Abstract
The history of the controversy overrecombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is exploredin terms of the issue of the potential robustness ofa consumption-driven ``new'' politics of food andagriculture. It is noted that while the dominanthistorical traditions in the social sciences haveserved to discount the autonomous role that consumersand consumption play in modern societies, there hasbeen growing interest in consumption within foodstudies as well as other bodies of scholarship such aspostmodernism, social constructivism, socialcapital/social distinction, and environmentalsociology. A review of the shifting pattern ofdiscourses during the rBGH controversy shows thatconsumption-driven claims and politics played atangible, but relatively minor role. Even so, it issuggested that the rBGH experience along with paralleltrends in food politics (e.g., anti-pesticidecampaigns such as the ``Alar scare,'' agribusinessattempts to intimidate opponents through fooddisparagement laws, conditions-of-productionprovisions of the World Trade Organization agreement)could make the consumption/consumer dimension of foodpolitics more important in the future.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aldrich, L. and N. Blisard (1999). “Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: Lessons from the rBST experience.” In Current Issues in Economics of Food Markets. Washing-ton, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 6 pp.
Barham, B. L., F. H. Buttel, D. Jackson-Smith, J. McNichol, and S. D. Wood (1995). “The political economy of rBST adoption in America's dairyland.” Technical Report No. 2. Madison: Agricultural Technology and Family Farm Institute, School of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin.
Beardsworth, A. and T. Keil (1997). Sociology on the Menu. London: Routledge.
Bordieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buttel, F. H. (1995). “Global impacts of agricultural biotech-nology.” In T. B. Mepham et al. (eds.), Agricultural Bioethics(pp. 345-360). Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press.
Buttel, F. H. (1997). “Some observations on agri-food change and the future of agricultural sustainability movements.” In M. Watts and D. Goodman (eds.), Globalising Food(pp. 344-365). London: Routledge.
Buttel, F. H. (1998). “Nature's place in the technological trans-formation of agriculture: Some reflections on the recombinant BST controversy in the USA.” Environment and PlanningA30: 1151-1163.
Cochrane, W. W. (1979). The Development of American Agri-culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Eder, K. (1996). The Social Construction of Nature. London: Sage.
Edgell, S., K. Hetherington, and A. Warde (eds.) (1996). Consumption Matters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Epstein, S. S. (1990). “Potential public health hazards of biosynthetic milk hormones.” International Journal of Health Services20: 73-84.
Executive Branch of the Federal Government (1994). Use of Bovine Somatotropin (BST) in the United States: Its Potential Effects. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Fallert, R. T. McGuckin, C. Betts, and G. Bruner (1987). BST and the Dairy Industry, AER 579. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Feenstra, G. (1993). “Is BGH sustainable? The consumer perspective.” In W. C. Liebhardt (ed.), The Dairy Debate(pp. 1-63). Davis: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California.
Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd (1997). “Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics.” Science, Technology, and Human Values22: 98-124.
Goffman, I. (1974). Frame Analysis.NewYork: Harper Colophon.
Goodman, D. and M. Redclift (1991). Refashioning Nature. London: Routledge.
Halkier, B. (1999). “Consequences of the politicization of consumption: The example of environmentally friendly consumption practices.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning1: 25-41.
Hallberg, M. C. (ed.) (1992). Bovine Somatotropin: The New Biotechnologies and Emerging Issues. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Kalter, R. J. (1985). “The new biotech agriculture: Unforeseen economic consequences.” Issues in Science and Technology2: 125-133.
Kalter, R. J., R. Milligan, W. Lesser, W. Magrath, L. Tauer, and D. Bauman (1985). Biotechnology and the Dairy Industry, AER 85-20. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University.
Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kleinman, D. L. and J. Kloppenburg, Jr. (1991). “Aiming for the discursive high ground: Monsanto and the biotechnology controversy.” Sociological Forum6: 427-447.
Kolodinsky, J., Q. Wang, and D. Conner (1998). “rBST Labeling and Notification: Lessons From Vermont.” Choices(American Agricultural Economics Association), Third Quarter (pp. 38-40).
Koshland, D. E. Jr. (1994). “A milk-free zone.” Science264: 11.
Krimsky, S. and R. P. Wrubel (1995). Agricultural Biotech-nology and the Environment. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Lappé, F. M. (1991). Diet for a Small Planet.NewYork: Ballantine.
Liebhardt, W. C. (ed.) (1993). The Dairy Debate.Davis: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California.
Marsden, T., J. Murdoch, P. Lowe, R. Munton, and A. Flynn. (1993). Constructing the Countryside. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
McAdam, D., J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald (eds.) (1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements.NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. D. and M. N. Zald (1973). The Trend of Social Movements in America. Morristown, New Jersey: GeneralLearning Press.
McIntosh, W. A. (1996). Sociologies of Food and Nutrition. New York: Plenum.
Mooney, P. H. and T. J. Majka (1995). Farmers' and Farm Workers' Movements. New York: Twayne.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1986). Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. Washington, DC: OTA.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1991). The US Dairy Industry at a Crossroad. Washington, DC: OTA.
Perez, A. M. (1994). Changing Structure of US Dairy Farms, AER 690. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Rayburn, E. B. (1993). “Potential ecological and environmental.20 FREDERICK H. BUTTEL effects of pasture and BGH technology.” In W. C. Liebhardt (ed.), The Dairy Debate(pp. 247-276). Davis: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California.
Redclift, M. (1996). Wasted: Counting the Costs of Global Consumption. London: Earthscan.
Roberts, W., R. MacRae, and L. Stahlbrand (1999). Real Food for a Change. Toronto: Get a Life! Publishers.
Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. J. and R. H. Warland (1992). “Consumer responses to milk from rbST-supplemented cows.” In M. C. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine Somatatropin. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Spaargaren, G. (1996). The Ecological Modernization of Production and Consumption. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University.
Tansey, G. and T. Worsley (1995). The Food System. London: Earthscan.
Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Tweeten, L. (1991). “The costs and benefits of bGH will be distributed fairly.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics4: 108-120.
Warde, A. (1997). Consumption, Food, and Taste. London: Sage.
Welsh, R. (1996). The Industrial Reorganization of US Agri-culture. Greenbelt, Maryland: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buttel, F.H. The recombinant BGH controversy in the United States: Toward a new consumption politics of food?. Agriculture and Human Values 17, 5–20 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007636911210
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007636911210