Private standards, grower networks, and power in a food supply system
- 843 Downloads
The role of private food standards in agriculture is increasingly raising questions of legitimacy, particularly in light of the impacts such standards may have on food producers. While much work has been carried out at a macro policy level for developing countries, there have been relatively few empirical case studies that focus on particular food supply chains, and even fewer studies still of the impact of private standards on developed countries such as Australia. This study seeks to address this imbalance, with a particular focus on examining the impact of private standards on an Australian vegetable supply food system in North Tasmania as well as tracing the impact of perceived and actual power relations among actors. Applying a governance framework and adopting a Foucauldian position we show that private standards are a “technology of power” that have risen out of a crisis discourse in the mid-1990s about on-farm food safety. Private standards have the effect of using knowledge from particular actors to establish truths about good agricultural practice (GAP), however we show that Tasmanian vegetable growers are not docile bodies and are employing alternative knowledge and technologies of power to challenge how GAP is implemented on-farm.
KeywordsPrivate standards Legitimacy Grower experiences Governance Foucault
Global good agricultural practice standard
Many thanks must go to the Tasmanian growers, processors, packers, chemical and fertilizer suppliers, extension agents and consultants who gave generously of their time, experience, and expertise. We thank also the reviewers of this article who made valuable comments. This project was supported with funding from the Australian Research Council (Project No. DP988895).
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2006. Australian Census 2006: Burnie-Devonport Region. 2006. Australian Government. http://www.abs.gov.au. Accessed 29 Nov 2010.
- Barndt, D. 1997. Bio/cultural diversity and equity in post-NAFTA Mexico (Or: Tomasita comes North while Big Mac goes South). In Global justice, global democracy, ed. J. Drydyk, and P. Penz, 55–69. Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar
- Campbell, H. 2005. The rise and rise of EurepGAP: European (re)invention of colonial food relations? International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 13(2): 1–19.Google Scholar
- Danaher, G., T. Schirato, and J. Webb. 2000. Understanding Foucault. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
- Eckersley, N. 2011. Coles and Woolies in false fruit labelling pickle. Australian Food News, May. http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2011/05/13/coles-and-woolies-in-false-fruit-labelling-pickle.html. Accessed 1 Sep 2012.
- Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. In ed, Gordon, C. New York: Pantheon Press.Google Scholar
- FSANZ. 2011. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/. Accessed 9 Jan 2011.
- GlobalGAP. 2010. GLOBALG.A.P. http://www.globalgap.org/cms/front_content.php?idcat=9. Accessed 1 Dec 2010.
- Henson, S. 2011. Private agrifood governance: Conclusions, observations, and provocations. Agriculture and Human Values 28(3): 443–451. doi: 10.1007/s10460-011-9309-y.
- Higgins, V., and G. Lawrence. eds. 2005. Introduction: Globalization and agricultural governance. In Agricultural governance: Globalization and the new politics of regulation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lee, G.C.-H. 2006. Private food standards and their impacts on developing countries. Stagiaire: European Commission, DG Trade Unit G2.Google Scholar
- Lockie, S., and J. Pietsch. 2012. Public opinion on food security. In Unpublished report. Canberra: Australian National University, College of Arts and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. 2009. Social network analysis. A handbook. 2/e. London: SAGE.Google Scholar