Introduction

In today’s Western society, there has been a notable surge in animal consumption for food, leading to heightened exploitation of both animals and the environment (Hansen & Syse, 2021). Sweden mirrors this trend, with an increase in beef and dairy consumption throughout the 20th century (Jordbruksverket, 2022; Jönsson, 2005). Across cultures and historical periods, the animals humans consume vary. Social psychologist Joy (2010) coined the term “carnism” to describe the categorization of certain animals, like cattle, as food. Carnism represents an invisible yet dominant ideology that conditions individuals to consume certain animals based on the belief that doing so is normal, natural, and necessary. Carnism as a concept challenges the notion that food production involving animals is an inherent natural law, highlighting instead its social and cultural construct. The categorization of animals as food is determined by social processes that influence norms and attitudes towards the animals in question (Joy, 2010; Stewart & Cole, 2014; Göransson, 2017). In Sweden, carnism plays a central role in food culture and has contributed to the challenges posed by climate change and biodiversity loss (IPBES, 2019; Willett et al., 2019). Notably, cattle production significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, primarily in the form of methane gases (Searchinger et al., 2018; Clark & Tilman, 2017). These adverse environmental effects have prompted debates over cow consumption in Sweden (Lundell, 2023). Beef and dairy consumption is a contentious issue in Sweden within the context of sustainable food production, where prevailing carnistic norms are challenged.

One arena where the conflict between cattle production and sustainability becomes particularly visible is in the context of Swedish organic farming, where cattle play a prominent role. In Sweden, organic certifications offer more sustainable alternatives for consuming cow’s milk and meat. How carnistic norms persists, despite meat and dairy productions’ environmental impact, are prominent in organic cattle production. Joy (2010) emphasizes carnism as something primarily manifested in individuals’ dietary habits and consumer attitudes towards the animals being consumed. Other research underscores that carnism extends beyond mere consumption; it is embedded in production processes and institutions, shaping consumer choices (Hirth, 2019; Göransson, 2017; Gålmark, 2005). Carnism is not a natural starting point but rather something that becomes normalized through institutions, infrastructures, and discourses. From this perspective, carnism also reflects deeper power relations in society. Anthroparchy, as described by Cudworth (2011), refers to power structures between humans and animals. It is a social system of human dominance and hierarchies in relation to nature and other animals that privileges humans. Anthroparchy encompasses how human-animal relationships are shaped by the needs, interests, and desires of humans. These power relations between humans and animals are context-bound and can express themselves in different ways.

This study delves deeper into understanding how carnism and anthroparchy express itself within the context of organic production and institutions, focusing on its systemic manifestations rather than on consumer attitudes towards animal consumption. Despite debates on food and sustainability, there’s little attention to the animals themselves, who often become invisible in discussions on sustainable food production (Arcari, 2017). This invisibility contributes to the detachment of meat consumers from the animals they consume. Adams (2010) describes how animals have been fading from public consciousness in the modern era, becoming absent referents as the act of consuming meat is increasingly disconnected from the animal it once was. Agricultural animals are frequently reduced to mere objects, stripped of their individuality (Stewart & Cole, 2014; Schlemmer et al., 2018; Bos et al., 2018). Conversely, other research indicates a shift in the discourse and advertising of meat and dairy, where animals are portrayed as visible subjects (Cole, 2011; Linné, 2016). These contradictory research results reflect a deeper contradiction in contemporary society where animals in the food industry are simultaneously positioned as both objects and subjects (Stewart & Cole, 2014).

This article focuses on how Swedish organic organizations construct sustainability in relation to cattle, in order to address current critical debates surrounding the sustainability of red meat and dairy production. The aim is to examine how the organic organizations’ knowledge production of sustainability is intertwined with anthroparchy, i.e. power relations between humans and cattle. Furthermore, the study aims to explore how the organizations portray cattle’s agencies and bodies. Previous studies have emphasized animals in food production as subjects with agency, at the same time as they are positioned as objects. This study will explore this contradiction of “food” animals as subjects/objects further by studying the organic context where cattle’s agency in transforming nature is at the forefront.

The analytical framework employed in this study centers on the interplay between knowledge and power (Foucault, 1980). The framework used focuses on how knowledge is entangled with power relations (Foucault, 1980), by analyzing how the knowledge production of these organizations contributes to the reproduction of power relations between humans and cattle. The study adopts a critical animal studies approach, which critically examines the power relations between humans and animals and entails a position that takes a normative stance against the exploitation of animals (Taylor & Twine, 2014). This approach also entails an exploration of the implications and consequences that human actions have on cattle. Animals are embodied subjects whose ability to act is influenced by the power structures in which they are situated (Carter & Charles, 2013). Yet, they also have the capacity to influence the social processes of which they are a part.

