progress in human geography, 27(4): 505-13 - sage publications

http://phg.sagepub.com/

Progress in Human Geography

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/29/1/22The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1191/0309132505ph526oa

2005 29: 22Prog Hum GeogrD. C. H. Watts, B. Ilbery and D. Maye

provisionMaking reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative systems of food

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Progress in Human GeographyAdditional services and information for

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/29/1/22.refs.htmlCitations:

at SAGE Publications on October 27, 2010phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from


http://phg.sagepub.com/content/29/1/22

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/29/1/22.refs.html


Progress in Human Geography 29, 1 (2005) pp. 22-40

Making reconnections in agro-foodgeography: alternative systems offood provision

D.C.H. Watts, B3. lbery and D. MayeGeography Subject Group, School of Science and the Environment, CoventryUniversity, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Abstract: This article reviews recent research into alternative systems of food provision. Itconsiders, first, what the concept of'alternativeness' might mean, based on recent discussions ineconomic geography. Informed by this, it discusses food relocalization and the turn to 'quality' foodproduction, arguing that both are 'weaker' alternative systems offood provision because of theiremphasis on food. It then examines some 'stronger' alternative systems of food provision, whichemphasize the networks through which food passes. Lastly, the paper reflects on the concept ofalternativeness in the context of food supply chains, and suggests some possible directions forfuture research.

Key words: alternative food networks, relocalization, turn to 'quality', weaker and strongeralternative systems offood provision.

I IntroductionIn the first of three progress reports onagro-food geographies, Winter (2003a: 506)detected a move towards research into foodchains and consumption. This article reviewsrecent literature on the first of these -

research into food chains- focusing on 'alter-native systems of food provision' (p. 507).There are three reasons for this choice ofsubject. First, developments in the 'alterna-tive' food economy are central to whatWinter views as the main exogenous driverof new research in agro-food geography:'the shift from a homogeneous agriculturalcommodity market to a more segmentedmarket' (p. 506). Secondly, debates overalternative food networks (AFNs), foodrelocalization and the turn to 'quality'

food production, all ofwhich Winter (2003a:507) classifies as belonging to the 'alternative'food economy, are thriving.1 A review ofthis literature is, therefore, timely. Lastly,the conceptual basis of the 'alternative'food economy is disputed. Winter (2003a:507) notes that it is associated with two con-cepts, postproductivism and embeddedness,that have been heavily criticized. Such con-ceptual uncertainty begs the question: whatis alternative about the 'alternative' foodeconomy? (cf Whatmore et a., 2003).

In response to this question, section IIdraws on recent work in economic geographythat is beginning to articulate what 'alterna-tiveness' might mean (e.g., Gwynne et a.,2003; Leyshon et a., 2003). Section III dis-cusses alternativefood networks, with specific

© 2005 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd 10. I 191/0309132505ph526oa at SAGE Publications on October 27, 2010phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from


D.C.H. Watts et al. 23

reference to food relocalization in the EuropeanUnion (EU) and debates over food qualityand labelling, arguing that these represent'weaker' alternative systems of food provi-sion. 'Stronger' alternative food networks,where emphasis is shifted from food to thefood supply chains (FSCs) along which itpasses, are discussed in section IV The lastsection reflects further on the concept ofalternativeness in the context of FSCs, andsuggests some possible directions for futureresearch.

Thus structured, this review is delimited intwo ways. First, its main geographical focusis western Europe and North America. Sec-ondly, it does not enter into a sustainedengagement with debates over food con-sumption. These boundaries are partly areflection of the literature reviewed: severalauthors having noted that agro-food studiestend to underplay the role of consumption(Cook, 1999; Lockie and Kitto, 2000: 15;Lockie, 2002: 290; Goodman, 2004: 13).However, they have to do also with thepaper's conceptual thrust: the 'material'aspects of food production are more relevantto its goal of examining the 'alternativenessof alternative systems of food provision thanthe more 'culturally derived' consumptionaspects (see Crewe, 2000: 280, cited byGoodman and DuPuis, 2002: 14; see alsoMorris and Evans, 2004: 106). Indeed,Goodman and DuPuis (2002: 1 1) express con-cern that consumption-focused food studiesoften neglect the 'production side of food'. Aflavour of this may be found in Bell andValentine's (1997: 16) assertion that: 'the ruralis commodified through food consumptionin "farm shops", quaint village tearoomsand "local", characterful pubs, all ripe for cityday-trippers to pick'. It is not suggested thatthere is no merit in their argument, but thatthe systems of provision that supply suchenterprises may be very different- 'alterna-tive', even - in ways that are overlooked byconcentrating on their role as signifiers ofparticular ruralities. Goodman and DuPuis(2002: 1 1) want to 'build a better theoretical

