Agriculture and Human Values最新文献

Alternative food initiatives are vital for transforming food systems towards sustainability by challenging, replacing, and complementing the status quo. Understanding how these initiatives contribute to transformation requires attention not only to their intended outcomes but also to the processes through which these outcomes contribute to broader social change. Existing assessment frameworks rarely consider this intersection. To address this gap, we developed a framework that links outcomes of alternative food initiatives to the processes through which they contribute to transformations, drawing on alternative food literature and prefigurative theorising. We then applied the framework to two alternative food initiatives and found we were able to (1) identify multiple processes through which their outcomes lead to transformation, and thereby (2) develop a better understanding of how different initiatives approach their contributions to transformations differently. This could enhance evidence gathering, assessment, and communication of their benefits, which could be used by change agents to increase public support, advocate for policy change, and access resources. Furthermore, recognising the differences and complementarities among initiatives could also improve the strategic capacity of alternative food movements by fostering appreciation of diverse change-making practices. By providing a tool for assessing the link between outcomes of alternative food initiatives and the processes through which they contribute to transformations, the framework can support researchers and practitioners to foster more coherent and effective transformative action in the food system.

This paper reveals how the Arenito Nova Fronteira Program, a Brazilian rural development initiative, produces a subjectivity of marginalization among small-scale farmers in Umuarama, Paraná. Drawing on life history interviews with five farmers, we analyze how technological, market-oriented, and economic discourses embedded in the program do not merely exclude smallholders materially, but constitute them as “incapable,” “insufficient,” and “precarious” subjects. Engaging with Foucault’s concepts of governmentality and subjectivation, we show that development policies operate not only through material interventions but through the internalization of failure: farmers come to see their marginality not as a result of structural inequalities, but as a personal or ontological condition. The phrase “that’s the life of the poor,” recurrent in the narratives, encapsulates a truth regime that naturalizes exclusion. We argue that such policies enact a form of neoliberal governmentality that promises inclusion while reinforcing symbolic and existential dispossession. The findings challenge dominant models of rural development and call for critical attention to the ways in which development itself becomes a technology of subject formation.

This study examines the notions of ‘naturalness’ in Finnish citizen-consumers’ and farmers’ perspectives, through ten focus group discussions, on genetic modification (GM) and new genomic techniques (NGTs) in plant breeding, amidst the current European Union (EU) legislative changes. In this context, the study shows that citizen-consumers’ views on GM plants and NGTs are significantly associated with different notions of ‘naturalness’ that are closely entangled with each other. Some citizen-consumers consider any human intervention as unnatural and unacceptable, while others are open to NGTs if they resemble natural processes or traditional breeding methods. Those who do not explicitly make use of the notion of naturalness are the most open towards all genetic techniques. However, consideration of the use purpose of NGTs can shift views of citizen-consumers. Farmers, in contrast, focus less on naturalness and more on the practical and economic implications of NGTs. Organic farmers expressed concerns about being excluded from the benefits of NGTs. Despite some caution towards transgenesis, most farmers were open to using NGTs due to the pressing challenges they face, such as climate change and economic pressures. The study concludes that different understandings of (un)naturalness are inextricably linked and continuously shape each other, rather than existing independently. This dynamic interdependence, in turn, underlie shifting views of NGTs in different contexts.

Although there has been much attention paid to the racial dynamics of food movements across North America, there has been little attention paid to race and colonialism in Australia’s alternative food movements. I focus on the conflation of race and Indigeneity through cosmopolitan and multicultural food practices of recognition that comes to limit more radical possibilities for Indigenous sovereignties. Therefore, this paper asks how whiteness structures everyday alternative food relations and mediates efforts to disrupt settler logics. I draw on fieldwork conducted at urban market gardens in Naarm (Melbourne), Australia, to explore how settler food actors come to understand whiteness and (de)colonization in food practices, and how such dynamics are both disrupted and (often unintentionally) reinscribed through liberal paradigms of recognition. The paper frames whiteness as a colonial construct which facilitates the political conditions of alternative food practices to organize and govern whose (and how) knowledges and practices are made to matter. I argue that while well-intentioned, participants recognize that such efforts of inclusion and recognition are bound by broader settler governmentalities which risk potentially undermining creative forms of resistance.

Amenity migration is reshaping rural agrifood systems as a growing number of Land Steward Amenity Migrants (LSAMs) acquire ranches primarily for ecological restoration, lifestyle fulfillment, and intergenerational legacy rather than commodity production. Guided by the Rangeland Socio-Ecological Framework (RSEF), we conducted qualitative interviews with 16 LSAMs across Texas to examine the drivers shaping their management decisions. Analysis revealed four interconnected drivers: values, property goals, ranching knowledge, and contextual factors such as climate variability, limited property access, and time constraints. These landowners’ post-productivist motivations challenge agrifood systems theory by demonstrating that stewardship can be driven by relational and non-commodity values, influencing ecological outcomes without direct engagement in production. However, implementation is often constrained by limited experience, fragmented peer networks, and misaligned institutional frameworks. Our findings underscore the need for adaptive, place-based outreach and policy mechanisms that align with LSAMs’ distinct motivations and limitations. Supporting this emerging demographic is critical for sustaining the ecological integrity and socioeconomic vitality of evolving rangeland-based agrifood systems.