This study contribute knowledge to how carnism and the anthroparchy is reinforced, when the consumption of cattle’s meat and dairy faces challenges in contemporary sustainability debates. A disconnect exists between environmental studies and critical animal studies (Twine, 2020; Pilgrim, 2019), despite animals holding a central role in sustainable food production. This study serves as a bridge, uniting these perspectives and advancing our understanding of how concealed power relations influence sustainability practices within organic production. Furthermore, it provides insights into how anthroparchy is reinforced and the barriers hindering the reduction of meat and dairy consumption, a step deemed crucial for achieving climate and environmental objectives (Scarborough et al., 2023; IPCC, 2019; Willett et al., 2019).

Previous Research on Animals in food Production

Cattle’s dairy and meat hold a significant status in Swedish society, both historically and in the contemporary context. Cows’ milk played a crucial role in the modernization and construction of the Swedish welfare state throughout the 20th century, symbolizing progress and rationality (Jönsson, 2005). Göransson (2017) studies the communication of Swedish industry organizations that portray Swedish meat and dairy productions as compassionate and benevolent. Certifications, such as ‘from Sweden,’ are associated with open landscapes, animal welfare, and biological diversity.

Much of the previous research in critical animal studies has focused on human representations of animals in meat and dairy production. An increasing amount of research in animal studies has shifted its focus to the agency of animals, rather than viewing them solely as social representations (Carter & Charles, 2013). Carter and Charles (2013) reject the understanding of animals as passive, instead examining animals as active agents who shape relationships and act based on their own interests. Other researchers have questioned how disruptive the notion of animal agency truly is.

Studies have shown how the meat and dairy industries themselves use animal agency and subjectivity in their marketing (Cole, 2011; Linné, 2016). In a study of the Swedish dairy industry’s marketing, depictions of happy meat and cheerful cows are described, highlighting the subjective experiences and emotional lives of cows (Linné, 2016). Cole (2011) examines international meat production marketed as ethical, recognizing animals as sentient beings with expressions of care. These productions seem to challenge the norms within animal industries but simultaneously uphold and mask exploitation. One way of understanding the contradiction of ‘food’ animals as both objects and subjects is by examining how objectification can manifest itself in various ways.

Schlemmer et al. (2018) describes four different forms of objectification of animals: denial of being as an end in itself, denial of preference autonomy, denial of individuality, and denial of sentience. Denial of being as an end in itself refers to making animals instruments for a purpose. Denial of acting according to preferences means denying animals the ability to act to achieve or fulfill their own preferences, for example, in environments where animals are under-stimulated and have limited opportunities for movement. Denial of individuality means that animals are interchangeable and de-individualized. This homogenizes animals by reducing differences, as they are not seen as subjects with their own stories or part of unique networks of relationships. Denial of sentience involves denying animals the capacity for subjectivity and subjective experiences. How do these tensions between ‘food’ animals as subjects/objects express themselves in environmental studies on food production?

Animals’ Invisibility in Environmental Studies

Previous studies point to the historical invisibility of animals in environmental science and sociological studies on the environment and climate (Twine, 2020). In a review of key texts in climate sociology, it is demonstrated that animals and perspectives on human-animal relationships are consistently excluded from climate sociological research (ibid.). Fernández (2019) has examined the historical invisibility of farm animals in debates and campaigns on climate change. Previous studies have described how farm animals are rendered invisible in policy documents on climate and sustainability in food production (Arcari, 2017). Animals are portrayed as natural resources for humans based on assumptions about the necessity of consuming animals. Climate change studies tend not to take into account an animal rights perspective and fail to present solutions that match the problem of animal-based diets (Almiron & Tafalla, 2019).

Hirth (2019) has studied how carnism and veganism, as consumption identities, individualize and depoliticize sustainable food practices. Animals remain downplayed and invisible in the study as environmental issues are emphasized as more urgent. One of the few who has combined an animal perspective with environmental concerns is Pilgrim (2019), who examines perceptions of sustainable meat and proposes new narratives about sustainable food that challenge the consumption of animals. This study will be a part of filling the gap between environmental studies and critical animal studies.

Methods

The study adopts a qualitative methodology, with a dataset including interviews, documents, and media materials sourced from Swedish organic organizations. In line with research ethics, the investigation aligns with the guidelines set forth by the Swedish Research Council (2018).

The sample encompasses four organizations, each of which is actively involved in various aspects of the organic sector. These organizations engage in organic certifications, advocate for market and policymaker engagement, and manage the marketing of organic products. One of the featured organizations is KRAV, which administers the largest Swedish organic certification for food production, known as the KRAV label. Another participating organization is Ekologiska lantbrukarna, an advocacy organization representing Swedish farmers involved in certified organic production. Their work revolves around market development, policy advocacy, and regulatory matters. For anonymization purposes, the names of the remaining two organizations are not mentioned. Few individuals within the two remaining organizations work with organic production, and therefore run the risk of being recognized.

Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals employed by or affiliated with the selected organizations, who work with organic meat and dairy production in Sweden. These interviewees held diverse roles, encompassing responsibilities related to regulations, communication, issues concerning organic producers, development of organic products, and political advocacy. Six men and six women were interviewed, they displayed variation in terms of age, years of experience, and job titles, with a majority possessing higher education degrees, often in agriculture, and some holding PhD qualifications. In the interviews, I asked questions about the respondents’ work or assignments, as well as their personal thoughts about cattle. The interview duration ranged between 70 and 140 min, with eight interviews conducted digitally, two conducted in-person, and two carried out over the phone. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for analysis.

In addition to the interviews, the study encompassed other forms of collected materials, including the organizations’ internal documents, which comprised regulations, consultations, and reports. Furthermore, media materials were included in the research, consisting of content from the organizations’ websites, selected materials from social media, informational brochures, campaigns, opinion articles, and member magazines from one of the organizations. During data assessment, relevance was a key criterion, particularly the inclusion of cattle-related issues.

The relationship between different sources, such as documents, interviews, and communication, was considered as complementary components of the same process. Texts are shaped in response to actions and in dialogue with other texts. Regulatory reviews, for instance, were documents created in response to Krav’s regulations, with the regulations themselves serving as marketing tool on social media. There was no distinction made between different types of empirical data like media material, documents, and interviews. Instead, these sources were interwoven thematically during the analysis phase.

The study adopted a Foucauldian-inspired discourse analysis approach, focusing on deconstructing categories and exploring how power relations are perpetuated (Foucault, 1980). Throughout the analysis, the aim was to unveil hidden assumptions, discerning them through the silences within the data and the issues that were not explicitly problematized. The analysis has also entailed examining the subject positions assigned to cattle, and by extension, humans. Specifically, it explores how non-human and human actors are situated as either responsible or as initiators of problems in relation to sustainability.

Analysis

The climate impact of livestock production has become a pressing concern, raising questions about the sustainability of beef and dairy farming in contemporary discussions. In the empirical data, the organic organizations view these debates as a potential threat to the organic animal farming industry. This concern is amplified as an increasing number of environmentally conscious consumers opt for vegetarian and vegan alternatives. The organizations are promoting strategies and narratives that emphasize the crucial role of ruminant animals, such as cattle, within organic farming. In the subsequent analysis, I delve into how these organizations are reshaping the significance of cattle from an environmental perspective. I begin with highlighting how the organizations have positioned cows at the heart of sustainable food production in the organic sector, making them both the central subject and object of this endeavor. Subsequently, I explore how these organizations produce knowledge of a sustainable carnism. This begins with the portrayal of pastoral landscapes with grazing cattle as natural and ecologically harmonious. This is followed by a relative sustainability approach, that contrasts organic animal feed to worse alternatives. Concluding the analysis, I illustrate how these organizations creates truths in which animal production is deemed necessary for the growth of organic food.

Cows as Subjects and Objects of a Sustainable food Production

Cattle’s subjectivities are made central to restore the legitimacy of beef and dairy production. Cows are depicted as environmental heroes in external communications, as exemplified on the Krav website (Krav, 2020a):

COWS ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTAL VILLAINS The greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural animals primarily come from cattle (dairy cows and beef cattle). But it is wrong to portray cows as “environmental villains.” Dairy cows and beef cattle play an important role in the cycle on a Krav-certified farm. Their manure provides good yields without imported synthetic fertilizers produced with fossil energy. The cultivation of grass and clover for the cows’ feed on pastures can sequester carbon dioxide.

The organizations depict cows as environmental caretakers of the organic farm, moving away from the characterization of them as “villains”. They underscore the indispensable role of grazing animals in sustainable production, emphasizing their contribution through manure as a nutrient supply and the positive impact of pastures on carbon sequestration. The organizations turn cattle into co-creators of organic farming systems, as cows’ bodily agency is presented as essential for a sustainable agriculture.

What is considered sustainable is determined by the meaning actors give it (Boström & Davidson, 2018). The transformation of cows into environmental heroes is achieved by downplaying certain negative aspects of livestock production, like methane emissions, which are acknowledged but minimized in external communication. The focus is placed on specific environmental factors, such as manure management and pastures, while other potential environmental impacts are downplayed. By aligning sustainability with particular environmental values and not others, the organizations solidify the meaning of sustainability, making the central role of cows evident.

The elevated status of cows is indicative of their representation as active agents actively co-creating a sustainable agriculture. In the subsequent sections, I will provide a more in-depth analysis of how cows’ subjectivities are presented. As part of Krav’s campaign, “Cows in the Cycle,” a video titled “The Role of Cows in a Krav-Certified Cycle” (Krav, 2020b) was published on YouTube. The following excerpt includes a partial transcript of the human narrator’s voice from the video:

This is Rosa. Rosa lives a simple life on a Krav-certified farm. She wakes up at 5:00 every day, …, and has breakfast mainly grown on the farm without any chemical pesticides. All Rosa wants is to eat her food and enjoy a peaceful day’s work in the pasture. Today, Rosa has been labeled an environmental villain, but she has no intention of destroying the environment. … But of course, there’s a difference between one cow and another.… As a Krav-labeled cow, Rosa should graze a lot for a long time. In fact, more than other cows, which obviously benefits her well-being. What she eats the most is called forage. That is, grass and clover that grow in the farm’s fields. … The pasture has the fantastic ability to capture carbon dioxide from the air and store it. … Rosa, the so-called environmental villain, is thus working as one of nature’s own air filters… No, Rosa doesn’t quite understand. But that’s okay. And yes, Rosa burps and passes gas. But as long as she is Krav-labeled, she contributes to incredible benefits that animals, nature, and humans need.

The narrator in the video clip emphasis the subjectivity of the cow named Rosa. By bestowing a name upon Rosa, the video personifies her, seemingly challenging the prevailing objectification form in the food industry of rendering animals as nameless objects (Schlemmer et al., 2018; Bos et al., 2018; Adams, 2010). This personification of Rosa, however, also carries a humorous undertone, as the narrator suggests that Rosa’s primary desire is to graze in the pasture. The video does not mention research demonstrating cows’ social relationships and their capacity for more complex communication related to their well-being (Green et al., 2019). In this way, the film homogenizes the subjectivity of cows to certain common physiological behaviors, like grazing, which rather reinforces deindividualization as a form of objectification. The portrayal reflects humanistic ideas that strip animals of their complexity and reduce them to mere instinct and reactivity (Taylor, 2012), reproducing the otherness of cows. These depictions of cows’ subjectivities also reinforce power relations in other ways.

In both Krav’s video clip and other parts of the empirical data, cows are portrayed as active contributors to the food production process, rather than mere objects of production. Attributing agency to cattle, whether as environmental heroes or villains, can function as a strategy to divert attention from human responsibility for environmental issues, effectively concealing human actors within the realms of breeding and consuming cows. This approach shifts the conversation away from criticism directed at the industry itself and toward a supposed conflict between vegans/vegetarians and cows. The critique of the dairy and meat industry is framed as a condemnation of cows’ existence, and therefore irrational. Furthermore, it’s implicitly assumed that cows, and not other animals, should be consumed.

The categorization of cattle as food can be exemplified by comparing them to horses, a reflection made by one of the interviewees:

I would also like to emphasize biodiversity, that in order to have good crop cultivation without all the pesticides, we need to have grass; otherwise, there will be weeds in the fields. And that’s why grass is important; we can’t eat grass, but cows can eat grass and produce food, both in the form of dairy products and meat. And if we want to maintain all our pasturelands, which are a tremendous resource we have in Sweden, then we need cows. We can’t have horses on every pasture… they don’t produce much, horses. They produce joy.

Similar to cattle, horses possess the ability to consume items not fit for human consumption, contribute to biodiversity, and thrive on natural pastures. However, horses are not exclusively categorized as “food animals”; they can be viewed and utilized in various other roles, such as for companionship or sports. This differentiation underscores the concept of carnism (Joy, 2010) and highlights the societal norms that dictate which animals are designated as food sources. Previous studies have elucidated how animals are categorized based on human use, creating a hierarchy in which certain species enjoy privileges over others, with companion animals often receiving preference over livestock (Stewart & Cole, 2014).

An illustrative statement by the interviewee suggests that horses cannot occupy all available land because they do not produce sustenance but instead bring “joy” to human lives. In contrast, cows are slotted into a utilitarian mold, with their bodies and milk categorized as food. Within the empirical data, cattle are consistently essentialized as intended for human consumption, perpetuating the objectification of cows as bodies valued primarily for human utilization (Schlemmer et al., 2018). Idealizing cattle as environmental heroes, inadvertently reinforces their subjugation as mere objects for consumption.

To summarize, the organizations place cattle’s subjectivities at the forefront of their sustainability constructions, transforming cows into environmental heroes and emphasizing their role as co-creators of specific pastoral landscapes. I will delve into the process by which the organic organizations construct landscapes featuring grazing cattle as “natural.”

Constructions of “natural” Pasturelands

The organizations connect cattle to shaping specific landscapes in Sweden, which are portrayed as natural spaces. These natural landscapes with grazing cattle serve as a contrast to veganism, which is linked with industrialized environments, as one interviewee from a small organic organization reflects:

Fully embracing veganism means getting married to chemical agriculture. It’s inevitable, and for me, it’s unacceptable. … It promotes an industrial perspective. I don’t think you get better food by fragmenting corn, rice, and putting it together into a bar that a vegan can buy with a clear conscience because no animals were harmed. … I don’t think food should be produced in factories. … I believe that if veganism is fully realized, it means a lot of food will have to be manufactured in factories.

The interviewee legitimizes cattle production by portraying pastoral landscapes with grazing animals as natural spaces. This statement associates animal-free agriculture with factory environments, positioning factories in opposition to the idyllic scenes of natural landscapes with grazing animals. The interviewee underscores carnism as being intrinsic to nature by associating veganism with chemical agriculture and processed products, which are perceived as unnatural. Similar notions regarding cattle production being inherently natural and linked to specific natural landscapes are evident in other interviews and data materials analyzed in this study. The research highlighting the significance of plant-based diets for biodiversity (IPBES, 2019; Clark & Tilman, 2017) remains absent from this discussion.

The portrayal of landscapes with farm animals as natural can be linked to prior studies demonstrating how locally produced meat is often viewed as environmentally friendly and romanticized as embodying an “Edenic purity” (Stanescu, 2019). These same romanticized perceptions of animal agriculture are also prevalent in the Swedish organic context. The idea of consuming animals as natural conceals many aspects of the domestication process (Volden & Wethal, 2021). Practices such as breeding, industrial farming, and the intrusion on wildlife habitats can just as well be imbued with connotations of “unnatural.”

Another interviewee from Ekologiska lantbrukarna also highlights the perceived significance of grazing cows in shaping specific environments:

In addition, the cows also graze, creating an incredible amount of biodiversity. It’s really the grazing land you see around you when you walk in these environments, and it’s entirely created by the cows and humans keeping animals. So that’s an example of why we should have cows.

The interviewee emphasizes the role of cattle consumption in the preservation of specific natural environments in Sweden, a statement that recurs in other interviews and data materials analyzed in this study. Philo and Wilbert (2005) describe how animals are categorized based on notions of species and their usefulness, where animals come into being in certain territories or places. Cattle, in this context, are intertwined with specific places, most notably pastoral landscapes that shape what is perceived as Swedish nature.

The organizations paint a picture where livestock production primarily serves the goals of biodiversity and the preservation of pastoral landscapes, while meat and milk are positioned as by-products, instead of the other way around. These “natural spaces” featuring grazing cattle are environments ultimately designed for human food production, often at the detriment of other wild species. Notably, cattle production results in significantly higher land use when compared to plant-based food alternatives (Springmann et al., 2018). Donoso (2023) contends that the occupation of ecological space can be perceived as a form of climate injustice imposed upon wild species. The connection established between cattle consumption and certain forms of grassland is maintained through a silence regarding alternative approaches. Research indicates that wild animals and horses can contribute to biodiversity in Swedish natural grazing areas (Garrido et al., 2019), while others explore methods to conserve specific grasslands without necessitating animal harm (Mann, 2020). The outcome of not utilizing farm animals for grazing depends on the specific land in question; some areas can be repurposed into alternative forms of nature within rewilding projects, such as forests for wild species to thrive.