bridge between food studies and agro-foodstudies'. The objective here is more modest:to contribute to the conceptual basis of thelatter.

II Alternative to what?

I 'Cracks in the neoliberal facade'To discuss alternative systems of food provi-sion may appear quixotic. After all, FSCshave become globalized2 and the so-calledWashington consensus has given rise toa worldwide 'neoliberal hegemony' (Peckand Tickell, 2002: 381). Neoliberalism has'demonstrated an ability to absorb or displacecrisis tendencies, to ride - and capitalize upon- the very economic cycles and localized pol-icy failures that it was complicit in creating,and to erode the foundations upon whichgeneralized or extralocal resistance might beconstructed' (p. 400). Thus, while the neo-liberal project has undergone a metamorphosissince the early 1990s - which Peck andTickell (2002) characterize as a change from'roll back' to 'roll out' neoliberalism- this hasnot altered its 'fundamental commitment toopening borders for the free movement ofcapital' (Gwynneetal, 2003: 4).

Nevertheless, the advent of 'roll out'neoliberalism, while it attests to the con-tinued hegemony of the neoliberal project,is also a sign of its frailty (Peck and Tickell,2002: 390), an implicit acknowledgementof its failings and internal contradictions(cf Whatmore and Thorne, 1997: 287-89).Indeed, Leyshon and Lee (2003: 3) detectcracks in its facade, caused by the growth oftheoretical and practical critiques of threetangible outcomes ofneoliberalism: mountingsocial inequality at both national and globalscales (see Leyshon and Lee, 2003: 13; andGwynne et a., 2003: 225 respectively);vulnerabilities 'created by a global economyoperating in real time' (Gwynne et a., 2003:227), particularly the herd behaviour ofinvestors and currency traders; and theundemocratic nature of the governance ofglobal capitalism, through bodies such as the



24 Making reconnections in agro-food geography

International Monetary Fund and the WorldTrade Organization (WTO) (p. 227).

Gwynne et al. (2003: 227) suggest thatthese criticisms 'have the potential to acquirethe moral weight and coalition of interests tomount an effective challenge, and to articu-late an ... [as yet] ill-defined bottom-upalternative'. In the FSCs of some of the'neoliberal heartlands', however, this processseems well under way (Winter, 2003a). Forexample, Goodman (2004: 3) argues that, inthe EU, the growth ofAFNs has been linkedwith the rise of a new rural developmentparadigm. However, while alternative systemsoffood provision - or, at least, academic interestin them - have undoubtedly expanded, thenature ofthe alternatives) on offer is unclear.For instance, Lee's (2000: 155) finding thatproducers ofornamental hardy plants, by col-laborating with consumers in order to create'economic geographies of regard', have beenable to remain in business despite being, byconventional assessment, beyond economicmarginality, was not replicated by Sage's(2003: 58) research into AFNs in southwestIreland. Clearly, therefore, these two sets ofalternative networks demonstrate differentdimensions of 'alternativeness.

This suggests that, with regard to alterna-tive systems of food provision, it is necessaryto discuss not only the extent to which theyare 'alternative' economically but also in whatways that alternativeness may be manifested.This suggestion is bolstered by Goodman's(2004) recent review, which tends to equateAFNs with what has been termed thequality' turn in food production. Doing so, asargued below, can elide two practicallysimilar, but conceptually distinct, types ofAFN. However, in order to make that argu-ment it is necessary first to interrogate theconcept of 'alternativeness' in the contextof FSCs. This is so because, as Fagan(1997: 197-98) and Watts and Goodman(1997: 14) argue, the globalization of, andindeed within, food production cannot be'read off' from the experiences of otherindustries.

2 The sociospatial construction of FSCs (I):entrenching uneven economic development?Attention to different spatial practices hasbeen central to recent interest in alternativeeconomic geographies. For, as Leyshon andLee (2003: 4) argue, 'given that the attemptto build global neo-liberalism is an inherentlygeographical project involving the construc-tion of a uniform, neo-liberal economicgeography, the various oppositional move-ments and projects to "think and perform theeconomy otherwise" reveal a keen attentionto matters of space and place'. Similarly, indebates over alternative systems of foodprovision, it is food 'relocalization', often dis-cussed within the context of the 'quality'turn, that has attracted most attention(e.g., Holloway and Kneafsey, 2000; Ilberyand Kneafsey, 2000a; Hendrickson andHeffernan, 2002; Morgan and Morley, 2002;Hinrichs, 2003; Sage, 2003; Weatherell et al.,2003; Winter, 2003b).

Interest in food relocalization follows aprolonged period of what might be termed'delocalization', but is more usually referredto as agricultural industrialization (Parrottet at., 2002: 241) or productivism (Ilbery andBowler, 1998). Because it has been promotedby policy-makers as a means of stimulatingendogenous development in 'lagging' (i.e.,economically marginal) rural regions (Ilberyand Kneafsey, 1998; Ray, 1998; Parrott et at.,2002), it is tempting to view food relocaliza-tion as part of a postproductivist transition(PPT) in European agriculture (q.v. Ilbery andBowler, 1998). However, Evans et al. (2002:325) argue that the idea ofa PPT is too crudeto capture recent developments. Instead,they advocate giving greater attention tochanges in governance structures and thesocial relations ofproduction (p. 326).

However current developments are con-ceptualized - as agricultural multifunctionality(Wilson, 2001), ecological modernization(Evans et at., 2002), a PPT (Ilbery andBowler, 1998), etc. - it is clear, as Evans et al.(2002) imply, that they are linked to, if notdriven by, policy developments occurring at



D. C.H. Watts et al. 25

a variety of spatial scales. Setting the globalcontext for the governance of agriculturalproduction are the current negotiations overthe WTO's Doha Development Agenda.These are ongoing, but the intention, asdiscussed above, is the establishment of aglobalized, neoliberal food industry wherecomparative advantage turns on 'naturalresource endowments or economic factors ofproduction' (Gwynne et al., 2003: 137). Suit-ably endowed 'emerging' market economiesare being encouraged to specialize in 'non-traditional'agricultural exports (p. 138), whilein the developed market economies theWTO is seeking to reduce protectionism(Potter and Burney, 2002) - such as theCommon Agricultural Policy's (CAP's) inter-vention buying, export refunds and importduties- and establish an agricultural tradingsystem that is 'fair and market-oriented' 3

This is, as argued by Leyshon and Lee(2003: 4), following Harvey (2000), a utopianproject. Indeed, that is one of its mainstrengths: the promise of a 'better' futureworld. Another is that 'the "programme" forthe delivery of this utopia can be deliveredin deceptively simple and straightforwardterms' (Leyshon and Lee, 2003: 4). However,the adjective 'utopian' is apposite for anotherreason. For, as noted above, the inability ofneoliberalism to deliver this 'better' world isbecoming increasingly obvious. This makes itunlikely that the WTO will be able to engi-neer matters so that agricultural trade willbecome both market-orientated and fair. AsLazonick (1991: 75-76) argues, capitalistdevelopment is predicated on the ability ofcertain enterprises to grow by buildingsustained competitive advantage. Doing sodepends not on market competition buton their ability to generate internal economiesby gaining privileged access to resources.Prolonged capitalist development, therefore,results in 'concentrated control of productmarkets, usually with a small number ofdominant (typically called oligopolistic)organizations vying for market share' (p. 84).This has already happened in many of the

world's food sectors, with the result thatFSCs are often dominated by oligarchies.4Barrett et at.'s (1999) study of the trade infresh horticultural produce from Kenya tothe UK suggests that the same pattern isemerging in FSCs that have developed aroundthe exploitation of nontraditional agriculturalexports from 'emerging' market economies.Thus, globalization on the neoliberal modelis likely to further increase the influenceof multinational companies over food andreduce that of national and supranationalgovernments.

Thus, as Evans et al. (2002: 316) suggest,'emphasis on the need for farmers to be ableto compete in a liberalized global marketseems to place greater emphasis worldwideon the continuation ofproductivist principles'.This makes it unlikely that there will be a PPTin any strong sense but does not mean thatthere will be no change. As Evans et a. (2002:327) note, contemporaryay agricultural dis-course ... focus[es] not on "non" or "after"production issues but on how to reorientateproduction to the new demands and con-straints posed by public health, environmentalconcerns and farm-animal welfare'. Thisprocess ofreorientation has been termed 'eco-logical modernization' (p. 327). By mitigatingproductivist agriculture's deleterious environ-mental consequences (soil erosion, pollution,reductions in biodiversity, etc.), ecologicalmodernization may bring it closer to environ-mental sustainability. However, it will notreduce the social and economic inequalitiesthat already exist between marginal and/orremote rural areas and those that have been,or can be, incorporated into productivistagriculture. If anything, such inequalities arelikely to increase as markets are 'neoliberal-ized' and production subsidies phased out(Ilbery and Bowler, 1998: 57). In dealingwith marginalized rural areas, therefore, thekey task for policy-makers will probably beone of helping to mitigate the tendenciestoward further uneven economic developmentthat the revised WTO rules are likely toencourage.




3 The sociospatial construction ofFSCs (II): 'placing' organismsLeyshon and Lee (2003: 10-11), drawing onthe work of Carrier and Miller (1998), arguethat one goal of the neoliberal project is theproduction ofsocial gains, specifically the free-dom to make economic choices, at the levelof the consumer. However, the consumer inquestion is not a flesh and blood individual but'virtual', an economic abstraction. The con-sequence of this construction of people as'virtual' consumers is that societies are beingremodelled around the latter. Leyshon andLee (2003: 11) characterize this process asthe ongoing displacement of freedom frompoverty and deprivation by increasingfreedom to make economic choices for thosewho can afford to do so.

While concurring with the thrust of thisargument, we suggest that this 'drive towardsabstraction' (Leyshon and Lee, 2003: 10) isneither as new as its association with neo-liberalism might suggest, nor confined toconsumers. Regarding the first point, it can beargued that the social construction of indivi-duals as consuming subjects5 dates from theearly development of marketing discoursebetween the world wars.6 This is not tosuggest, a la Hassanein (2003: 80), that indi-viduals are passive in the face of marketingdiscourse; rather, that it addresses peopleas abstract and atomized consumers. Forinstance, advertisements, a ubiquitousmarketing technique, address people asconsuming subjects who have internalized thenorms on which capitalist markets are built(Williamson, 1983: 42). However, whileadvertisements can 'command attentionand ... define the terms of the negotiations,there is no guaranteed effect' (Sinclair, 1987:65). Marketing discourse is, in de Certeau's(1984) terms, a strategy that people canresist using tactics. Nevertheless, conceptual-izing marketing in this way emphasizes thepower relations' that permeate social life indeveloped market economies.A set of similarly reductive processes have

long been visited on the nonhuman organisms

that enter FSCs. The main difference is that,while marketing discourse aims at the socialconstruction of individuals as consumers,other organisms are often 'reconstructed' byfood processors. For example, food scientistshave long been analysing and altering har-vested organisms chemical components (toretard chemical and biological breakdown,produce particular flavours and guide con-sumer perceptions of food), usually as part ofefforts to incorporate them into industrializedfood production (cf Murdoch and Miele,1999: 467-68). More recently, technologieshave been developed that enable organismsto be manipulated at the genetic level(Whatmore, 2002). The organisms that gointo food are, therefore, being atomized, theirchemical and genetic structures altered toproduce particular characteristics.

