Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 401–415 | Cite as

From “old school” to “farm-to-school”: Neoliberalization from the ground up

Open Access
Article

Abstract

Farm-to-school (FTS) programs have garnered the attentions and energies of people in a diverse array of social locations in the food system and are serving as a sort of touchstone for many in the alternative agrifood movement. Yet, unlike other alternative agrifood initiatives, FTS programs intersect directly with the long-established institution of the welfare state, including its vestiges of New Deal farm programs and public entitlement. This paper explores how FTS is navigating the liminal terrain of public and private initiative, particularly the ways in which it interfaces with neoliberalism as both a material and discursive project. It examines the political emergence of school food programs and finds that FTS is strikingly similar to traditional school programs in objectives, but differs in approach. Yet, in their efforts to fill in the gaps created by political and economic neoliberalization, FTS advocates are in essence producing neoliberal forms and practices afresh. These include those associated with contingent labor relationships, private funding sources, and the devolution of responsibility to the local, all of which have serious consequences for social equity. The paper also discusses how FTS programs are employing the rhetoric of neoliberal governmentality, including personal responsibility and individual success, consumerism, and choice. While these may be tactical choices used to secure funding in a competitive environment, they may also contribute to the normalization of neoliberalism, further circumscribing the possibilities of what can be imagined and created to solve social problems.

Keywords

Alternative agrifood institutions California Community food security Devolution Farm-to-school programs Neoliberalism School nutrition Sustainable agriculture 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported herein was financially supported by the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems at University of California at Santa Cruz. The authors wish to thank Carol Shennan for her ongoing support as well as those members of UCSC's Agrifood Research Group who commented on this paper in particular. The paper was also strengthened by the comments of three anonymous reviewers and Laura B. DeLind. Amy Morris and Hilary Melcarek provided excellent research support in addition to editorial ideas. The flaws and hyperbole can be attributed to the authors alone.

References

  1. Allen P. (2004). Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrifood System. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen P., M. FitzSimmons, M. Goodman, K. Warner (2003). Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen P., M. Kovach (2000). The capitalist composition of organic: The potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of organic agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 17(3): 221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azuma A. M., A. Fisher (2001). Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids: Evaluating the Barriers and Opportunities for Farm-to-School Programs. Venice, California: Community Food Security CoalitionGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner, N. and N. Theodore (2002). “Preface: From the ‘new localism” to the spaces of neoliberalism”. Antipode 34(3): 341–347Google Scholar
  6. Brillinger R., J. Ohmart, G. Feenstra (2003). The Crunch Lunch Manual: A Case Study of the Davis Joint Unified School District Farmers Market Salad Bar Pilot Program. Davis, California: University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education ProgramGoogle Scholar
  7. CAFF (2004). Community Alliance with Family Farmers Farm-to-School Workshop. December 7, 2004. Watsonville, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll S. J., C. Krop, J. Arkes, P. A. Morrison, A. Flanagan (2005). California’s K–12 Public Schools: How are they Doing? Santa Monica, California: Rand EducationGoogle Scholar
  9. Chez Panisse Foundation (n.d.) (2005). Chez Panisse Foundation. Accessed on June 9, 2005 at www.chezpanisse.com/cpfoundation.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. Community Food Security Coalition (n.d.a) (2005). “Department of Defense farm to school program, frequently asked questions.” Accessed on June 9, 2005 at www.foodsecurity.org/dod_f2s.pdfGoogle Scholar
  11. Community Food Security Coalition (n.d.b). “Farm to school program.” Accessed on April 27, 2005 at http://www.food-security.org/farm_to_school.htmlGoogle Scholar
  12. Critser G. (2003). Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
  13. Dean M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. Thousand Oaks, California: SageGoogle Scholar
  14. Duggan L. (2003). The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, A. (2004). Plenary Session. Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Farm-to-School Workshop. December 7, 2004. Watsonville, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerber, J. (2002). “College wins grant for farm-to-school program”. Capital Press (Salem, Oregon), October 11, 2002. Accessed on June 9, 2005 at www.farmtoschool.org/grant_ media.htmGoogle Scholar
  17. Gottlieb R. (2001). Environmentalism Unbound: Exploring New Pathways for Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregoire M. B., C. Storhbehn (2002). Benefits and obstacles to purchasing food from local growers and producers. Journal of Child Nutrition and Management 26(1): 1–7Google Scholar
  19. Gunderson, G. W. (1971). National School Lunch Program: Background and development. Accessed on April 27, 2005 at www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory. htmGoogle Scholar
  20. Guthman J. (2004). Agrarian Dreams? The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. Berkeley, California: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Guthman J. (2003a). Fast food/organic food: Reflexive tastes and the making of ‘yuppie chow’. Journal of Social and Cultural Geography 4(1): 43–56Google Scholar
  22. Guthman J. (2003b). Eating risk: The politics of labeling transgenic foods. In: R. Schurman, D. T. Kelso (eds) Engineering Trouble: Biotechnology and Its Discontents. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, pp. 130–151Google Scholar
  23. Guthman, J. and E. M. DuPuis (2006). “Embodying neoliberalism: Economy, culture, and the politics of fat.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24(3): 427–448Google Scholar
  24. Hinrichs C. G., K. S. Kremer (2002). Social inclusion in a Midwest local food system. Journal of Poverty 6(1): 65–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyatt S. B. (2001). From citizen to volunteer: Neoliberal governance and the erasure of poverty. In: J. Goode, J. Maskovsky (eds) The New Poverty Studies: The Ethnography of Power, Politics, and Impoverished People in the United States. New York: New York University Press, pp. 435–469Google Scholar
  26. Jessop B. (2002). Neoliberalism and urban governance: A state theoretical perspective. Antipode 34(3): 452–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kloppenburg J. Jr., J. Hendrickson, G. W. Stevenson (1996). Coming into the foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13(3): 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koop C. E. (1988). The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health: Summary and Recommendations. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, US Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  29. La Corte, R. (2005). “Industry group urges limiting soft-drink sales in schools.” Boston Globe, August 18Google Scholar
  30. Larner W., D. Craig (2005). After neoliberalism? Community activism and local partnerships in Aotearoa New Zealand. Antipode 37(3): 402–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacVean, M. (2004). “If you build it, children will come to the salad bar.” The Los Angeles Times, November 4: B2Google Scholar
  32. McCarthy J., S. Prudham (2004). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35(3): 275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, C. H. (2005). “USDA/FNS: Welcome to wellness: Putting school nutrition legislation into practice.” Accessed on April 27, 2005 at www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/cnreauthor/wellness_usda.pptGoogle Scholar
  34. National Farm to School Program (n.d.a). Farm to School Resource Packet. Available to order at www.farmtoschool.org/resources.htmGoogle Scholar
  35. National Farm to School Program (n.d.b). “Frequently asked questions.” Accessed on April 27, 2005 at www.farmtoschool.org/faq.htmGoogle Scholar
  36. Nestle M. (2002). Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley, California: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  37. Ohmart J. (2002). Direct Marketing to Schools: A New Opportunity for Family Farmers. Davis, California: University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education ProgramGoogle Scholar
  38. Ostraukaite, R. (2002). “The radical ambivalence of ‘global liberal governance’.” E-Journal: 1505–1161Google Scholar
  39. Peck J. (2004). Geography and public policy: Constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography 28(3): 392–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peck J., A. Tickell (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34(3): 380–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Power M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Rimkus L., P. Jones, F. Ona (2004). San Francisco Farm-to-School Report: Results from the 2003 Feasibility Study. San Francisco, California: San Francisco Food SystemsGoogle Scholar
  43. Roberts S. L. (2002). School food policy: Does the future call for new food policy or can the old still hold true? Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 7(3): 588–615Google Scholar
  44. Sims L. S. (1998). The Politics of Fat: Food and Nutrition Policy in America. Armonk, New York: M. E. SharpeGoogle Scholar
  45. Sturrock, C. (2005). “Mandate imperils 45 bay districts – State schools face sanctions in battle over ‘No Child’ law.” San Francisco Chronicle, February 18Google Scholar
  46. Thomas, T. (2004). “Farm-to-cafeteria. Community Alliance with Family Farmers Farm-to-School Workshop” December 7, 2004. Watsonville, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  47. USDA/FNS (2004). ``National school lunch program factsheet.'' Accessed on April 27, 2005 at www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdfGoogle Scholar
  48. USDA/FNS (2000). Small Farms/School Meals Initiative, Town Hall Meetings: A Step-By-Step Guide to How to Bring Small Farms and Local Schools Together. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition ServiceGoogle Scholar
  49. Vallianatos M., R. Gottlieb, M. A. Haase (2004). Farm to school: Strategies for urban health, combating sprawl, and establishing a community food systems approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 414–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2002). 2002 Annual Report. Together We Grow: Institutions, Communities, and the Power of Partnerships. Accessed on June 9, 2005 at www.wkkf.org/Pubs/AR2002_MaxCompression_00439_03754.pdfGoogle Scholar
  51. Winicki J. (2003). Children in homes below poverty: Changes in program participation since welfare reform. Children and Youth Services Review 25(8): 651–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food SystemsUniversity of California at Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community StudiesUniversity of California at Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations