Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 173–176 | Cite as

Identifying vulnerabilities, exploring opportunities: reconfiguring production, conservation, and consumption in California rice

  • Dustin R. MulvaneyEmail author


This paper describes a role for rural sociology in linking agrifood system vulnerabilities to opportunities for encouraging sustainability and social justice. I argue that the California rice industry is particularly vulnerable for two reasons. First, a quarter of rice growers’ revenues derive from production-based subsidies that have been recently deemed illegal by the World Trade Organization. Second, about half of California’s rice sales depend on volatile export markets, which are susceptible to periodic market access disruptions. Such vulnerabilities present political opportunities to reconfigure the connection between production and consumption. By exploring how production subsidies could be transformed into multifunctionality payments, and investigating new regional markets, rural sociology can contribute to discussions about how to encourage a more sustainable and socially just California rice industry. My discussion aims to prompt rural sociologists to explore similar questions in comparable agrifood systems.


Agriculture Agrifood activism California Japan Multi-functionality Rice 



I would like to thank Jill Harrison, Steven Wolf, two anonymous reviewers, and Harvey James, for helpful comments on earlier drafts, and Kaden Koffler and Tim Krupnik for sustained rice conversations. The usual disclaimers apply.


  1. Buttel, F. 2003. The global politics of GEOs: The Achilles’ heel of the globalization regime? In Engineering trouble: Biotechnology and its discontents, ed. R. Schurman and D. Kelso, 152–173. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buttel, F., and H. Newby. 1980. Toward a critical rural sociology. In The rural sociology of the advanced societies: Critical perspectives, ed. F. Buttel and H. Newby, 1–35. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmum, and Co.Google Scholar
  3. Economic Research Service. 2001. Briefing room: Rice background. U.S Department of Agriculture, Accessed 20 Dec 2004.
  4. Environmental Working Group. 2006. Farm subsidy database. Accessed 10 July 2006.
  5. Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hinrichs, C.C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (3): 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kloppenburg, J. 2004. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Pudup, M., and M. Watts. 1987. Growing against the grain: Mechanized rice farming in the Sacramento Valley, California. In Comparative farming systems, ed. B. Turner and S. Brush, 345–384. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Vos, T. 2000. Visions of the middle landscape: Organic farming and the politics of nature. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Warner, K. 2007. Agroecology in action: Extending alternative agriculture through social networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations