Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Alternative modes of governance: organic as civic engagement

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A major strategy in the creation of sustainable economies is the establishment of alternative market institutions, such as fair trade and local market systems. However, the dynamics of these alternative markets are poorly understood. What are the rules of behavior by which these markets function? How do these markets maintain their separate identity as “alternative”: apart from the conventional (“free”) market system? Building on Lyson’s notion of civic agriculture, we argue that alternative markets maintain themselves through civic engagement. However, we argue that the civically-engaged practices of alternative markets are poorly understood. We seek, therefore, to begin a conversation about the everyday forms of civic engagement in alternative practice and to do this we introduce a few useful conceptual tools. Building upon ideas in science studies about the collaboration of scientists (Hess, Alternative pathways in science and industry, 2007) we argue that civic markets have their own “market fields” and “modes of governance” (Bulkeley et al., Environment and Planning A 39:2733–2753, 2007), their own fields of social interaction in which rules of behavior become stabilized and determine how the market works. The creation of a social field also requires the demarcation of boundaries, referred to in the science studies literature as “boundary work” (Gieryn, Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line, 1999). We apply the idea of boundary work to understand how alternative market actors maintain boundaries between alternative and conventional markets. Finally, studies of collaboration in science have often centered on the object created through these interactions, an object that is partially material and partially a product of knowledge, what (Rheinberger, Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube, 1997) calls an “epistemic object.” We use this idea to understand that the creation of alternative objects of exchange, such as organic food, are epistemic objects in that they combine both particular materialities and particular ways of knowing. Using these concepts, we will carry out a close analysis of the mode of governance in the national organic market, looking specifically a recent governance crisis in organic agriculture known as the Harvey lawsuit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the term “case” in “the Harvey case” to refer to the legal battles surrounding Arthur Harvey’s charges against the USDA and their resolutions as an example of recent controversies over organic foods production. Our use does not refer to one particular court case—there were several court actions in the Harvey example.

  2. Count 7, on organic feed requirements for organic dairy cattle, has had important ramifications in that sector. That ruling deserves a paper of its own, but will not be discussed here.

  3. For another argument concerning the public regulatory move from principles of public welfare to principles of defending business against market disruption, see DuPuis and Gareau (2008).

Abbreviations

CSA:

Community Supported Agriculture

FOS:

Fructooligosaccharides

NOP:

National Organic Program

NOSB:

National Organic Standards Board

OFPA:

Organic Food Production Act

OCA:

Organic Consumers Association

OTA:

Organic Trade Association

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

References

  • Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006. 2005. P.L. 109–97. 10 November.

  • Allen, P., M. FitzSimmons, M. Goodman, and K. Warner. 2003. Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belasco, W. 1993. Appetite for change: How the counterculture took on the food industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. 2004. Farming for us all: Practical agriculture and the cultivation of sustainability. University Park: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellah, R. 1996. Habits of the heart. Berkeley: UC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H., M. Watson, and R. Hudson. 2007. Modes of governing municipal waste. Environment and Planning A 39: 2733–2753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallaro, M. 2002. Lawsuit launched against USDA over organic standards. Maine Biz, November 25.

  • Cummins, R. 2005. The organic consumer association’s stance on the Arthur Harvey lawsuit and 2007 farm bill. http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/harvey-farmbill.cfm. Accessed 17 March 2006.

  • Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis, E.M. 2006. Civic markets: Alternative value chain governance as civic engagement. Crop Management. doi:10.1094/CM-2006-0921-09-RV.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis, E.M., and D. Block. (2008). Sustainability and scale: US milk-market orders as relocalization policy. Environment and Planning A 40(8): 1987–2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis, E.M., and B.J. Gareau. 2008. Neoliberal knowledge: The decline of technocracy and the weakening of the montreal protocol. Social Science Quarterly 89(5): 1212–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuPuis, E.M., and D. Goodman. 2005. Should we go home to eat? Toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, C. 2007. Comments at national organic standards board meeting, public hearing, 28 March 2007.

  • Gieryn, T. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., and E.M. DuPuis. 2002. Knowing food and growing food: Beyond the production/consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 42: 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2004a. The trouble with organic lite in California: A rejoinder to the ‘conventionalization’ debate. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2004b. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad, B. 2000. Rivers of gold: Designing markets to allocate water in California. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, A. 2006. Address to Beyond Pesticides. Beyond Pesticides Annual Meeting. 19 May 2006. Washington, D.C. http://restoreorganiclaw.org/beyondpesticides.html. Accessed 8 January 2008.

  • Harvey v. Veneman. No. 02-216-P-H. United States District Court, D. Maine. 23 October 2002.

  • Harvey v. Veneman. No. 04-1379. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 26 January 2005.

  • Hassanein, N. 1999. Changing the way America farms: Knowledge and community in the sustainable agriculture movement. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. 2007. Alternative pathways in science and industry. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J., and H. Schmitz. 2000. Governance in global value chains. Bridhton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, M. 2007. Disciplining microbes in the implementation of US Federal Organic Standards. Environment and Planning D 39(12): 2866–2882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. 2002. The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E.F. 2002. Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., and N. Hassenein. 2006. From old school to reform school? Agriculture and Human Values 23: 417–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., S. Lezberg, K. De Master, G.W. Stevenson, and J. Hendrickson. 2000. Tasting food, tasting sustainability: Defining the attributes of an alternative food system with competent, ordinary people. Human Organization 59(2): 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M., and V. Molnár. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food and community. University Park: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T., and C. Geisler. 1992. Toward a second agricultural divide: The restructuring of American agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 32: 248–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. 2006. Rural geography: Alternative rural economies—the search for alterity in forests, fisheries, food, and fair trade. Progress in Human Geography 30(6): 803–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., T. Marsden, and J. Murdoch. 2006. Worlds of food: Place, power, and provenance in the food chain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J., T. Marsden, and J. Banks. 2000. Quality, nature, and embeddedness: Some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography 76 (2): 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutersbaugh, T. 2005. Fighting standards with standards: Harmonization, rents and social accountability in certified agrofood networks. Environment and Planning A 37 (11): 2033–2051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Organic Standards Board Meeting. 2007. Meeting Transcripts: Tuesday, 27 March 2007. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=March2007Transcripts&description=NOSB%20Meeting%20Transcripts:%20March%2027–29.%202007. Accessed 19 November 2008.

  • National Organic Standards Board Meeting. 2007. Meeting Transcripts: Wednesday, 28 March 2007. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=March2007Transcripts&description=NOSB%20Meeting%20Transcripts:%20March%2027–29.%202007. Accessed 19 November 2008.

  • Organic Consumers Association. 2005a. Updated and expanded OCA talking points on safeguarding organic standards. http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos/sos-talk.cfm. Accessed 15 January 2006.

  • Organic Consumers Association. 2005b. OCA’s talking points on current controversy over attempt by OTA/industry to lower organic standards. http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/points092805.cfm. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  • Organic Consumers Association. 2007. Alert: Another sneak attack on organic standards: USDA to allow more conventional ingredients in organics. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5245.cfm. Accessed 15 January 2007.

  • Organic Foods Production Act. 1990. Code of Federal Regulations Title 7, pt. 205.1–205.690.

  • Organic Trade Association. 2005a. Organic Trade Association asks Congress to take action to keep organic standards strong. http://www.ota.com/news/press/181.html. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  • Organic Trade Association. 2005b. USDA: Support organic agriculture and the organic industry through targeted programs: Comments of the organic trade association on “Notice of meetings and request for comments”. Federal Register, Friday, June 17, 2005. http://www.ota.com/pp/otaposition/frc/USDA12-30-05.html. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  • Organic Trade Association. 2005c. Just the facts: Questions and answers about restoring organic regulations. http://www.ota.com/pp/legislation/Restoring_Organic_Program/index.html. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  • OTA Members/Arnold et al./Center for Food Safety. 2005. Open letter to the OTA and organic community, 18 November 2005. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/LettertoOrganicCommunityreOrganicStandards.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2008.

  • Pechman, C. 1993. Regulating power: The economics of electricity in the information age. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan, M. 2002. Power steer. The New York Times, March 31.

  • Putnam, R. 2001. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, H. 1997. Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddle, J. 2004. Open letter to USDA: Struggle over safeguarding organic standards is not over. http://www.organicconsumers.org/SOS/riddle060204.cfm. Accessed 15 January 2005.

  • Riddle, J. 2005. So you want to sue the USDA? 2005 Acres USA Conference Proceedings, 9 December 2005. http://restoreorganiclaw.org/acresusaconference.html. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  • Riddle, J. 2007. Comments at national organic standards board meeting. Public Hearing, 28 March 2007.

  • The Center for Food Safety. 2005. USDA asked to bring organic food regulations into compliance with 1990 law. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org:80/press_release6.22.2005.cfm. Accessed 17 March 2006.

  • Tsing, A. 2005. Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA. 2007a. Hops Petition. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateJ&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPPetitionedSubstancesDatabase&description=Petitioned%20Substances%20Database&acct=nopgeninfo. Accessed 28 April 2008.

  • USDA. 2007b. USDA publishes amendments to list of substances used in organic handling. http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/133-07.htm. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  • Vos, T. 2000. Visions of the middle landscape: Organic farming and the politics of nature. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. 2006. “Despite opposition, Organic Food Act changes push through.” The Organic Cultivation 4(1): 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M. 2005. A struggle over standards in a fast-growing food category. The New York Times, November 1.

  • Weber, M. 1947. The types of legitimate domination. In The theory of social, economic organization, ed. Talcott Parsons. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S.J. 2007. USDA may relax standards for organic foods: The agency is considering a list of 38 non-organic spices, colorings and other ingredients that would be allowed in products it deems ‘organic’. The Los Angeles Times, June 9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Melanie DuPuis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DuPuis, E.M., Gillon, S. Alternative modes of governance: organic as civic engagement. Agric Hum Values 26, 43–56 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9180-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9180-7

Keywords

Navigation