genetcy moded mk tt emns n pce tody.Not ong fte, tey won te gt to be poducts n Euope.

Like te Confdration Paysanne, Vermont dairy farmers and activistsed cmpgn gnst s. We te utmte go ws to bn genet-cy moded mk, te nt, moe modest objectve ws to equest ttte poduct be beed. Afte two-ye stugge dung 1994 nd 1995, teVemont Supeme out ued n fvo of te g- poweed dy obby. Ac-cording to te courts, labeling requirements represented an infringementon copotons feedom of speec (Tok 1999). We te U.S. Food ndDrug Administration approved the milk in 1993, the Vermont Supreme Court

set te stge fo de fcto no-beng pocy fo poducts, nd t e-mns n pce to ts dyunquey n te Unted Sttes.

A Poduce-Led, Ant- Movement:Redscoveng te onfdton Pysnne

I tveed to Fnce to study te movement gnst s n ey 1997. Myogn go ws to undestnd wy Fnce (unke ote Euopen coun-

tes suc s Aust, Gemny, o te Unted Kngdom) cked n ecoogymovement strong enoug to drive a successful mobilization. I was awarett Geenpece Fnce dd ognze sm dect cton n wc ctvstsbocked cgo sps cyng genetcy moded foodstus befoe tey -ved n Nomndy. Howeve, ts cton gneed tte pubcty o popu- suppot. I d yet to mgne tt Fenc sm-sce fmes, o sm-olders, migt sare muc in common (on a strategic and cultural level)wt tose n te Gob Sout. Outsde te Gob Not, poduces suc s

pesnt fmes (te tn consumes nd ecoogsts) pmy speedmovements gnst s. As I woud soon en, te sme woud be tue


15/52

Introduction

3

n Fnce. I d fed to emembe te Fenc fmes wo tveed to Ve-mont just few yes befoend wo, wtn monts, d enjoyed sucsuccess n te Euopen pocymkng wod.

I ws unwe tt Fnce, ke te Gob Sout, ws ome to move-ment of peasant-identied farmers. Peasants, I tougt, no longer existedin Europe. I knew tat peasants in Britain were driven to near extinctions ey s te fteent centuy becuse of te encosues of te commons(Neesen 1993). I assumed incorrectly tat Frenc peasants ad sared tesame fate. While bucolic ideas of French peasants still abound in French mar-

ketng, m, nd tousm, I tougt tt fo centues tey pmy occu-pied the world of the French imaginary. Upon my rst chance encounter with

te Confdration Paysanne, I soon learned tat te notion of te Frencpeasantaltoug canged dramatically over timewas still very mucalive. Beginning in te 1970s, a set of new paysan movements emerged inFrance, resisting te industrialization of agriculture tat ad gotten underwy foowng Wod W II.

Members of the Confdration Paysanne who traveled to Vermont in 1993

wee t tt tme edy pugged nto n ntenton netwok of fmesand indigenous peoples in nongovernmental organizations (s), many

octed n te Gob Sout. Tese souten ognztons, ssocted wtbiologist-activists suc as Vandana Siva and Devaru Nanjundaswamy ofte Kntk Stte Fmes unon n Ind, d been dscussng te question since te 1980s. Tey voiced concerns regarding te impendingdominance of s in the international agricultural market. Word had it that

companies planned to create patented s in the form of seeds for a variety

of commodty foodstus, begnnng wt mk. Afte tgetng gob stpecrops, such as cotton, corn, canola, and soy, biotechnology companies would

move on to cete genetcy moded vesons of wet nd ce, pepsthe most crucial staple crops of all. The predictions of southern organizations

poved tue. In te 1980s, U.S. mutntons (e.g., Monsnto nd Novts)bougt sm stt-up compnes deveopng genetcy moded vetesof stpe cops nd peped to commecze tese poducts wtn te nextdecde (Rbnow 1996). If went we, by 1996 seve stpe cops woudppe goby n te fom of genetcy moded seed nd s pocessednto foodstus (Sv 1993).

Biotecnology companies won te rigt to patent genetically modiedseeds n 1981, subsequenty peventng fmes fom svng o sng seeds


16/52

Chapter ne

4

purcased from tese corporations (Siva 1988). Farmers purcasing seeds from companies suc as Monsanto are obliged to sign one-time usegeements tt egy fobd tem fom svng o tdng seed ssued fom plants. One-time use agreements break a centuries-old tradition in which

farmers save, select, and sare seeds gleaned from plants during arvesttme. Seed svng s not just cent to mpovng seeds nd pnts sutbefo ptcu mcocmtes; t s so cuc fom of sodty pctcedmong fmes wo ve coboted, snce te begnnng of gcutue,to cete ste-specc cops fo oc communtes n spt of mutusm,te tn pvte ownesp.

Wit te advent of one-time use agreements, many smallolders and

ecologists pondered te global implications of multinationals insertingtemselves into so many nodes of te agriculture production linefrommilk, seeds, and inputs to trees, s, and animals. Could agricultural bio-tecnoogy ende fmes, bot bg nd sm, dependent on te dec-sions, practices, and monopolizing tactics of multinational corporations?Biotecnology companies suc as Monsanto and Novartis pledged tats would increase production. Targeting large- scale industrial farmerss te pmy mket, botecnoogy compnes so pomsed tt te

poducts woud owe fmes costs fo ebcde nd pestcde. Ts newsfe on te dejected es of ntenton ognztons of smodes. Teywere already struggling to survive in an age of overproduction and pricedops s pesnt communtes dsppeed coss te gobe.

Te Confdration Paysanne oers a distinctive response to tis post-ndust condton. At ts stoc junctue, ndust gcutue focedsmodes to devse nove stteges to mntn economc mens nd temenng of te u nd gcutu wys of fe. Insted of smpy po-

moting alternative agricultural practices, such as organic or sustainable agri-cutue (ssocted wt movements n ote countes), te onfdtonPaysanne promotes a distinct rationality of agriculture tat it calls PaysanAgcutue (agriculteur paysanne).

Postndust Agcutue: A Usefu Heustc?

Te tempostindustrial agriculture ponts to tt wc ows out of, but s

dstnct fom, ndust gcutue. Postndust gcutue s bot con-sequence and an accompanying condition of industrial agriculture. Even


17/52

Introduction

5

toug it occupies te same temporal space, postindustrial agriculture ismked by ts own dstnct fetues. Wen most peope tnk bout postn-dustrial condition, they conjure images of abandoned factory-neighborhoods

eft bend n ctes suc s cgo o Detot fte ndusty pued up tsoots nd moved to te Gob Sout (Rymond 1998; Rymond nd Bey1997). O tey mgt envson wokes n Mys bong ong ous foow py n eectoncs fctoes n fee-tde zones wt few, f ny, sevceso benets. Few tnk fme wen tey tnk postndust. But just spostindustrialization drives factory workers into a state of economic and cul-

tu cos, postndust gcutue so epesents set of cenges fofmes. Smodes ve n n e wen ndust gcutue ttempts to

ende te sevces obsoete. Te mee exstence of smodes (nd teequests fo subsdes n te Gob Not) s consdeed nusnce to fm-pocy mkes fosteng te ndust mode.

It is useful to oer a brief, working denition of industrial agriculture.Wile te book cannot present a compreensive picture of te industrialmode, I oe bod ten-pont set of condtons of ndust gcutue. Ausefu cvet: snge components of te ten-pont set e not necessy n-teg to n ndust system. Rte, t s te goupng of te ten condtons

of ndust gcutuete wys n wc tey fom systemc gestttt endows ndust gcutue wt ts dstnct functon nd eects.

Cii irial ariClr

1 Intensive farming metods: Te concentration of many agriculturalpoducts (pnt o nm) on gven e of nd.

2 Extensive farming metods: Te production of agricultural productscoss ge pots of nd, often up to tousnds of ces.

3 Cemicalization of farming metods for increasing production: Teuse of syntetc nd petoeum poducts fo contong weeds, pests,soil productivity (fertilizer), fungi, and so on. Since te 1960s, tismode so pomotes ybd nd genetc-beedng ppoces to ce-te g-yed seed vetes to be ped wt cemc nputs. In teGob Sout ybd seed nd cemc pckges e cent to GeenRevolution tecnologies wic were introduced between 1940 and1970 by and oter international agencies to enance agricultural

poducton.


18/52

Chapter ne

6

4 Motorized and electronic tecnologies to increase te speed, produc-tivity, and circulation of agricultural products: Te intensive relianceon motorized and electronic machines in plowing, harvesting, spraying,

tnspotng, nd so on. 5 Monocropping: Replacing a previously diverse model of agricultural

poducton wt mode tt fvos te poducton of fewe cutvscoss vst nd es.

6 Subsdes nd ons: Gnted by govenment fm poces nd pvtebnks, most often to fmes wo embce te ndust fetues stedbove.

7 Poducton of moden foods (fst foods, pe-peped foods, fozen

foods, nd pocessed foods): Often seen by mny consumes s od-be, convenent, nd sfe.

8 Moden de of bgge fms wt fewe fmes n u es: Oftenperceived by state bodies and corporations as cost-eective and e-cent, eyng on fewe wokes to py.

9 Moden gcutu dscouse pomotes ndust mode s unvesybenec nd neenty pogessve: Focus on food poductvty ndfood secuty n wod n wc ovepoputon s tonzng foce

bend ndust poductvsm. 10 An nstument tonty nfoms pctces eted to ndust g-

cutue: In gene, ogc of ecency, potbty, nd poductvtypevdes dscouses nd pctces eted to te ndust mode.