I have outlined how organizations construct sustainability by positioning cattle as active contributors to pastoral landscapes, which are portrayed as natural, thus downplaying the consequences for ecosystems and wildlife when land is occupied for human food production. The organizations emphasize specific spaces like Swedish natural grazing areas while minimizing the transformative effects of organic cattle production on nature in other contexts. Swedish organic cattle production transforms land far beyond Sweden through the cultivation of animal feed.

Relative Sustainability and Organic Animal feed

In this section, I discuss what is included and omitted in the organizations’ construction of sustainability in food production. Notably, a substantial portion of arable land is allocated to the cultivation of animal feed, a practice which researchers highlights as environmentally problematic due to its significant land use (IPBES, 2019; Springmann et al., 2018).

To frame organic animal feed as a sustainable choice, organizations imbue it with specific connotations such as being locally sourced, adhering to organic principles, and containing a substantial proportion of roughage – a type of feed deemed unsuitable for human consumption (Krav, 2019a). However, this meaning of sustainable animal feed excludes any mention of the proportion of feed that falls outside these principles. Soy is a common ingredient in the feed for Swedish organic dairy cows. These dairy cows, bred for maximum profit and high milk production, can produce over 50 L of milk per day (Jensen, 2018), necessitating energy-rich components like soy in their diet. The use of soy in animal feed has raised concerns and discussions among consumers, particularly on social media platforms. A response to a question posed on the KRAV (2019b) consumer forum about soy-based feed exemplifies this:

KRAV does not have any rules regarding the amount of soy that can be included in concentrated feed … As for the countries from which soy is imported, the two largest feed companies in Sweden, …, import KRAV-certified soy from China and Kazakhstan - not from Brazil. … Dairy cows require high-quality protein to thrive and produce milk. Soy contains such protein. … A small amount of organic soy may be included in the feed for high-yielding cows. The soy used in KRAV-certified animal husbandry does not come from areas where deforestation occurs.

Consumers are raising critical questions regarding the practice of feeding organic dairy cows with soy-based feed. In response, Krav positions organic dairy as a superior alternative to its conventional counterpart, emphasizing the advantages of organic milk’s production, regulated to prevent deforestation and cultivation in ecologically sensitive areas. This approach, wherein organic cattle production is framed as sustainable by contrasting it with a less eco-friendly option, is reflective of a concept known as relative sustainability (Hirth, 2019). Organic feed practices are deemed superior to conventional methods and are, consequently, presented as sustainable.

An illustrative instance of relative sustainability lies in the preference for organically certified soy sourced from various regions in Europe and China over non-organic soy from Brazil. However, this practice still entails resource and land use inefficiencies, as it diverts crops that could be directly consumed by humans through livestock. This echoes previous research indicating that anything even slightly better than conventional production is often labeled as sustainable, rather than scrutinizing the criteria for sustainable production in more absolute terms (Hirth, 2019). Organic animal feed regulations, when applied on a large scale, is still falling short of meeting climate and environmental goals.

To summarize, the organizations make organic livestock feed relatively sustainable by comparing it to less sustainable alternatives. Within the organizational context, the potential for organic food production without animals is disregarded. In the next subsection, I will delve into the exclusions that underpin the perception of cattle as essential for organic food production.

Necessary Animal Production: Exclusions of Alternatives

I will examine how the organizations create truths that positions animals as necessary in organic food production while simultaneously omitting considerations of alternative approaches. One interviewee from Krav describes:

We need to have livestock, everything is interconnected. You can’t have crop cultivation without animals, and you can’t have animals without crop cultivation.

Throughout the empirical material of this study, the organizations emphasize the interdependence of livestock production and plant cultivation, portraying them as mutually essential components of organic agriculture. To further underscore this perspective, one of the interviewees from Krav describe the pivotal role of animal production within the broader context of organic farming:

But what I find interesting is how important animal production is for organic production. It’s like people think that I’m doing organic, vegetarian organic. That this organic product, whether it’s a vegetable or any other plant-based food, is usually completely dependent on the existence of animal production elsewhere to obtain plant nutrients. So, we must not lose sight of how agricultural production actually works and how important animal production is in our part of the world.