Despite shrinking civic space, civil society organisations (CSOs) in Uganda continue to shape pathways toward sustainable and inclusive agricultural transformation. This paper explores why and how CSOs use non-confrontational strategies, particularly advocacy to influence policy and institutional processes regarding agricultural development. It draws on in-depth interviews with CSO actors, including NGOs, coalitions, networks, and farmer organisations. The findings indicate that advocacy functions as a tactical strategy that shields actors from repression, sustains political legitimacy, and enables promotion of alternative visions for agricultural transformation within restrictive political environments. The implication here is that non-confrontational choices are not merely ideological but represent calculated responses to political threats and opportunities that shape political mobilisation landscape in Uganda. Hence, they can be interpreted through the lens of strategic adaptation, where actors deliberately avoid confrontation as a means of manouvring through obstacles in order to minimise the risk of demobilisation and cooptation while pursuing transformative goals. This way, the study shows how Ugandan CSOs balance collaboration and resistance to preserve the political essence of their efforts and ensure survival. More broadly, this study contributes to debates on agrarian transformation debates by highlighting how strategic adaptation shapes the ethical and practical possibilities for sustainable and inclusive agricultural change in restrictive environments.

This paper examines how individuals embedded in various food and health-focused networks can utilize the same concept—namely, “food is medicine”—to support different perspectives on what is and should be. The argument relies on two qualitative data sources: multisite event ethnographies of more than a dozen conferences and workshops focused on the food is medicine concept, and twenty-four semi-structured interviews. Those interviewed and observed include key professionals and knowledge producers—public health officials, scientists, alternative medicine practitioners, and social media influencers—whose authority and institutional ties play a central role in shaping the relevant discourse and practices. The paper draws from a variety of literature, including Science and Technology Studies and concepts like boundary work, matters of fact and concerns, and the relationality of expertise, as well as critical food studies with concepts that include the individualization and personalization of health and nutrition, food scientism, and the neoliberalization of responsibility for health. While facts are important in these debates, phenomena such as expertise and evidence are not self-evident but rather relationally constituted. Understanding how these concepts are put to work and to what end involves examining the competing concerns, anxieties, and values that influence the selection of relevant facts, which makes this analysis also about understanding the subjects created through these competing frames. Ultimately, deep tensions are described, evidenced by some who view the term (food is medicine) as a rallying cry for using food as a substitute for medicine, including vaccines.

The USDA Census of Agriculture is the most comprehensive source of data on US farmers, but ongoing alterations to how demographics are measured and reported has created challenges for interpretation. For example, previous changes to the number of farmers counted on each farm led to misunderstandings and potential misrepresentation of women farmers as an extremely quickly growing demographic. An additional notable change occurred in the transition from the 2017 to the 2022 Census of Agriculture—specifically, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ended the ability to identify a single primary farmer in charge of each farm. Instead it was recommended that, when looking at the prevalence of women farmers, for instance, researchers use a proportional count of farmers’ demographic characteristics. This raises a significant number of possible interpretations and data analysis structures, potentially adding to the confusion of counting women and other farmers using Census of Agriculture data. This paper investigates this change, creating and describing twelve different possible methods for reporting on proportions of women farmers, including a discussion of the benefits, drawbacks, and consequences of each. Finally, we suggest a specific proportional variable to be used in research going forward.

A growing body of research highlights the need for a socio-ecologically sustainable approach to all human activities, particularly those related to agri-food systems. This study aims to enhance our understanding of the relationship between humans and nature in the context of Regenerative Agriculture (RA) and Regenerative Farmers (RFs) and contribute to our knowledge of the transformational adaptation to social and environmental changes and processes among those who practice RA as their livelihood. This study employs a regenerative approach from a planetary perspective based on relational systems thinking. Using qualitative methodology, it explores the perceptions and experiences of 86 Finnish RFs regarding their decision-making processes and interactions with nature. The results indicate that nature plays a vital role in the decision-making of RFs, as they engage in a cooperative relationship characterized by observation and intuition. The primary contribution of this research is the development of the Regenerative Professional Partnership (RPP) framework, which encompasses three components: the connection and relationship between RFs and nature, the agency and roles of RFs and nature, and the interaction between RFs and nature. This holistic approach to decision-making has the potential to transform farming practices by making them more socio-economically sustainable.