Industrial agriculture as implications for te kind of agricultural productit yields, te amount of land an individual farmer will use, and te envi-ronmental and ealt eects of farming and food production. It also pro-motes ence on petoeum-bsed economy fo poducng nd ccut-

ng gcutu goods we educng te genetc bodvesty of cutvs.Stte nd pvte bodes pomote te ndust mode toug subsdes ndonng pctces. Indust gcutue subsequenty educes te numbe offmes egbe to en vng wge. Te system s nomzed by n on-gong ppe to n nstument tonty tt pomotes te mode s mod-en, pogessve, nd nevtbe. Te ndust mode s pmy desgnedto ennce poductvty we oweng poducton costs. Lge-sce fmspoduce g yeds (of fewe cops) by usng cemczed, motozed, nd

eectonc fmng metods. Fmes wo e be to foow ts mode e-


19/52

Introduction

7

ceve f moe fm subsdes nd bnk ons tn smodes wo etecnnot o w not do so.

Postndust gcutue s set of soc, cutu, nd economc con-dtons tt ows out of ndust gcutuetese condtons e netependust no ndust. To spek of postndust gcutu cond-tion igligts te istorical and cultural specicity of te experiences ofsmodes wodwde n bot contestng nd ccommodtng te ndus-t mode. It so ggts te pctces of ndust copotons n ce-tng te own postndust stteges, wc ncude gcutu botec-nology, wile also appropriating and dominating markets of organic andso-ced ntu foods.

Cii irial ariClr

1 Poducton of gcutu supuses n stpe cops (suc s wet ndcon): Te esut of subsdzed, cemczed, ntensve, nd Fodstmetod of industrial agricultural production. Te production of sur-puses s fctted by -dven gcutu poces tt concenttedte wod gn tde n te Gob Not, evng pepe ntons nte Gob Sout to engge n ow-pot expot-oented cs coppng(Ksb nd Tbk 1995).

2 Dumping of surpluses onto te agricultural economies of souternnations: Food materials not destined for te agro- foods industry andretail are sent to te Global Sout in te form of aid and ceap com-modty gns. Afte just few dumps, oc gcutu economy n vge n te Gob Sout cn be destoyed ndentey (Wse 2004).Ts cetes condton of postndustty fo smodes stuggngto suvve n souten ntons.

3 Deregulation of prewar trade policies for increasing prots: Allowspowefu nsttutons suc s te Unted Ntons nd te Wod TdeOgnzton () to ncesngy detemne d, tde, t, nd m-pot poces wodwde, eodng sm-sce gcutue, ptcuy nte Gob Sout.

4 Agcutu botecnoogy: Inseted nto te ndust cemczed,motozed, nd monocop mode.

5 A educton of bodvesty due to monocoppng nd te epcement

of egon cutvs ound te wod by mutnton copote seed


20/52

Chapter ne

8

varieties: Local knowledges about te value and preparation of localvetes dmns ong wt dvese oc food suppy.

6 Government farm policies and loaning agencies edge smalloldersout of fmng mkets: Ru zones become ome to unempoyed oundeempoyed u dwees wo often eocte to ctes.

7 Te ndust mode cetes foods often peceved by consumes s owquality, unsafe, and departing too far from so-called traditional farmproducts: Increased appetite for artisanal, organic, and traditional haute

cuisine foodsparticularly in wealty nations; co-optation of alter-nte, ognc, o oc gcutue food dscouses nd pctces by bgndust poduces.

8 Fewe fmes eds to negected u zones: Mutfunctonty ds-couse becomes wy fo govenment gences to dscuss soutons todegded u zones egded s zdous to oc economes, env-onments, nd go-tousm.

9 Ate-gobzton dscouses: Pomote gssoots ognztons com-posed of pesnts, women, te ndess, ndgenous peopes, te unem-poyed, nd yout. Te focus s on food soveegnty, te tn foodsecuty. Rte tn fme te pobem of ndessness nd unge n

terms of overpopulation, alter-globalization groups empasize prob-lems of political underrepresentation in nondemocratic state and pri-vte bodes.

10 A solidarity-based rationality informs many aspects of postindustrialgcutue: Te se of ntenton s nd gssoots movementscomposed of smodes nd ndgenous peopes sgns coectvegt for people over prot, community self-determination, and avue of cutu fbcs ove poductvty nd ecency.

At st gnce, mny of te postndust gcutu condtons ppe tobe nteg to te ndust mode. Howeve, mny epesent te ntendedconsequences of industrial agriculture. Supporters in te United States ofte industrial model, for instance, ope for surpluses to emerge from in-dustzed systems. Tese supuses e needed to feed te go-food n-dustry tat use agricultural materials necessary for te production of pro-cessed, pe-pckged, fozen, nd fst foods. Supuses e so needed fod-bsed ognztons seekng to dump etvey nexpensve subsdzed

foods into the agricultural economies of poor southern nations (Vorley 2004;


21/52

Introduction

9

Mcuoug, Png, nd Stmous 2005). Of nteest ee s te synegsmbetween gcutu supuses, expot gcutue, subsdy poces, nd de-eguted tde pctces. Togete, tese condtons of postndust g-cutue wok togete to compement nd suppot te ndust mode wedsenfncsng smodes ound te wod (Vn den Bn 1999).

In the Global Northand increasingly in the Global Southsmallholders

nd t dcut to en vbe wge by feedng oc o egon popu-tion. Instead, large-scale farmers around the world dominate the agricultural

domn, wokng to feed te go-foods compex nd cs-coppng expotindustries (Pollan 2006, 93). Some large- scale farmers acieve degrees ofwet. Most, oweve, fm ntensvey nd extensvey s possbe, opng

to mntn mdde-css festye. Tose few wo ed up go-foods n-dustries, major food distributors, and agrochemical companies make the big-

gest pots.Postindustrial agriculture is a global condition. It aects smallolders

n bot te Gob Not nd Sout, bet n deent wys. In te GobNot, smodes suc s tose n te onfdton Pysnne nvgtete wy ound te ndust system, tyng to devse stteges to to-nze te own exstence. Souten smodes fce f moe dmtc

scenario. For decades they have endured the long-lasting eects of land prac-tices associated wit -generated development scemes, including teGreen Revolution. As a result, soutern smallolders struggle wit prob-ems suc s ck of ccess to tbe nds nd wtewys fo subsstencefmng (Ksb nd Tbk 1995). Tose fotunte enoug to ve ccess tond fo sm mket-oented ventues fce so eoson nd esstnt weedsnd pests. Te pobems e often te esut of decdes of Geen Revoutontecnooges.

Despte tese dcutes, powefu nsttutons often ppe dsnteestedin te pligt of smallolders enduring te eects of industrial agriculture.Organizations suc as te World Bank and te Gates Foundation still ac-tvey pomote te Mennum Deveopment Gos. Tese gos wee estb-sed by membe-sttes n 2000 wt te m of edctng extemepoverty and unger, establising sustainable agriculture, and attending tote educton nd et needs of peopes vng n poo countes. Tecent sttegy s been to educe te numbe of fmes engged n food

production. Southern smallholders are thus increasingly headed for landless-ness, unger, and unemployment (Menzel and DAluisio 2006). Te lucky


22/52

Chapter ne

10

few wo nd wge-enng empoyment e often obged to to n ubnindustrial manufacturing sectors owned by multinationals. In these contexts,

pesnts e poetnzed, tnsfomed nto wokes n n ndust sectotat is often deumanizing, dangerous, and exploitative. Postindustrialitythus hits smallholders unevenly. While those in the Global North may receive

mted subsdes nd degees of soc wefe, souten pesnts often fceconc povety, ndessness, nd stvton.

Strikingly, nortern smallolders in countries suc as France stand insodty wt souten fmes, ttemptng to bud movement tt cncete vbe postndust condton fo smodes eveywee. Move-ments to transcend the industrial model represent an eort to level the global

agricultural playing eld so tat everyone gets a cance to farm, eat, andenjoy dgned wy of fe.

Postndustty nd te Appopton of Indust Atentves

Te ubquty of mss-poduced fctoy-mde food ctyzes popu ndomntc dese fo nce mkets n ute cusne nd tsn, oc, ndognc foods. It so genetes dese fo nonedbe gcutu poducts

suc as natural cleaning products and cloting made of organic cottonor emp. Many in tis postindustrial desert wander ungrily troug anyqunt fmes mket o ntu gocey stoe, secng fo n oss ttMce Pon cs Supemket Psto (2006, 137). Between te 1960snd 1990s, mny peope dsenfncsed by ndust socety n te GobNort turned to back-to-te land movements. Many became smallolderswo poduced ognc goods fo oc mkets. Te enty of tese neosm-odes, oweve, dd tte to evese te tend towd te educton of te

number of smallolders generally. Tere is no balance of power betweenge nd sm poduces: dsempoweed ognc smodes st stnd onthe bottom rung of the economic food chain. Ironically, the idealistic organic

smallolder of te 1960s to 1990s prepared a popular appetite for organicfoods tt s cuenty stsed moe cepy by bg copotons. Two megcorporations sell most of te fres organic produce from California today(te stte wt te gest ognc output) (Pon 2006, 162).

Te stoy of ogncs n te Unted Sttes s one of ogncs gone ndus-

trial. From 1998 to 2002, te U.S. Department of Agriculture put in placete Nton Ognc Rue, wc set stndds fo poducton metods s-


23/52

Introduction

11

sociated wit organic foods. Wile some organic growers today fear tattese standards will be lowered over time, oters fear tat raising govern-ment stndds w ende smodes unbe to od te tecnques ndmethods required for state certication. And yet other small organic growers

escew ognc cetcton togete fo economc nd potc esons.Resstng govenment dscpne, tey foged tems suc spostorganicndbeyond organic, discursively establising te legitimacy of teir own non-ceted ognc foods.

Meanwile, nodes in te agro- foods complex (including supermarketssuc s Woe Foods Mket, Sfewy, nd Sm Pnet Foods) se ogncpoducts ssued by copotons suc s Doe, scdn Fm, Geenwys

Ognc, nd Etbound Fm. Poduce geneted by ge-sce ognccompanies is often incorporated into pre- prepared and processed foodsfor time-conscious consumers. Eartbound, for example, sells precut car-ots pckged wt snge-seve contnes of nc dp dessng. scdnFarm (now a subsidiary of General Mills) produces organic frozen din-nes. Ote vue-dded ognc foods ncude H. J. Henzs ognc ketcupnd Pepsos Fto-Lys ognc Tosttos nd Sun ps (Gns 2002).

One migt tink tat organic smallolders migt benet dramatically

from big businesss interest in organics. Yet while some small-scale producersdo manage to stay aoat troug direct sales at farmers markets, farmstnds, nd estunt venues, most e bey be to mke vbe vng sfmes. Most go-foods copotons nd supemkets buy poduce fomindustrial-scale organics growers because teir monocropping and exten-sve systems poduce moe of te sme poduct n sote mount of tme,wic is necessary for freezing, processing, and sipping across wide dis-tnces. In ddton to posng tet to ognc smodes wo e unbe

to compete n te sweng ogncs mket, ndust ogncs pepetutesexstng envonment nd et pobems. Indust ogncs mens ttfewe ces nd bodes w be exposed to toxc cemcs, but tese benetscnnot be oset by te foss fues, pckgng, nd esouce-ntensve ope-tons equed to poduce mted vety of ognc cops. In tun, tesecops must be dstbuted by tucks coss gwys tt spn vst dstnces(Gns 2002). Ogncs s one of te fstest-gowng sectos n te gcu-tu wod. Lge-sce ogncs ncesngy edges nto te tuf of ognc

smodes. Ognc fmes wokng on fmy fms, o n communty-suppoted gcutue pogms, contnue to stugge to en vng wge.


24/52

Chapter ne

12

Menwe, s te popu cvng fo ognc food s on te se, cutunotons of food quty spu nteest n ute cusne nd ne potbes. Wehaute cuisine certainly predates industrial agriculture, there is a growing syn-

egsm between mss-poduced ndust food nd ts peceved opposte,te aute cuisine dis produced by te artisan cef. Ironically, te preva-ence of te fome feeds consume dese fo te tte. Incesngy, wodsof ognc food nd ute cusne code t upsce estunts wee menustout dises containing organic or local ingredients. Tose wo built teognc movement n te 1960s coud dy ve envsoned food cutuen wc ognc poduce woud be oeed n venues ote tn vegetnow-cutue estunts. Unt te 1990s, ognc food ws gey ssocted

wit counterculture ippies occupying a separate epicurean universe fromtose engged n upsce food entepses.

Yet anoter postindustrial irony: te same corporations tat sell fast-ipped burgers in francised outlets also oer beef bourguignon in teirstngs of ve-st estunts (Fnts 2004). opotons domnte botends of css-bsed food cn. We te wety dne on tsn beef,te masses consume factory-farmed burgers. As te wealty drown teirculinary sorrows in a ne bottle of Ctes du Rne, big business devours

te food mket geney.

Postndust Mutfunctonty:Accommodtng nd ontestng te System

In recent decades, postindustrial smallolders in Europe ave gone multi-functon. Ts mens tt mny ve dopted puty of copng stte-ges n te ttempt to estbs temseves s necessy enttes n te u

wod (Bouwe 2004). Mny smodes pomote te poputy of fm-made, local, or organic foodstus using a sensibility associated wit pre-ndust woesomenesswe efyng so-ced tdton gcutupractices and lifestyles. Again, only a fraction of tese well- intentionedsmallolders will earn a livable wage by signing on to multifunctionalityscemes.

Agro-tourism is anoter coping strategy adopted by smallolderstougout te Gob Not. Mny smodes now oe sevces ngng

fom woesome-ookng ce cem stnds to pettng zoos to county nnson te fm. Suc go-tousm stteges sgn smodes ttempts to


25/52

Introduction

13

estbs nce fo temseves n te postndust gcutu ndscpe.In addition, European smallholders often receive subsidies for being environ-

ment stewds n u zones. Mny engge n u pubc woks, ncud-ng estong eoom u ods, fences, eds, nd budngs. Beutfyngdepopulated rural areas increases te visual appeal of oterwise degradedu zones fo te toust ndusty. Smodes n sevce to govenment-subsdzed toust ndustes tus become qunt symbos of n ncesngyomntczed, Dsney-ed, nd cutuy dmnsed u wod.

Another condition of postindustrial agriculture constitutes what Foucault

(1976) cs n exposon of dscouses, pofeton of popu ntvestat represent a potent critique of industrial agriculture. Tese narratives

represent te cultural eects of te industrial model. In tis way, popularctte bout te quty of vous food suppes s n tsef cutu pod-uct of te industrial agricultural system. For Antony Giddens, tis cat-ter could be called an example of reexive modernity, a moment in wicsets of societal actors stand back and gaze up at te industrialized moviesceen of te moden ves, consdeng wt tey see (1981). ontempo-y dscouses bout food sfety o quty e nstnces of eexve mode-nity. In te case of critical food discourse, actors driving and callenging

te ndust mode benet fom ts moment of socet eexvty. Fo ex-mpe, govenment gents depoy ctc food dscouse bout food sfetyand quality to bolster claims about te industrial model (Heller 2001a). Toguntee success, tey pomse to potect te sfety nd quty of ndus-t foods, cetng nd pubczng studes desgned to essue consumesof te vbty of te food souces. Wen govenment gents mke cmsbout food sfety nd quty, tey tend to empsze goous stndds foensung tt foodstus e fee of potenty mfu contmnnts suc s

bcte.Dsenfncsed smodes so nvoke dscouses on food quty nd

safety. Yet, unlike government agents, tey do not tend to igligt ques-tons of food contmnnts. Insted tey ttempt to dentfy temseves wtnotons of tdton fmng metods. In ssetng temseves s utentcfood experts, smallolders producing organic or local foods callenge teutoty of copotons wo mke sm ptenstc cms bout po-tectng te food bse. In ts wy tems suc s safetynd qualitybecome

exbe toos to wed n opposng dectons to ceve dspte objectves.Popu dscussons bout obesty e note oppotunty fo ctos on


26/52

Chapter ne

14

bot sdes of te food debte to mke cms bout pesevng food sfetyand quality. Smallolders and state bodies invoke discourses on diabetic,nsun-dependent, nd sedenty bodes to suppot te cms bout v-ous food-production models. Wile powerful institutions appeal to bio-medical discourses related to diet, tey also assert strategies for disciplin-ng te cvc body toug det nd execse. tcs of te ndust modedepoy dscouses on tentve et pctces we empszng te n-eent woesomeness of nonndust foods to stengten cms gnstte industrial model. In te United States and in Europe, too few actuallymake links between obesity and te U.S. farm bill or te European Com-mon Agcutu Pocy. In my esec, I ve been unbe to nd popu

tces n nton newsppes o mgznes tt spek bout ow goven-ment gcutu poces soe up n go-foods ndusty tt cuns outfoodstus containing ig contents of fat, salt, a range of food additives,and ig-fructose corn syrup. In turn, few media outlets publicly discusste fact tat since te agro-foods industry began to gain power, te priceof fres produce or nonprocessed foods in general as risen dramatically.A fm b tt suppots commodty con gowes ends up poducng otof cep con tt s ncopoted nto etvey nexpensve pocessed nd

fst food. Insted of pontng to stte food pocy, te popu med focuseson ndvdu consumes wo e bmed fo etng too muc nd execsngtoo tte. In ddton to dscouses on food quty nd sfety, note keyustton of postndust gcutue s gcutu botecnoogy. Ag-cutu botecnoogy s metod of poducng seeds, pnts, nd nmnjectons tt ve been genetcy engneeed to possess ptcu ttsdeemed vube by vous poduces. We ts tecnoogy buds uponte ndust mode, t depts fom t s we. Agcutu botecnoogy

creates an agricultural product whose objective is related to, yet independentfom, ntves bout gcutu poductvty. Tee s no dt to suggesttt s ncese poducton geney. Tee s evdencedespte mnycopotons cmstt ncesed food poducton does not necessyed to n btement of gob unge. Scentc consensus mntns ttgcutu botecnoogy ows ge-sce fmes to sve money on e-bicides, pesticides, and antifungal or antidisease inputs. Global hunger is well

understood to result from wars and food policies associated wit national

govenments nd supnton tde bodes (Menze nd DAuso 2006).Agricultural biotecnology is designed to increase prots of agro-


27/52

Introduction

15

cemc compnes. Botecnoogy compnes se te ptented pckgesof genetcy moded seed ony wen ped wt te own cemc n-puts. These seed and chemical kits oblige farmers to purchase the same brand

of nputs suc s ebcdes, pestcdes, nd fungcdes ec ye fom tevey compnes tt povde te ptented genetcy moded seed (Sv1993b). U.S. gcutu botecnoogy compnes estbs go-cemcsnd ptented seeds s key stes fo cpt ccumuton. In so dong, teyjoin oter entrepreneurial eorts to ll te economic crater in te UnitedStates associated wit deindustrialization. Te logic embedded in seedptents extends tougout te postndust food cn. Te pvtztonof pubc wte souces, fo exmpe, by mutntons s ctvey espng

te gcutu ndscpe (Sv 2002). Incesngy, potbe wte soucese bougt nd sod by pvte copotons. Rves e dveted to povdesevces fo etvey dstnt ubn dwees nd consumes wo cn odbotted wte. Menwe, subsstence smodes stugge to povde -gton fo te own cops.