Swedish organic farming is described as reliant on animal production for nutrient supply, even for plant-based crops. The knowledge surrounding Swedish organic farming has evolved within specific socio-historical contexts where cattle and animal products hold a significant role. Consequently, the norms associated with carnism exert an influence on organic farming practices and knowledge, particularly in the use of animal manure and bone meal as essential sources of nutrients.

However, these notions of animals being indispensable in organic production are reinforced through the deliberate exclusion of alternative perspectives on what organic certifications can encompass. Notably, there exists an official organic certification known as the “biocyclic vegan standard,” which aligns with organic principles but eliminates the use of animal-derived sources. This certification is a recognized part of IFOAM (2020), an international umbrella organization for organic farming, and has held this status since 2017, becoming one of three globally acknowledged organic standards. The biocyclic vegan standard adheres to all the requisites of organic farming, in addition to two supplementary criteria: the utilization of plant-based compost for soil enrichment and the establishment of a farm’s biological diversity, scoring a minimum of six out of ten points on the “Biocyclic Operation Index” (The Biocyclic Vegan Standard, 2020). In production systems certified with the organic biocyclic vegan standard, the conventional reliance on animal manure, bone meal, and other animal sources for nutrient supply is bypassed. Instead, these systems emphasize the use of plants, composting, and humus-rich soil to meet their nutrient requirements.

Within the collected empirical data, there is a silence regarding animal-free organic certifications. The Swedish organizations involved do not engage with the diverse meanings and possibilities encapsulated within the term “organic.” Consequently, the entrenched norms of carnism serve to delimit the spectrum of conceivable approaches to organic food production, consequently shaping how the role of cattle in this context is perceived.

What remains obscured in the organizations’ discourse on sustainability is the inherent paradox that sustainable food production necessitates both an increase in organic farming and a reduction in meat production. The organic farming model itself heavily relies on the use of animal manure and by-products from animal production. These contradictions manifest in the organizations’ framing of organic animal husbandry as a solution to the issues associated with conventional production, while simultaneously advocating for a reduction in overall animal production. These inconsistencies reveal what is included within the concept of organic production as a solution to environmental challenges within food production, and what remains unexamined and unproblematic. The organic organizations thus lack a comprehensive approach for making the entire agricultural sector more sustainable in the future.

Discussion

Consuming cattle is undermined in current debates due to concerns over the emissions of methane gases and the extensive resource usage associated with their production (Springmann et al., 2018; Searchinger et al., 2018). In the organic organizations, the climate debate is perceived as a threat, as more environmentally-conscious consumers are reducing their intake of meat and dairy products. In response to this critique, the organizations are working to rebrand cattle as environmental heroes. The organic sector aims to reshape the public perception of cattle, highlighting their vital role in sustainable food production by emphasizing specific environmental benefits. These include the promotion of circularity, the value of animal manure, and the preservation of certain pastoral landscapes, idealized as natural, while downplaying other aspects like the high land use and climate impact associated with cattle production. In the process of portraying cattle as environmental heroes, some environmental concerns are given prominence, while others are overlooked. For instance, the romanticized image of cattle grazing on pasture land is presented as creating natural spaces, obscuring the negative impact of their high land use on biodiversity.

The foundation of the organizations’ approach to sustainability is rooted in what is known as carnism (Joy, 2010), a normative system that categorizes cattle as food. In the context of the organic food sector, sustainability knowledge is framed within the context of this carnistic norm, where animal production is considered a necessary component, and cattle are primarily seen as resources for human consumption. The organizations reinforce the notion that animals are necessary for organic farming practices, like the utilization of manure and bone meal. However, this viewpoint is challenged by practical examples of farms adhering to organic principles that do not rely on either manure or artificial fertilizers (IFOAM, 2020).

Prior research characterizes animals in food production as objectified and absent referents, emphasizing the disconnection between the living animal and the meat consumed (Adams, 2010; Bos et al., 2018; Schlemmer et al., 2018). Other studies show how animals are made invisible in policies related to sustainable food production (Arcari, 2017). However, in the context of organic organizations’ sustainability discourse, cows are brought into the spotlight as active participants and central figures in food production. This portrayal assigns cows agency, but this emphasis on cows as actors can obscure the role of human actors in the industry. As the organizations depict cows as environmental heroes, they mystify certain practices in meat and milk production and avoid attributing blame to humans.

