Toward a Theory of Food Politics
Kelsey Obringer
University of Delaware
Department of Political Science and International Relations
Smith Hall 347, 18 Amstel Ave.
Newark, DE 19716
Lindsay Naylor
Assistant Professor
University of Delaware
Department of Geography
Pearson Hall 216, 125 Academy Street
Newark, DE 19716
302-831-8271
Kelsey Obringer is a graduate student in Political Science and International Relations at the
University of Delaware. Her research broadly addresses the intersection of food and politics. Her
current research examines food, civil society, and resistance.
Lindsay Naylor is an assistant professor of Geography at the University of Delaware and has
conducted research on fair trade, food sovereignty, and autonomy. She is currently authoring a
manuscript on fair trade and diverse economies. See: lindsaynaylor.wordpress.com
Toward a Theory of Food Politics
Abstract: Food politics are often spoken of, yet rarely conceptualized, making a thorough analysis of how food and eating have come to be a space of politics both difficult and concerning. Usage of “food politics” as a concept comes in a multitude of forms, genres, and disciplines, with little discussion on what we mean when we say food is political and what constitutes food politics. In this paper, we broadly ask—what are food politics and what makes food political? We survey existing usages of “food politics” in order to engage in a broader discussion on how food politics can be conceptualized and understood. In our consideration of ‘where is the politics?’ we divide “food politics” as a concept into three broad categories: Big P food politics, small p food politics, and political food, each of which corresponds to a common usage of “food politics.” We argue that food politics and a political understanding of food is underdeveloped and call on scholars, particularly political theorists, to engage more readily with food as a space of politics and an avenue for understanding changing political dynamics.
Keywords: food; politics;food politics; the political; new political spaces
Introduction
Food is now politics and ethics as much as it is sustenance. People feel pressure to shop and eat responsibly, healthfully, sustainably. At least, that’s the impression you get from what’s written and said about food culture—that it’s a form of surrogate politics. To some, it’s not even surrogate politics; it’s the real deal, politics at its most urgent and consequential.[1]
Among the existing discussion on the fate of the farm bill, the proliferation of urban, organic gardening, farmers markets, popular cooking shows, and rising hipster culture, food politics in the United States have become concept familiar not only in academic scholarship but also in everyday life. It is readily apparent that we are in the foodie era as new trends tied to “local,”“organic,” and “free-range,”hit the market each year and self-identified “foodies”and critiquesof their practices grow in number.Yet, even as popular author and journalist Michael Pollan appears in a Netflix original[2] urging people to get “back” in their kitchens to bake bread from scratch, and food journalistMark Bittman argues, there is nothing wrong witha newera of food and the rise of “new-style epicures,”[3] it is also helpful to move beyond caring about good food, toward paying attention to how food is produced and the impact it has.[1]As such, there has been a proliferation of foodies moving beyond food truck festivals and the seemingly infinite lines that lead to the coveted “cronut”[4]toward the acknowledgement that “the current food system means exploiting animals, people, and the environment.”[5]It is this exploitation that is foundational for emergent foodie politics, but has also been part of scholarship and activism for years.
Concurrent, if separate from, this shift in foodie culture has come a wave of more serious and complex approaches to food, such as “food justice,” “food sovereignty,” and notably, “food politics,” which pre-dates the desires of Portlandia characters to eat chickens that led happy lives.[6] While foodies seek to turn their love of food into altruistic practice, food scholars have sought to understand exactly what these concepts mean and how they are put into practice.[7]Here, we are particularly interested in the rise and proliferation of discussions on food politics, which are often heralded, but rarely conceptualized. Unlike Lisa Heldke’s formidable task of bringing food into the discipline of philosophy, the political aspects of food are already broadly recognized, though not thoroughly explored.[8]By examining existing usages of “food politics” we begin to parse out what food politics are, and are understood to be, among both scholars and practitioners. In this paper, weforemost ask the question—what are food politics? This question, broad as it is, lends itself to a number of additional questions—such as: what makes food political; and what aspects of “the political” are illuminated when we use food as a lens to understand broader social, economic and environmental issues? While these questions are intimately connected, we argue that there must be a broader discussion on the connection between politics and the political if we are to get to a clearer understanding of what “food politics” means.
To better understand what “food politics” are in theory and as a concept it is important to consider how food politics are mobilized in practice. In this paper, using U.S. food politics as our focal point, we offer an overview of different ways we might consider the where and how of the politics of food. To ground the conversation, we begin scaled out addressing “big P” food politics as they relate to the state and government. This usage of food politics includes a brief examination of both domestic and geopolitical approaches to food and food-related matters. However, food politics are not limited to formal political processes, but also extend to informal political spaces and places such as the farmers market, the neighborhood, the household, and the body. Following our discussion of “big P” food politics, we scale down to consider “small p”food politics.Scaling down allows us to analyze food politics as it relates to civil society and activism in order to broaden our understanding of how food politics is expressed as a response to big P politics and as a space of “the political” in its own right. Thesescalar examples of food politics assist with setting the foundation forthinking about food as political. Finally, we turn to considerations of how food and the action of eating can be understood as political. Taking a step back from the empirical understandings of food and eating as politics, we examine the ontological and epistemological tenets of food and eating.We conclude by highlighting and addressing a key puzzle—the common usage of “food politics” to describe food processes and food-related phenomena without a discussion of what it is that makes food political. We urge scholars, and more specifically political theorists, to take up this puzzle and consider where the politics in food politics comes from.We argue that by using food as a lens, we can rethink existing political concepts, along with illuminating new spaces to examine politics and the political.
“Big P” Food Politics
If food politics have become ubiquitous in modern culture and society, we must ask, what are food politics? This question can most simply be answered by defining what “politics” are,or commonly understood to be. “Politics” very simply refers to the activities associated with governance of a country. Thus, food politics, can be understood as how food is governed. More specifically, food politics are the means by which states and governments manage and regulate the consumption, production, distribution, marketing, and trade of food. Based on this understanding of food as political, we further narrow this larger-scale conversation into two categories, first, national food politics, with a focus on the United States, and the second, food geopolitics, with a focus on U.S. foreign policy. The sections that follow are not intended to be a comprehensive overview of food politics, rather to provide a platform for the discussion of a political theory of food.
National Food Politics – The U.S. Example
In thinking about big P food politics, we think of government. We think of the means by which our government intercedes in food systems to regulate and control production and consumption of what is deemed“safe” food. The executive branch runs campaigns or responds to crisis, congress passes legislation, which impacts food production and consumption practices (the Farm Bill for example) and two government agencies are largely responsible for regulation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A starting point for contemporary food politics in the US, is the federal government’s enactment of the 1907 Meat Inspection Act in immediate response to Upton Sinclair’s 1906 book, The Jungle, which exposed the dangerous and unsanitary conditions of meat production. Contemporary examples include the Nixon Administration’s response to food price spikes in the 1970swherein the focus of federal policy was shifted from the supporting prices for farmers to boosting yields of a few commodity crops, or Michelle Obama’s healthy eating campaign, “Let’s Move” launched in 2010.
Though a controversial and complex subject, a central responsibility attributed to the federal government has been the maintenance of the welfare and well-being of its citizens. By this logic, the government has a vested interest in the maintenance of a “healthy” population. This mandate, while balanced against the American values of freedom and individuality, has resulted in government sponsored dietary advice and guidelines. Initially aimed at preventing the spread of infectious disease through increased nutrient and caloric intake, in the early twentieth century, dietary guidelines soon shifted from an “eat more” to an “eat less” focus as “overnutrition” became linked to obesity and chronic disease.[9]This effort by the federal government to provide for the population’s well-being resulted in the publication and continuous revision of dietary guidelines nearly every five years since the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needsbegan recommending dietary goals for the American people in 1980. Simultaneously the government supports the purchase of food for low-income populations in administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplementary Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). These programs provide ancillary support for the purchase of a set of pre-approved food items by eligible participants.
Conversely, if not paradoxically, while the US government lays out guidelines for citizens to pick and choose among, it simultaneously detracts from this freedom by controlling and limiting the number of choices available while also subsidizing particular crops.While the U.S. government instructs the population on what they should eat, the government also positions itself as an authority on what the population should not eat and consume. This covers a range of restrictions and production/processing practices from foods deemed unsafe (for example, raw milk) to acceptable levels of contaminants (for example, fecal matter or pesticide residue). After the widespread concern with food and food production that resulted from Sinclair’s exposé on the meat packing industry in the United States, the government responded with an increased focus on regulation and food responsibility.[10]Obsessed with purity and cleanliness, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, labor unions, and consumer groups banded together to produce the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act on the same day in 1907.[11] Among a number of other provisions, these newly introduced laws granted the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to examine food specimens for possible adulteration and to report any violations directly to the Department of Justice.[12] As new food scares popped up throughout history, Congress has been swift to take action. In cases such as the chemical contamination of cranberries in 1959 or the 2009 salmonella outbreak in peanut butter, the Food and Drug Administration, along with its counterpart, the US Department of Agriculture have continuously sought to adapt regulations and standards to protect the citizens from consuming adulterated food.
In examining the dynamics of dietary advice and food regulation, it is important to ask—who decides? It would be idealistic to assume that U.S. food politics are based exclusively on scientific expertise and technical standards alone. Rather, they can be understood most clearly as expressions of political values and interests. Food politics, in this context, are the process by which the food industry uses, “lobbying, lawsuits, financial contributions, public relations, advertising, partnerships and alliances, philanthropy, threats, and bias information to convince Congress, federal agencies, nutrition and health professionals, and the public,” to push and adhere to their self-interested, profit-driven bottom line.[13] Thus, the current state of U.S. food (big P) politics can be characterized by conflict and negotiations between the government, the food industry, and the individual consumer as they operate within and against multiple economic systems (largely based in capitalist exchanges, but also extending to barter, trade, and unpaid labor). Politics, in this sense, are the actions of these players in the game of food politics and the policies established and influenced by these actors. Nestle articulates these politics as the way that:
…the food industry influences what we eat and, therefore our health...the ways in which food companies use political processes—entirely conventional and nearly always legal—to obtain government and professional support for the sale of their products.[14]
This political process is the way that our food regulations, restrictions, and official advice are rarely driven by science, common sense, individualized knowledge, or health, but instead by economic and political interests.
This conceptualization of food politics has received increased attention as notable figures such as First Lady Michelle Obama entered the conversation, critiquing the political maneuvering involved in allocating money to school lunch programs[15]and high-profile debates on the imposition of soda taxes in major metropolitan cities, such as Philadelphia.[16]U.S. food politics, as they stand today, have become the process by which food industry lobbies with their wallets, government officials legislate with their bank accounts, and citizens “vote with their forks.”.[17]While the nuanced politics of governing food take different shapes based on their place specific contexts, they are not contained by borders and are proliferated through an international geopolitics, to which we now turn.
Food Geopolitics
Not only do big P food politics pervade domestic politics, they also extend to the global realm. Though food has arguably been a global issue since the beginning of time, a global food politics can largely be traced to the colonial period. During the height of global territorial imperialism, colonies served as sites of resource and labor extraction, and exploitation, providing food and fuel for and industrializing Europe. After de jure colonialism began its decline following World War II, trade between imperial and former colonial states became more reciprocal, but not more equitable. Food became a geopolitical tool from the distribution of U.S. surplus as part of the Marshall Plan, to Eisenhower’s food for peace initiative (P.L. 480) and the imposition of Green Revolution technologies, food was a key site of global geopolitics, which emanated largely from a U.S. hegemon. In the heat of the Cold War, the United States began exporting surplus food and agricultural technologies to select countries in exchange for their loyalty and their admonishment of communism. Loyalty, in this context, was demonstrated by a commitment to and participation in capitalist markets and free trade. At the same time, agribusiness benefitted from global geopolitics that allowed for expansion of existing supply chains and lower operation costs.[18] As the Cold War came to an end, these complex supply chains became even more dynamic as more and more countries became integrated into the global food web.[19]
Within the context of the globalized food system, food politics characterizes the patterns of circulation of food in the world economy and the means by which these patterns are formed, used, and manipulated by global actors. Food thus becomes a tool of war, peace, and diplomacy. P.L. 480 was used as a way to discharge surplus grain and consequently it undercut local markets and exacerbated existing systemic issues related to hunger.[20] Food aid, as a geopolitical tool, has been more often a reactionary measure to acute hunger, rather than a long-term solution focused on reducing vulnerability.[21] Food and food aid are used as a bargaining chip and managed by a number of international organizations, such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization or the World Food Program. These negotiations often reflect structural economic and political problems which create vulnerability, such as imbalances in global trade. Indeed, food has become the “hidden driver of world politics.”[22] This hidden element is not only a concern for considering the geopolitics of hunger, but becomes of increasing concern as the global middle class grows and begins to consume more meat and hyper-processed foods.