As Foucut suggests, wee tee s domnton, tee s esstnce. In-teg to te postndust gcutu condton s te emegence of newnces between eteogeneous sets of ctos cengng ndust g-

cutue nd te soc nd ecoogc eects of te postndust condton.Since te 1970s we ave seen a rise of bot international and local grass-oots ognztons esstng s, fee tde, nd neobe system ttexpots nd, food, nd ntu esouces s commodtes. Tese goups domoe tn eject system deemed dmgng: tey so pomote new kndof society. Groups like te Confdration Paysanne call for a new worldbut out of deent ogcone tt s nete pendust no ndust.Dung te pst decde, mny goups ve ejected te tem antiglobaliza-

tion. Actvsts my see te tem s too often ssocted wt xenopobc ndntonst gt-wng ctcs of gobzton. Actvsts so dsmss te tembecuse t suggests mee ejecton of gobzton, te tn pomptng dscusson of tentve modtes to te neobe mode of gob eco-nomc nd potc systems. In ts sted, mny seekng to bud new kndof world use te term alter-globalization. It implies te idea of substantivetentves to neobe gobzton tt coud ep estoe ecoogc ndsoc justce to te wod. Ts book seeks to undestnd tese movements,

exmnng ctos undestndngs of te pobems nd soutons ssoctedwt te postndust condton.


28/52

Chapter ne

16

Te Retonsp between Indust nd Postndust Agcutue

In addressing te temporal dimension of postindustriality, we must recalltat even toug postindustrial agriculture cronologically follows tendust ppoc, t nete fuy negtes no epces ndust gcu-tue. Te ndust pntton mode s enjoyng obust success n bot teGob Not nd Sout. Peppeed tougout te gob ndust modee sets of postndust smodes, ec ttemptng to estbs to-nty nd mens fo te own exstence. In tun, postndustty s often contempoy compement to ndustty, sometmes even gvng boostto ndust gcutue. As mentoned ee, ndust gcutue s cu-

enty cptung nd potng fom te tentve stteges of postndus-t smodes. Fo nstnce, etes n te Unted Sttes suc s WoeFoods Market, Safeway, and Stop and Shop often highlight a few baskets con-

tnng foods pomoted s oc, ognc, o tsn. In so dong, tey gveconsumes te mpesson tt foods wt ow-petoeum gob footpntsconsttute sgncnt component of te ndust ogncs entepse.

Tee s no snge postndust gcutu condton. As Ak Gupt(1998) points out, in the case of the postcolonial condition, there is no mono-

litic condition of postindustriality. Te postindustrial condition is alsoactively recongured, appropriated, and resisted by sets of actors in site-specic cultural settings. For instance, in some cultural contexts, small-olders coose to discontinue farming, selling o or ceasing to rent smalltracts of lands. Larger industrialized producers subsequently buy up tesends n ode to become even moe extensve. In ote cses, smodescontnue fmng despte te dsps. Ec smode s s o e ownwy of endung stess, povety, nd ovewok n degded nd depopu-

ted u spee. St otes fm we smutneousy esstng te sys-tem. Tese actors join unions or farmers organizations tat support teirttempt to cete new tonty of gcutue tt egtmzes nd evt-zes new oes nd pctces of te smode. In tun, powefu nsttutonsave varying responses to postindustriality. Some agro-cemical corpora-tons tun to gcutu botecnoogy s wy to ncese pots dwnfom food-poducton systems. Ote copotons ppopte tentvespoduced by smodes wo e ctc of te ndust mode. And some

rms move into wat I refer to as te public perception industry, making


29/52

Introduction

17

prots by iring social scientists to monitor and sape consumer beavioreted to dscouses of so-ced g-sk, sfe, oc, o quty foods.

To spek of postndust condton s to pont to meu n wc tendust nd tt wc ows fom t meet. Te dynmc mtx fomed byts junctue engendes ten composed of eteogeneous sets of powe-ful and disempowered actors, institutions, food- related discourses, land-scpes, foodstus, nd bodes. To spek of postndust gcutu con-dton s to tcute te oveppng cutues consttutng wod n wcctos pomote, contest, ppopte, nd ccommodte bot ndust ndpostndust gcutu condtons.

Postndust Agcutue: Te onfdton Pysnne

Refusing to completely capitulate to te discipline of states, corporations,nd supnton gences suc s te , te onfdton Pysnnessttegy epesents nstnces of bot dptton nd efus. Mny ndvdu-als witin te union accommodate te dominant system in an attempt tosurvive economically. Some union members are willing to adopt a multi-functional role in te rural world, receiving umble subsidies to improve

te aestetic value of rural zones. Oters directly confront te neoliberalfm pocy tt ouses unde te cptsm, ssetng te gt to po-duce food. Wt s ptcuy stkng bout te membes of te onfd-ton Pysnne s tt few dopt one now sttegy. Most membes smu-tneousy ccommodte nd cenge te system of ndust gcutuetat tyrannizes tem. Equally remarkable is ow te union questions terationality underlying industrial capitalism itself (Wallerstein 1984). I usete unons cmpgn gnst s s ens toug wc to nyze te

compex stteges te onfdton Pysnne depoys n ode to cevets gos.

We consume-dven movements tend to pope food contoveses nte Global Nort, in France, producers take te lead. For instance, in teUnted Kngdom, Aust, te Unted Sttes, Jpn, nd Noten Euope,ecology and consumer groups primarily direct controversies over food safety

gnst md cow dsese,E. coli, nd pestcde use. Mny smodes n teUnted Sttes nd Euope ctvey esst te ndust mode. Yet tey ey

possess te cutu cout to nfom pocymkng bodes. Fnce s peps


30/52

Chapter ne

18

te ony county n te Gob Not wee te gt s successfuy ed bypoduces te tn nonfmng ctzens.

Frenc farmers istorically constitute a politically conservative sectormarked by an insular and parocial sensibility (Hervieu 1993). But due toan eclectic collision in te 1970s of antimilitarism, Gandian pilosopy,anarco-syndicalism, and Catolic Marxism, te Confdration Paysannegew fom sees of new pysn movements tt bek wt ts conse-vtve tendency. Membes of te new pysn movements foged new em-poweng dentty by edenng te pejotve tempaysan tem sto-cy ssocted wt des of gnonce nd bckwdness. Te new pysnmovements redened the paysan as a worker-identied smallholder standing

n sodty wt ote boes ound te wod stuggng to potect teveoods. Fo tose ctve n tese movements, gcutue ws moe tnn economc ctvty. It ws cutuy menngfu wy of fe. Accodngto te new pysns, ts fe s tetened by ndust gcutue, wc speceved s destuctve set of pctces embedded n ogc of nstumen-tsm te tnsolidarit(sodty).

Te Confdration Paysanne was born out of a fusion of groups tatcompsed te new pysn movements. Snce ts ncepton n 1987, te on-

fdration Paysanne as indeed proven tat tere is no monolitic post-industrial condition. Te Confdration Paysanne oers a distinctive in-stnce of postndust gcutue. In te st decde, te onfdtonPysnne s deveoped vson of gcutue tt s cent to bodediscourse on alter-globalization. Alter-globalization represents an alter-nate rationality of industrial capital, based on a fusion of Gandian pi-losopy and values of solidarity, internationalism, and quality of life forte wods peopes, pty nsped by te pesnt fmes n te Zptst

movement in Ciapas, Mexico. Te Confdration Paysanne adopted tepse coned by te Zptsts,Another world is possible. As te pse sug-gests, ts poponents pomote tentves to te domnnt ndust neo-be cptst system. Ate-gobzton ctvsts eject neobe gob-alization based on a rationality of private accumulation, self-interest, andgob cptsm.

Te Confdration Paysannes story can best be understood witin tecontext of contempoy soc movements ctvey dspcng ctegoes of

modernity, progress, and development (Alvarez 2000; Escobar 2005, 344;Smt et . 1997). Te onfdton Pysnne, s we s ts suppotes nd


31/52

Introduction

19

allies, represent new sets of actors, identities, and discourses currently re-spng ow soc scentsts ntepet te foces dvng soc nd potcesstnce tody.

Te Ey Pse of te Fenc Ant- Movement:A Debte bout Rsk

When I arrived in France way back in March 1997, I found to my surprise that

te nt- debte d begun to gn bt of momentumbeng dvennty by Fenc ecoogy nd consume goups tt, despte te eots,still failed to gain signicant popular support. During tis time, te con-

tovesy ws fmed n scentc tems, focusng pmy on te sks ndbenets associated with the technology. The French debate about genetically

moded foods dd not yet ncude dscusson of wt I ced t te tmesoc ssues, suc s fmes ctques of copote conto of gcutue.

Te st bg stoy bout ts new dscusve entty, now ced s, wspubsed te Novembe befoe my v n n ssue ofLibration (Fncessecond-gest newsppe). On te cove ws potogp of n nnocuouspe of soybens spwed unde te cpton Aet u soj fou (Wtc out

fo md soy) (Libration, Novembe 27, 1996). Dung te next few monts,newsstnds n Ps wee ncesngy ed wt tces coveng te controversy. Of te many tat I collected, one still stands out. Te articleppeed n Mc edton of te popu scence mgzneEureka (1997).On te cover was te double image of a pig wit a yellow spiral swirlingfom te top of ts ed, suggestng dzzy o czed nm. Te cove tteed, Agcutue: Hs It Gone Md? Te Get Fe of Genetcy Mod-ed Food (1997). Most tces I coected dung ts peod deveed te

same discourse: s were eiter scientically risky or misinterpreted assky by n ton pubc. We te penduum swung fom sky to notrisky, all articles igligted narratives about -related risk. Suc dis-cussons wee n tun nked to ecent food sces, suc s md cow, wcd peked n Fnce n 1994. As pomsed, te s vng n Fnce (ndtougout Euope) n te f of 1996 wee genetcy moded vesons ofstpe cops suc s con, soy, nd cno. Tese cops consttuted wt tendusty ced te st geneton of s, wc oeed two mn types

of esstnt vetes tt wee pmy deveoped by U.S.-bsed copo-tons dung te 1980s nd ey 1990s. Bt cops, te st vety, e genet-


32/52

Chapter ne

20

cy moded to esst ptcu beete ( common gcutu pest). Teote, known s te Round-Up Redy vety, s engneeed to esst, o to-ete, evy doses of Monsntos popu ebcde Round-Up. Two ssueswee te focus of ts popu contovesy. Fst, s povded benets tofarmers, rater tan consumers. Second, a range of actors claimed tat Btnd Round-Up Redy s pesented sees of undestuded envonmen-t nd et sks.