By presenting cows as subjects actively contributing to sustainability, organic organizations ultimately aim to legitimize the use of cows as objects for human consumption. The result can be linked to previous research on various forms of animal objectification (Schlemmer et al., 2018): denial of being as an end in itself, denial of preference autonomy, denial of individuality, and denial of sentience. In organic production, objectification is challenged by acknowledging animals’ consciousness and ability to feel. However, animals are objectified through the denial of being as an end in itself, reducing them to instruments for human consumption. The ways in which animals are attributed consciousness are significant. The subjectivities of cows are portrayed as simple and instinct-driven, emphasizing commonalities such as grazing. What is not emphasized is the uniqueness of each animal as a subject with its own biography and relationships with other beings. The forms of subjectification that are highlighted simultaneously contribute to another form of objectification by homogenizing cattle into a category that reduces differences between individuals. The subjectivities of cows are ‘othered,’ depicting them as distinctly animalistic and separate from humanity. The contradictions highlighted in previous studies, where animals in the food industry are positioned as both subjects and objects, can be understood as intertwined. Cattle are attributed subjectivity only to be transformed into objects for consumption.

Anthroparchy, a system of human dominance over animals, is legitimized and modified in the Swedish organic context through sustainability discourses that assign subjectivities to cows. This aligns with other research that highlights how the acknowledgment of animal subjectivity can be used to perpetuate dominant power relations (Cole, 2011; Linné, 2016), and how narratives surrounding sustainable meat continue to position animals as commodities within a capitalist system (Pilgrim, 2019). Categorizing cows as food commodities has significant consequences for these animals. Dairy cows, whose milk is intended for human consumption, experience a cycle of insemination, calving, and immediate separation from their calves after birth. Research indicates that these early separations have adverse effects on both the calves and the cows (Wagner et al., 2015). Furthermore, they are selectively bred for high milk yields, which often results in health issues, and they are killed at a young age when they are no longer considered profitable (Jensen, 2018).

The Swedish organic food sector approaches the issue by reframing it as a question of how cattle production can be conducted more sustainably, rather than addressing beef and dairy production itself as inherently problematic. The sustainability narratives in the meat industry, as pointed out by Pilgrim (2019), tend to overlook a critical fact - it is virtually impossible to maintain current levels of meat production in an environmentally sustainable manner (IPCC, 2019; Willett et al., 2019; Springmann et al., 2018; IPBES, 2019). In the realm of organic organizations, there are similar contradictions. The organizations acknowledge the environmental issues associated with high meat and dairy consumption, while simultaneously emphasizing the pivotal role of animals in sustainable food production. The Swedish organic food sector lacks a comprehensive understanding of how agriculture, on a larger scale, can transition towards more sustainable practices, such as integrating specific organic principles with reduced animal production. Instead, what emerges is a concept of relative sustainability (Hirth, 2019), wherein any practices deemed more environmentally friendly than conventional production is classified as sustainable. Within the organic context, practices related to animal feed and manure serve to legitimize the consumption of beef and dairy and uphold anthroparchy, rather than providing genuine solutions for environmental preservation. As noted by Almiron and Tafalla (2019), ideologies of power between humans and animals hinder the necessary change in addressing the climate crisis.

Conclusion

This study sheds light on the underlying influence of carnistic norms and anthroparchal structures in the policies and practices of organic agriculture, hindering the development of a more sustainable food production system and the forming of a less exploitative relationship with animals. The study emphasizes the importance of challenging carnism and anthroparchy not only in consumption practices but also in production relations. The context of Swedish organic food production operates within a political framework, both at the national level and through EU regulations, which subsidizes meat and dairy production (European Commission, 2020). Establishing governance that supports sustainable agriculture, and reduced meat and dairy consumption, is vital.

This study bridges a gap between environmental studies in agriculture and the field of critical animal studies. It investigates how the formation of sustainability knowledge within organic food production is intertwined with power relations between humans and animals. Previous research has often examined perspectives on sustainable agriculture and power relations between humans and animals in food production separately. However, the exploitation of the environment and animals is not isolated but deeply interconnected with each other. The utilization of animals for food is a significant contributor to the causes of climate change and mass extinction (IPCC, 2019; IPBES, 2019). These issues share common underlying principles rooted in the system of anthroparchy, where humans are positioned at the center, while non-human entities are reduced to mere resources for human consumption. Addressing the environmental challenges in agriculture necessitates a fundamental reevaluation of the prevailing anthroparchal norms that dictate human relationships with the non-human world. Reimagining the role of cattle, viewing them as more than resources for human exploitation, is a vital component of envisioning a sustainable future.