Dung ts peod, mny scence nd ndusty gents wt wom I spokeopeny mented te fct tt te st geneton of s d not ppeedbefoe te second. Accodng to tese ctos, once Fenc consumes unde-stood te ce benets of s, tey woud ccept te new foods wtout

estton. In ode to dvet ttenton fom te sks ssocted wt te stgeneton, Fenc ndusty ocs nd scentsts ted to genete excte-ment bout te mmnent eese of te second. Accodng to tese ctos,this yet-to-emerge generation of s would provide benets to consumers,

pleasing them with impressive results. It has been many years since 1997, and

te second geneton s yet to mteze. To dte, tee e no s onte mket tt oe mpoved tste o ennced nutton, pmcoog-c, o estetc vue. No does t ppe tt second geneton w p-

pe t ny tme on te botecnoogy ozon.But early in te Frenc debate, te second generation remained in te

mnds of scence nd ndusty ocs s n mmnent nevtbty. onse-quenty, mny potc nd scentc edes ttbuted pubc concen oves to pobems ssocted wt set of foods med t pesng fmesrater tan consumers. Many also linked popular concern regarding sto te media. For many science, industry, and political ocials, it was temedia tat ad overreported news about politicians concerns over s.

In so dong, te med d unduy confused te msses. Indeed, te Fencgovernment ad made a series of contradictory decisionswidely publi-cizedin regard to te risks associated wit tree varieties of geneticallymodied Novartis corn (Heller 2002, 2004). Te governments confusionregarding tese tree varieties suggested a general ambivalence regardings. Soud Fnce jon te botecnoogy ce so s not to be supssedby te Unted Sttes? O wee s just tend? If te tte ws tue, wysould te government unnecessarily upset various public constituencies,

suc s consumes goups?Hees ow te govenments mbvence pyed tsef out: Fst, Swss-


33/52

Introduction

21

bsed Novts d ensted Fenc scence body, te ommtte de G-nie Biomoleculaire (Committee on Biomolecular Genetics), to test te Btcon. At stke ws te scentc sk ssocted wt one ptcu stn ofNovts con tt contned ntbotc esstnce mkes (used n poduc-ng te Bt con). Te ntbotc esstnce mkes n tun sed pubc con-cen: f umns te con contnng te ntbotc esstnce mkes, woudtey become resistant to antibiotics? Novartis ad cosen te Committede Gnie Biomoleculaire due to Frances previous supportive stance in re-gd to te tecnoogy. As expected, te commttee t once ecommendedte corn for approval. Next, Prime Minister Alain Jupp surprised every-one. In Mc of 1997, e ejected te commttees ppov. Wt s moe,

e bnned tee vetes fo cutvton on Fenc so, sttng tt teypresented potential environmental risks. Finally, incoming Prime MinisterLone Jospn spun te woe tng ound gn. He socked eveyone byoverturning Jupps decision. Jospins move was all the more baing because

is Socialist Party ad won te election partly due to its alliance wit teFrenc Green Party, wic was purportedly against s. Tis display ofgovenment nconsstency ceted consdebe commoton mong tosen ecoogy, fmes, nd consumes ognztons. Incesngy, tey wee

gowng ctc of te tecnoogy.For me, all of tis proved etnograpically fascinating. Actors on bot

sides of te controversy (activists, te media, and public ocials) invokedntves bout scentc sk to boste te ptcu cms bout s.Tey focused on ssues of ntbotc esstnce, food egencty, nd otesks suc s gene ow o ncesed weed nd pest esstnce. We popo-nents downplayed risks, critics empasized tem. Wat tey sared was acommon language of risk. Risk discourse played (and continues to play) a

potent oe n te debte n Fnce. Te potency of scentc skfom of scence egemonynd te te powe of counteegemonc ds-couses tt sufce n ts stoy e cent to ts book (Gmsc nd Hoe1971; Lcu nd Moue 1985). Rsk dscouse so pys key oe n debates around te world. As Raymond Williams suggests, language doesnot just eect stoc pocesses. Lngustc ntves so poduce v-ous social realities as actors invent new terms and transfer old terms into new

domains (1976, 12). Williamss notion of keywords is particularly useful

in tracing te emergence of terms suc as risk tat emerge witin specicistorical junctures. Keywords suc as risk function in semantic clusters


34/52

Chapter ne

22

of nteeted wods tt emege t ptcu tmes nd n pces tougnetwoks of usge, eyng on ec ote to cete new sets of menngs(Wms 1976, 9). In te cse of te debte n Fnce, risk emeges ssuc a keyword, clustered togeter wit oter terms suc as expert public,benets, ndprogress. In my ttempt to undestnd risk nd ote eted key-wods, I exmne tem n te context of netwoks of usge, nd ow ptcu- keywods enfoce nd suppot otes.

Beyond Rskocentsm:Te onfdton Pysnne Potczes te Debte

Te onfdton Pysnne s one of te few ognztons n te GobNot to pesent poduce-oented dscouse on s. In ddton, teyare unique in advancing a position tat is critical of s from te start.From te beginning of teir anti- campaign, te union went beyonda riskocentric perspective by discussing social, political, and, economicproblems associated with the technology. Since I rst learned about the Con-

fdration Paysanne in Vermont wen teacing environmental pilosopyand politics at te Institute for Social Ecology, I wanted to discover more

bout ts unon of dc sef-dented pysns. Due to ppy ccdent,I bumped into te Confdration Paysanne in Marc 1997 at te Salon delAgriculturejust days after my arrival in France. Despite overwelmingjet lag, I ambled over to te Salon de lAgriculture, a rare and fascinatingevent not to be mssed. Te son s Fnces veson of wods f of g-cutue ed nnuy fo most twenty yes, just t te edge of Ps. Ovefou dys te Son de Agcutue ceebtes te test tecnques, wes,nd poducts of Fenc gcutue. In ddton, te son oes up-to-dte

scentc dspys of go-tecnooges nd endess boots sted by v-ous potc, ndust, gcutu, ecoogy, nd consume ognztons.Tousnds of Fenc ctzens fom ove te countyfmes nd non-farmersmake teir annual pilgrimage to te salon. Some wear suits andhigh heels to dine in makeshift cafs, sampling new wines, cheeses, and pts

fom vous pts of te county. Otes dess n jens nd puove swet-ers, leaning over te rails of prefab fences to dreamily gaze at te best ofFenc vestock. A of ts tkes pce nsde n ut-moden fcty spn-

nng moe tn twenty budngs.Tt ye, te sons cent teme ws s. In ddton to sees of


35/52

Introduction

23

confeences nd woksops on te subject, numbe of ognztons ds-tributed pamplets wit teir positions on te tecnology. I spent severaldys t te son, gdng fom boot to boot, coectng vous ognz-tons tetue nd cttng wt ognzton epesenttves. Afteonly a few hours of data collecting, it was clear to me that the narratives

of various organizations focused on risk. For instance, te largest agricul-tu unon of ndust fmes n Fnce, te Fdton Nton des Syn-dicats Exploitants Agriculteurs (National Federation of Agricultural Holders

Unions), featured a discussion of te risks and benets of te tecnology.Ognztons suc s consume o envonment tended to empsze onyte sks (not benets) ssocted wt te tecnoogy. Tese ognztons

mny dscussed -eted pobems of food secuty o potent env-onment zds.

Ten I ved t te onfdton Pysnnes boot. Gzng upwd tte unons bgt yeow bnne dngng ove te st, I wondeed wetets ws te unon Id ed bout n Vemont. My Agnes Foucet, n-ton epesenttve fo onfdton Pysnne wokng te unons boottat day, welcomed me, anding me a leaet discussing te unions pocy. We te eet fetued te usu st of -eted sks, t so

located s within the broader context of industrial agriculture, discussingte potent soc nd economc mpcts of s on smodes oundte world. Te tone of te writing was at once umanistic and solidaire(a truly untranslatable term akin to te Englis terms solidarity, solidaritybased, nd cooperative). Foucet seemed moe ke potc ctvst tn unon epesenttve. Ote unon epesenttves, ke tose of te Fd-ton Nton des Syndcts Expotnts Agcuteus (a), wee dessedin pressed suits and skirts, wile Foucet wore jeans and a simple button-

down pd bouse. Wtn mnutes of tkng to Foucet, I ws ted todetemne tt te onfdton Pysnne ws ndeed te unon tt dtveed to te Unted Sttes just tee yes ee to en bout genetcymoded mk.

A few weeks fte te Son de Agcutue, I took te tn to Etmpes(seventy kilometers outside Paris) to spend te day wit Foucet, diningtogete n e fends deectbe estunt nd toung te sm fm seinerited from er fater were se grew sugar beets, sunowers, and ca-

no. As s te cse wt most ntevews n ts book, my dscussons wtFoucet were conducted in Frenc. Te words of te people I speak wit


36/52

Chapter ne

24

are my own translation from Frenc. Foucet was te only adult cild ine fmy (se s one younge bote nd tee younge sstes) wo dcosen to take up te farming life. If I adnt taken over my faters anduncles elds, we would ave ad to sell tem to a bigger farm, se ex-plained. I just couldnt do that. Id feel defeated (personal communication,

Ap 12, 1997). As s often te cse, dut cden of Fenc sm fmesare increasingly unable to assume nancial responsibility for maintainingte fms of eted etves, nd tey ve to se nds to ge-sce po-duces, tus contbutng to te ove dsppence of smodes.

Wen I asked er wen se rst eard about s, Foucet explainedthat she had attended a meeting in 1995 at her local chamber of agriculture. In

Fnce, te nton cmbe of gcutue s epesenttve nd dmns-ttve functons on te egon eve. In Fnce, gcutu pocy s tns-ted nto pctce on te oc eve toug te countys mny cmbes ofgcutue. It s common, fo nstnce, fo new gcutu poces o tec-nques to be ntoduced to fmes by te oc cmbes. Domnted byte a (wc to ts dy occupes te mjoty of te cmbes sets),te cmbe of gcutue s fo decdes been oented towd te pomo-ton of ndust gcutue, o ge- sce g-busness. It s n ts context

tt Foucet undestood te potent mpctons of s:

I knew rigt away at tis meeting tat s were not for paysans. Teywee just fo te [a]. Tey wee tyng to get us excted bout s,syng tt teyd ep us sve on cemc nputs, use ess pestcde, fo ex-mpe. Tey sd wed sve money. But no one ws skng wt te pysnsreally wanted. We were more concerned about problems of drougt. . . .Wen tees tte nf, ke ts ye, te ge-sce fmes cn odto just dig down deeper and take all te water for temselves, wic just

wosens te wte sotge. Te ge- sce fmes ce ony bout tem-seves. s e fo te ge-sce fmes; tey e just moe of te smementty. (Peson communcton, Ap 12, 1997)

Fo Foucet, s beonged to mentty of ge-sce gbusness, ninstrumental and individualistic way of tinking tat focuses on reducingpoducton costs nd egedy sovng suc pobems s wte sotge bypromoting costly and consequently economically exclusive farming prac-

tces. Accodng to Foucet, ts mentty ws bsed on pncpe of sef-interest for large-scale farmers wo cared only about temselves, rater


37/52

Introduction

25

tn odng pncpe ofsolidarit. Afte encounteng Foucet, I becmeeven moe nteested n ts unon of pysn fmes tt ws to become tepmy pye n te debte to consstenty pomote potczed tontyof s.

Instument vesus Sodty-Bsed Rtontes of s

Tougout my ttempt to undestnd ts stoy, I ve negotted bound-aries between emicand etic, attempting to describe two contrasting ratio-ntes tt sufce n ctos ntves. My go s been to mntn botteoetc cty nd degees of utentcty egdng te peceved e-

tes of ctos on te gound. I pont to tenson between two (often ovep-png) wodvews: tose pesented by ctos n te onfdton Pysnne(and oter alter-globalization organizations) and tose proposed by actorsn powefu nsttutons, suc s mutnton copotons, scence bodes,government agencies, and supranational agencies (e.g., te InternationalMonety Fund, te Wod Bnk, nd te Wod Tde Ognzton). Sucagencies tend to advance an instrumental logic of eciency, protability,sk, nd ecy. In contst, goups suc s te onfdton Pysnne

often advance an alternate solidarity-based rationality linked to teir con-cept of te-gobzton.

Te idea of riskrater tan notions of general arm or dangeras spec stoy n te West. Te concept of sk st emeged s mecntcptsts detemned wete o not to gmbe on nncng ocenc voy-ges of cgo sps. Eventuy mecnt cptsts ppeed to sttstcs toccute te cnce of dsste (nd ensung nnc oss) nd begn sengte st foms of nsunce to spmstes (Ewd 1991). Indust cpt-

ists furter developed notions and practices of statistics- based insurance-dven sk. Te objectve ws to ccute te cnce tt wokes woudlose limbs or die in industrial accidents. Thus the notion of gambling, chance,

nd sttstc ccuton fom te foundton fo te st nsunce pocesbsed on wodvew tt mesues umn ves n tems of dos. Ovetme, notons of potent o cceptbe sk ve become tken fo gnted.How many of us acceptwithout thinkingthe assumption that life in con-

tempoy socety s nevtby fe wt sets of cpt-dven dnges? We

nomze tese pot-dven dnges by cng tem sks, seeng tem snteg to te deveopment of tecnoogy o economc pogess. Wete


38/52

Chapter ne

26

ts te sk of dyng n n utomobe ccdent (n msy but but od-able car) or falling ill due to an industrial-driven pollutant, we tend to seetese sks s unstoppbe nd necessy fetues of eveydy fe.

It s not tt vous sectos of te pubc e unwe tt copotonscould dramatically improve safety and lessen te cances of arm to citi-zens (dvng cs o betng , fo exmpe). Te ety s tt mny c-cept te fct tt most copotons coose not to mpove sfety n odeto owe te cost of poducton. Mny nbtnts of ndust socetes pe-ceve copotons to be uncngebe nd tus become doce nd pssvewen facing tose tat place public ealt and environments in jeopardy.Wen ctzens do tke ovet cton gnst copotons, by demndng m-

poved sfety stndds nd so on, t s moe te excepton tn te ue. TeConfdration Paysannes alter-globalization discourse represents a diver-sion to tis docile and passive trend to accept te instrumental logic tatvues pots ove te we-beng of peopes nd ntues. Te unon tows wenc nto te nstument ogc of sk dscouse, efusng deumnz-ing notions of acceptable risk associated with s. Moreover, the Confd-

ton Pysnne ejects te ccutve nd tonzng ogc tt nom-zes ts wy of vewng bot umn nd nonumn fe. Te onfdton

Pysnne s ttemptng to edene, econgue, nd esst vues nd pc-tices associated not only wit industrial- productivist agriculture but witnstumentsm tsef.

In searcing for terminology to describe tese two contrasting ratio-ntes, I found epstemoogc nsgt n te wok of Muy Bookcnnsgts tt e n tun tcebe to Mx Webes concens wt te to-nzton of fe, wok, nd egon. Even toug e ws te teost ofmodenty, Bookcn ws n envonment nd potc posope con-

cened wt foms of eson tt ve sen to pomnence unde te cp-tsm. Bookcns wok dws fom Fnkfut Scoo teosts suc s MxHorkheimer (1947) to develop a theory of the individualizing and calculative

tonty dvng te cutue of te cptsm. Fo Hokeme tee exstswitin te late-modern period a tension between subjective and objectivereason (1947, 16). Wile te former addresses an individualistic, relativis-tc, nd nstument tonty concened wt mket-bsed ecency, tette consdes questons of etc vesus unetc, o just vesus unjust.

Elaborating on Horkheimer, Bookchin uses the termsinstrumental

andethical

reason to depct tese two contstng tontes.


39/52

Introduction

27

Dwng n tun fom Bookcn nd ote teosts of modenty (Sye1991), I use te term instrumental rationalityto describe te market-drivencalculative approac to agriculture tat surfaced in actors agriculture-eted ntves n te Fenc debte. I ve cosen, oweve, not to useBookcns tem ethical reason to dstngus between wt s nstumentnd wt s soc-etc n content. Insted, I depoy te tem rationalityof solidarityto ngustcy ppoxmte te Fenc menng of sodt, concept tt mpes n untnstbe nd unquntbe umnstc con-cen wt mntnng te ntegty of soc fbcs. By nvokng ton-tes of sodty, I ttempt to pse out te coopetve dmenson of etcconcens found n ctos ntves n scence pocymkng foums (Lev-

dow and Carr 1997, 2009; Wynne 1992). As sociologist Brian Wynne sug-gests, scence pocymkng foums often nstumentze nd ndvduzequestons of sodty-bsed etcs, emptyng te concept of potc ndumnstc content.

For example, in bioethics panels on s in the United States and Europe,

te tem ethicals often used to pont to ndvdus ptcu egous con-cerns related to s. s tat migt contain genes from pigs (or oteranimals) tat violate koser or alal criteria are often considered etical

issues. Oter etical considerations taken up by bioetics bodies are reli-gous concens tt s epesent mns ttempt to py God wt ntue.

Yet oter etical questions focus on te rigt of individual consumers toknow nd coose wt tey e etng. Ote expets n boetcs, suc sJmes Dge of te Food nd Agcutue Ognzton of te Unted N-tons, fme etcs n poductve tems, ssetng tt wod unge epe-sents n etc mndte to poduce s. Suc cms e undemned sDge (2001) msef dmts tee s no ebe dt to sset tt gcu-

tu botecnoogy geney ennces poductvtyo tt wod unges cused by n ove pobem of poductvty.

Te temsolidarity-based rationalities bus te fbcted dstncton be-tween economc nd etc ssues n pocymkng cces. Te sodty-bsed dmenson of economc ssues eted to often sps between teepstemoogc ccks of scence nd govenment bodes seekng to estb-s egtmte ctegoes fo evutng s. In my esec of te Fenccase, I found tat actors economic narratives often included solidarity-

based etical judgments regarding te economic implications of s forpeopes goby. Fo nstnce, we pocymkes my ctegoze monety


40/52

Chapter ne

28

impacts of s on farmers in te Global Sout as economic issues (tussegregating tem out of etical discussions), I will dene suc economicconcens s sodty-bsed ssues, mpyng umnst-etc dmensonsuoundng te ftes of pesnts nd ndgenous ctos n te Gob Sout.

Ovep nd ontdcton: Instument nd Sode Rtontes

Instrumental and solidarity-based rationalities are useful heuristics for point-

ng to te dentbe nd contstng styes of tnkng tt sufce n teFenc debte. Howeve, t s wot notng tt tese tontes enot mutuy excusve, nd tey do not coespond to net economc cte-

gories suc as capitalist and noncapitalist. Te two rationalities sarees of ovep. Fo nstnce, tee s often dmenson of sodty n ds-cussions of -related risk, despite te instrumental origins of risk dis-course historically. Although risk discourse tends to reduce the question

to nstument nd ccutve concens, suc s potectng copote ssetsand images, actors discussions of -related risk often reect umani-tn concens egdng pubc et nd envonment we-beng. Andjust as tere is often a solidarity side to instrumental rationalities of risk,

tee s n nstument dmenson to sodty-bsed tontes. Fo n-stance, te Confdration Paysanne appeals to solidarity-based notionswen invoking te precaution principle (an international environmentalpncpe tt s become cent to dscouses on gob sk mngement).In tun, ctos n te onfdton Pysnne often dopt nstumentzednotons of gcutu quty tt educe food quty to tecnc tems topomote sodty-bsed mode of gcutue.

A key question about te relationsip between tese rationalities and

capitalism by way of analogy: is an instrumental rationality to capitalism as asodty-bsed tonty s to mo economy? In ote wods, s nstu-mentsm n neent fetue of te cptst system nd of no ote eof soc fe? And s sodty mk of n economc modty tt es out-sde pot-dven cptst mkets? Te nswe s tt t s not tt smpe.To begn, most cptst ctvty s ndeed mked by ogc of nstumen-tsm. Mny teosts of cptsm ecognze te wys n wc cptsmreduces peoples, natures, and tings to commodities, empasizing means

ove ends (Bookcn 1971; Westen 1984; Sye 1991). ptsm entste tonzton of umn bengs, subsumng tngs unde ccuus of


41/52

Introduction

29

excnge vue. Howeve, we cptsm s nstument, not nstu-ment ctvty occus wtn cptst fmewoks. An nstument to-nty mked te umn tme ne, owng ou speces to use pncpes ofeciency and regularization to guide a range of tecnological endeavors.Suc principles are perfectly suitable to projects suc as arcitecture andgcutue nd to te desgn of nstuments tt coud be of get use wtncptst o noncptst socetes. A cutu pobem ses wen ogcment fo bdge budng, fo nstnce, s extended to quttve ems ofeveydy fe, dspcng ogc of socty.

Tose familiar wit anticapitalist revolutions tat brougt us societiessuc s te fome Sovet Unon, n, nd ub e too we of ow

n nstument tonty cn be gy comptbe wt ntcptst pu-suts. Te toctes of Stn, fo nstnce, wc educed peope to tngsto be emnted v mssce, s owng nstnce of ntcptsm goneterribly instrumental. In so many cases, we can see ow te means-endstinking of any communist or socialist dictator of purportedly mutualisticsocetes cn go teby wy, usng nstument tctcs to ecenty gov-ern, punis, and enforce social control. Just as instrumentality can trivemong te most ntcptst, cptst entepses often expot pncpes

of umn sodty. Mny megcopotons tougout te wod nvokemetaphors of sports teams and families to enhance genuine sentiments of be-

ongng nd compny oyty mong empoyees (Ong 1987). On Wmtswebste, unde subject edng tted Dvesty, te stes copy eds: AtWmt, we beeve tt busness wns wen everyone matters, nd tt tetrue strengt of diversity is unleased wen each associate is encouraged toreach their full potential. Diversity ten becomes te foundation for an in-clusive, sustainable busness tt embces nd respects dierences, deveops

ou ssoctes, seves ou customes,partners with our communities nd budsupon an inclusive supplier base (empasis mine). Te narrative becomesstkng wen one tkes note tt Wmt s geneted decdes-ong scn-ds eted to te unon peventon, wokpce sexsm, nd geney owses nd poo wokng condtons. By custeng togete keywods sucs everyone matters, full potential, inclusive,sustainable, respect,partners, ndcommunities, mketng gents mmc tonty of sodty tey knowpeope n oc communtes fvo.

As seen in the Walmart case, solidarity-based narratives can be quite com-ptbe wt pocptst stnce. We some membes of pogessve o-


42/52

Chapter ne

30

ganizations do put fort an explicitly anticapitalist vision, many oters donot identify as anticapitalist. Wile critiquing neoliberal forms of capital-sm, goups suc s te onfdton Pysnne often pomote cptstcsoc democces s pt of te te-gobzton vson. Te objectveis to re-empower individual states against supranational institutions, reorga-

nzng te cptst system n suc wy tt t moe equtby meets teneeds of citizens and environment (Gibson- Graam 2006). Of interest ints book s te encocment of n nstument mket ogc nto cutuems suc s gcutue. Of note too s te wy n wc ts ogc ecpses sodty-bsed ppoc to food poducton. Te pomnence of nstu-mental logics of investment and eciency in communal and even familial

contexts speks of bode cutu condton n wc ctos ncesngysee temseves n mket-dven tems. At stke ee s te queston of own nstument ppoc s feed nto ney ems of soc nd cu-tu fe.

Wen Sodty-Bsed Rtonty of Agcutue Goes Pubc

Tee s dynmc tenson between nstument nd sodty-bsed to-

nalities tat circulates troug te debate in France. I trace te cul-tural forces tat bring actors in te Confdration Paysanne to mute teirsolidarity-based rationalities of s from public forums (particularly in the

st pse of te debte). I m so nteested n expong ow nd wyat particular timesactors publicly and successfully promote solidarity-bsed tonty of s nd of gcutue geney. In 1999 onfd-ton Pysnnes sodty-bsed tonty of s ndeed went nton.In 1997 te unons edgng nt- cmpgn eed evy on sk, n-

vokng te expetse of scentsts to suppot cms gnst te tecnoogy.Subsequently, a series of events in August 1999 brougt about a sift inte style and public receptivity of te Confdration Paysannes dis-couse. Dung te summe of 1999, Jos Bov d speeded sees ofdect ctons known s cop pus. Dung suc n event, goup of fmesnd ote ctvsts ente ed contnng pnts. Sometmes, ctvststrounce troug te elds, breaking plant stems as tey go. At oter croppulls, activists collect garbage bags of plants, later dumping te bags

deemed contmnnts befoe te oc poce stton.Afte summe of cop pus, te oc judge of Bovs dstct ws fed up.


43/52

Introduction

31

And ts s wy Bov nd ote membes of te unon got n unusuy gsentence fo ptcptng n n nt-McDonds cton tt August. In tscton Bov nd tee unded ctvsts symbocy dsmnted McDon-ds constucton ste n s town of Mu n souten Fnce. We n-ton nd ntenton med depcted Bov s destoyng te budng(New York Times, xxx xx, 1999), the farmers themselves describe their actions

in modest terms, admitting to prying o several tiles from the buildings roof

n ddton to toppng McDonds constucton sgn. Te mjoty of tedy fetued fmy-stye pcncs on te gounds of te budng ste weBov and other farmers were interviewed by local press about the rather low-

poe cton.

In addition to anti- activism, anti- McDonalds actions constitutedBovs second psson. Ts ptcu McDonds cton ws n ettongnst Pesdent nton nd te . In n ttempt to puns Euope forefusing imported U.S. ormone-treated beef, te United States placed aevy sutx on suc Fenc expots s Roquefot ceese. As poduce ofewes mk (used n cetng Roquefot), Bov nd te ote fmes decdedto tke symboc cton gnst nton nd te , wc d egtmzednd dmnstted ntons snctons. Afte beng ested fo te McDon-

ds cton nd efusng b, Bov emned n j fo tee weeks, bengctputed to nton nd ntenton stdom fo tkng pubc stnceagainst McDonalds and ultimately against neoliberal forms of globalization.

Suddenly renowned for te McDonalds rater tan te issue, Bovseized te opportunity to advance bot causes. Troug Bovs discourse,s becme symbo, ke McDonds, of neobesm, omogenzedgob cutue, nd te commodcton of fe nd cutue.

In ptcu, s becme symbo ofla malboue, sng tem Bov

uses tt s been tnsted mpefecty nto Engs s junk food. In sbook tat became a national best-seller in France, Bov describes la mal-boue as pointing to a food- related problem of culture and ealt. Tetext, Le monde nest pas une marchandise: Des paysans contre la malboue(Te world isnt mercandise: Peasants against junk food) was translatednto twenty-seven nguges (te Engs tte s he orld Is Not for Sale:Farmers against Junk Food) nd unced pubsng cee fo Bov ttcontnues tody. Fo Bov, s wee yet note nstnce of te ton-

zton of food, ong wt McDonds, omones, nd pestcdes esdues.As an instance of la malboue, s represent te reduction of food to a


44/52

Chapter ne

32

cutuy stnddzed nd tecncy dngeous entty. In popuzng tetem la malboue, Bov expessed te sodty-bsed, s we s tecnco nstument, dmensons of s s scentc entty. s no ongestood for a lofty product of science to be evaluated exclusively by scien-tists. They now symbolized food, agriculture, and culture, thus falling within

te jusdcton of pysn expetse. In bngng togete ssues of cutue,et, quty, nd sfety, Bov synteszed n nstument nd sodty-bsed tonty of food, gcutue, nd scence.

Afte 1999, Bovs te-gobzton dscouse becme qute ppbe nte med. Bovs oveppng denttesnt- nd te-gobztonctvstowed notons of gobzton nd s to be nked togete n

pubc conscousness. Te bodenng of te debte beyond pobemof ccube sk to ncude wde ssues of neobe gobzton sgned sft n te oc of expetse. Fo te st tme n te debte, pysn fmes,s we s scentsts, coud spek wt cutu utoty bout s. I tcethe cultural forces that facilitated the public radicalization of the French

debte. I exmne te condtons toug wc ctos begn to spek pub-cy bout s fom sodty-bsed, te tn excusvey nstumen-t, pespectve. In pontng to te tnsfomton of te debte n Fnce,

I efe to t s bodenng te tn s compete sft. onfdtonPaysannes articles on s after te events in 1999 still rely eavily onsk ntves. Wt s sgncnt s te extent to wc pubc dscussonbegn to so ncude n te-gobzton pespectve. Te onfdtonPysnne dd not put n end to sk dscouse. Rte, t dsupted ts p-mcy, destbzng te dscusve cente of gvty tt sk d excusveyenjoyed.

It is also important to note te implicitness of te Confdration

Pysnnes dscusve cenge. Tougout my esec, I ws contnuystuck by n bsence mong ctos of wt coud be ced dscusve sef-conscousness. Scence egemony nduces degees of confomty to ptcu- domnnt dscusve odes. Actos n te onfdton Pysnne weeoften unaware of bot teir reliance on risk discourses and te extent towic teir solidarity-based rationalities of s displaced risks primacyn te pubc spee. Neveteess, ctos dscusve mneuves, ptcuytose of Bov nd te onfdton Pysnne, bodened undestndngs

of wt my count s expetse fo tecnoscence pctce nd pocymkngn debtes bout scence n te futue.


45/52

Introduction

33

towArD A multisiteD ethNogrAPhy

In ecent decdes, tose engged n te ntopoogy of modenty verecongured te etnograpic site. Researcers ave been conducting re-sec n mutpe octons, nd mong eteogeneous communtes, wtvyng degees of powe. In suc contexts, ntopoogsts ve found tttey must negotiate relationsips in complex elds of power. Historically,antropologists ave studied down, wic means examining te culturalpctces of peopes wo ve ess powe tn tey. But snce te 1980s, n-topoogsts e ncesngy studyng up, expong te cutu pctcesof peopes wokng wtn powefu nsttutons. Studyng up ows nto-

pologists to convey te complexities of power as it circulates troug re-gon, nton, nd ntenton nsttutons (e.g., copotons, scentcbotoes, govenment gences) s we s expet scentc nsttutons(Nde 1969). Fo etnogpes nteested n contempoy oc cngesn cutue nd socety, snge-sted esec cn no onge be esy octedn wod-system pespectve (Mcus 1995; Tsng 2005).

Antopoogsts conductng dynmc mutsted etnogpes, suc sAw Ong (1987), Ryn Rpp (1999), nd Emy Mtn (1994), ve e-

dened what counts as a eld of research. Drawing from their works, I aim for pnomc nd smutneous vew of te Fenc debte. In ts spt,I so dw fom Donn Hwy, wose noton of stuted knowedges c-knowedges tt n ode to know tng, one must undestnd ts stoy.Fo Hwy, objects of study e wys embedded n ptcu octonswtn exstng eds of powe (Hwy 1991). I ty to ende tnspentte eterogeneous networks of peoples, places, and tings troug wics ccute. s e neve nsu o unves scentc enttes; tey

represent cultural objects, discourses, and practices that are always contextu-zed wtn specc soc nd potc domns. Hwys nsgts boutstuted knowedge e tgty nked to dscouses bout te need fo mut-sited etnograpies in world systems. To contextualize objects of inquirytt e neenty emegent, ccutous, nd mecu, one must foow ob-jects as tey move in and across various societal arenas. Te most riclystuted knowedges se fom studes of te mutpe contexts nbted bytose objects we seek to undestnd.

Dung my st pse of esec n 1997, I ceted pemny mp ofte contovesy, dentfyng sx sets of key ctos pyng cent oe


46/52

Chapter ne

34

n spng te debte, ncudng scentsts, fmes, consume goups, env-onment goups, ndusty ocs, nd govenment gents. Ove tme, tesme usu suspects begn to eppe wt ncesng fequency t pubcconferences, television sows, and newspaper articles, making Paris seemke etvey sm town. Tee ws ndeed n dentbe yet sm net-wok of key ctos nd ognztons, most excusvey bsed n Ps, ttgduy cme nto vew s I mde my wy fom foum to foum, quckytyng to foow debte n te mkng. As I cme to en, t s ndeed oftena small number of igly active individuals (and institutions), rater tanods o msses, tt dve pubc debtes o contoveses.

In my attempt to conceptualize te broader networks in wic tese

individuals worked and functioned, I ave drawn from te actor- networkteoy (a) deveoped by Buno Ltou (1983, 1988, 1998), Mce on(1986b), nd Jon Lw (1987). Fo tese teosts, eteogeneous ssoctonof actors (uman and nonuman) constitute te institutions, informationows, nd toos tt togete fom te socopotc ed. Even toug I n-voke tese teosts, ts etnogpy s not fom cto-netwok study.I dw fom cto-netwok teoy pmy to convey te webs of eton-sps tt exst mong te mny ctos, nsttutons, s, nd ote non-

umn enttes tt nmted te Fenc debte.Ove tme, I cme to undestnd s not s n sotbe scentc o

commercial entity. Instead, I saw s as an uneven and heterogeneous net-

wok of of te peope, ognsms, toos, nd poces tt poduced temin laboratories, marketed tem trougout te world, forged policy abouttem n govenment budngs, nd contested tem n eds nd steets. Tenetwok concept unbnds te etnogpc ste, eveng t s tuy mo-pous, contnuy sftng, nd bodeess entty. Fo me, te de of net-

wok fted te buden I woud ve ced d I ctuy tougt I coudconvey te totty of pubc debte. Te moe I studed te contovesy,te moe I undestood tt I woud ony be be to cptue sm pece ofa boundless entity. I knew tat I was merely squinting out at a great jig-sw puzze, one wose myd snng peces wee contnuy epostonngtemseves nto ncesngy bng yet menngfu congutons. Wete numbe of ndvdus ctvey consttutng ts jgsw puzze ws e-tively small, te number and scale of associated institutions proved to be

qute ovewemng etnogpcy. Insted of sctteng mysef too tn,I decded to focus pmy on two sets of ctos n te bode net-


47/52

Introduction

35

wok: fmes fom te onfdton Pysnne nd scentsts fom te In-sttute Nton de Recece Agcoe (Fenc Nton Insttute of Ag-cultural Researc). In addition, I focused my attention on key individualactors witin consumer, environmental, industrial, and governmental set-tngs. Fo te puposes of ts book, oweve, I focus mny on te on-fdton Pysnne. Its stoy s c, dynmc, nd excepton, so t stndsout s key ntve wtn te Fenc netwok.

Dung ts peod of Fenc (nd ntenton gcutu pocymk-ng), tcutons mong gcutue, gob cpt, nd fm pocy vecome unde temendous pubc scutny. Recent gcutu scnds, sucs md cow dsese, ong wt gowng concens mong te Fenc pub-

c egdng pestcde use, omone-teted met, nd pouton, ve ce-ted cmte n wc te Fenc pubc s begun sng questons boutagriculture and food quality generally (Heller 2006). Te ConfdrationPysnne s been ctvey ddessng tese questons n n nteestng wy.

PrimAry site: the coNfDrAtioN PAysANNe

Te Confdration Paysanne eadquarters are in Bagnolet, a suburbminutes from Paris. At te eadquarters, I conducted many formal inter-

vews wtsalariers (st membes wo e not pysns) nd pysn epe-senttves. I so ttended ognzton meetngs, wt focus on foow-ng te wokng goup compng epot on s fo te Fenc onseconomique et Social (Frenc Economic and Social Council). Tis latterpoject bougt me nto contct wt nge of ctos fom ndust, gov-enment, nd scentc bodes tt wee ntevewed by te onfdtonPysnne wokng goup composng te epot. At te Fenc onse co-nomque et Soc I ws be to obseve some of te dynmcs nd tensons

between onfdton Pysnne nd te a fmes wo seve on tecounc.

I so ttended mny pubc confeences wtn Ps nd vges outsdete cty, wee onfdton Pysnne ctos spoke pubcy bout s.In tese foums I obseved nd comped te pubc dscouse of onfd-ration Paysanne with narratives attained through more private conversations

wit Confdration Paysanne actors. In addition, I spent many weekendsvstng te fms nd fmes of onfdton Pysnne fmes toug-

out te county wo geneousy wecomed me nto te omes, povdngme wt te oppotunty to deveop n ppecton fo te concete etes


48/52

Chapter ne

36

of sm fmes, te mutpe stessos nd commtments tey be n ty-ng to mntn pysn wy of fe. In n, fost, nd sne, I mced wtte Confdration Paysanne during demonstrations in Paris tat, in addi-tion to addressing s, took on issues ranging from Europes PolitiqueAgricole Commune (Common Agricultural Policy) to te privatization ofTd Wod wte by te Fenc-bsed mutnton Vvend. Attended bypysns fom coss te county, tese demonsttons gve me nsgt ntote dierent concerns and perspectives of actors in dierent geograpicalnd gcutu zones.

In te fall of 1999, Bov invited me to join a delegation of Confdra-tion Paysanne activists on a ten-day excursion tat went rst to Wasing-

ton, D.C., to meet wit farmers from te National Family Farm Coalitionnd ten to te meetngs n Sette. Ts jouney owed me to wtnessBov and Confdration Paysanne spokesperson Franois Dufour as teybegan to develop and negotiate a new and central position and discoursewtn n emegng te-gobzton movement.

oncuson

Te Fenc cse s moe tn stoy of goup of ctvsts cengng tepmcy of scence egemony. It s so stoy bout ow sodty-bsedtonty of gcutuend of te wodgned scendncy, sftngte discursive terrain to make it more conducive to actors articulating inpubc bode nd moe compex ppecton of s. We te Fenccase demysties scientic expertise, it also celebrates emergent forms ofknowedge, suc s pysn svo fe. In so dong, ctos n ts stoy ebroadening understandings of what counts for expertise in debates about sci-

ence, gcutue, nd te gob economy n yes to come.


49/52

Notes

Capter One

1. By 1993 or 1994, te term genetically modifed organisms became te predominant

way to talk about micro-organisms, plants, animals, seeds, foods, and productsproduced by introducing new genes into the nucleus of an organism. The termimmediately became an acronym so popular tat many people I encountered

knew wat s are but ad no idea wat te acronym meant. Of note is te fact

tat beginning in te 1970s, scientists and industry agents originally used te terms

genetically engineeredandgenetically engineered organisms. In te early 1990s, mar-

keting strategists for biotechnology rms exchanged the less technical and moreambiguous-sounding term modifedfor engineered. Tus te was born. Many

activists throughout the world continue to reject the term modifed, seeing it asan attempt by powerful institutions to use an innocuous term connoting slightcange (modied) to mask te fact tat tey see te as dramatically altered

in potentially dangerous ways. Maintaining te acronym , most activists still

use te term manipulatedinstead ofmodifed(genetically manipulated organisms).

I use te generic popular term s to refer to products and processes related to

genetically modied products. I use te termgenetically modifedwen referring to

a specic product suc as milk, seed, or corn.2. s often have sets of names that a

Documents

Food, Farms, and Solidarity by Chaia Heller