These two atomizing tendencies arebrought together with particular force in themarketing of food. For instance, it has beenargued that the UK is becoming an increas-ingly visual society (Kress and van Leeuwen,1996: 33-40; Rose, 2001: 6-7). This dovetailswith the use of imagery in food marketing.Most processed food comes in opaque pack-aging and consumers are invited to judgeits likely excellence from the associationsgenerated by the images on the packet (Allenet al., 2003: 65; CPRE, 2002a: 7). Imagesare diachronic and metaphorical, and arefrequently used to promote associationsthat would be difficult to substantiate in asynchronic medium (e.g., text). In supermar-kets, even fresh food is often packaged andstored in chiller cabinets, preventing it frombeing felt or smelt. There are pragmaticreasons for this: packaging can help preventcontamination and chilling retards break-down. It has also been argued that suchhygienic presentation is part of efforts toassure consumers that food is safe (Murdochet al., 2000: 119; Stassart and Whatmore,2003: 449). Nevertheless, selling food on itsappearance and using promotional imageryprovide scope for double commodityfetishism (Cook and Crang, 1996). They are




also examples of cultural atomization, reduc-ing the basis on which consumers can makejudgements concerning food excellence tohow it looks.

These atomizing tendencies have notgone unchallenged: there is, for example,widespread resistance in Europe to the com-mercial planting of patented, geneticallymodified food crops.8 Moreover, their limita-tions have been exposed repeatedly by foodscares', when producers have been unable toprevent, and have sometimes unwittinglyencouraged, the transmission of harmfulagents between species that feed on theprocessed remains of others (Whatmore,2002: especially 120-21). Another set ofchallenges to these tendencies have beenattempts, particularly in western Europe andNorth America, to 'perform' FSCs otherwiseby constructing alternative systems of foodprovision. Their growth has been attributedto an erosion of trust in conventional FSCsand the consequent expansion of so-calledcareful' consumption (Ilbery and Kneafsey,2000b: 317), and to their potential tocontribute to endogenous economicdevelopment in lagging regions (Ray, 1998;Goodman, 2004: 3).

However, Goodman (2004: 13) expressesconcern that European AFNs, unless theyengage more directly with consumption, mayend up reversing the 'democratization' ofaccess to food brought about by conventionalFSCs. While more research into the role ofconsumers in enabling alternative systemsof food provision to perform FSCs otherwisewould be welcome, we take issue withGoodman's (2004) conception of 'alter-nativeness'. Specifically, Goodman's (2004:3, 13) equation of AFNs with the turn toquality' food production is too restrictive.Producing high-quality food is one way ofperforming' FSCs but, as argued below,there are others.

Paying greater attention to the differencesbetween AFNs is also important for thevery reason that Goodman (2004: 13) usesto make the case for more research into

consumer agency: 'the formidable economicand spatial power concentrated in the handsof the leading food manufacturers and retail-ers'. For, as argued below, when it comes tobeing able to resist incorporation into conven-tional FSCs, some alternative systems offood provision are likely to prove strongerthan others. Thus, the following sectionsdifferentiate between weaker and strongeralternative systems of food provision. Thiscould be interpreted as an attempt to arguethat there are two types of alternativeness,rather than the one ('quality' food) on whichGoodman (2004) concentrates. This is notour intention. It is more likely that alternativesystems of food provision exist along aspectrum, from weaker to stronger. The fol-lowing sections should be read, therefore, asan attempt to start thinking about the extentof the 'alternativeness' ofalternative systemsof food provision, primarily in western Europeand North America, that have attracted theattentions ofacademic researchers.

III Alternativefood networks

1 Food relocalization in the EUWithin the EU, food relocalization has beenencouraged as part of attempts to stimulateendogenous economic development inlagging regions. Such regions have beenencouraged to 'identify and valorize localresources - including cultural identity - in thehope that this will overcome the structuralbarriers to economic convergence within theUnion and soften the impact of impendingCAP reforms' (Ray, 1998: 5). It has beensuggested that one means of doing so is bysecuring Protected Designation of Origin(PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication(PGI) status for 'typical' regional foods (Ilberyand Kneafsey, 1998: 329-30). PDO and PGIawards are examples of 'defensive localism'(Winter, 2003b), protecting distinctive prod-ucts that claim historical associations with aspecific area (see, for example, de Roest andMenghi, 2000). They are based on the FrenchAppellation d'Origine Contr6l6e scheme,




developed for wine, which is closely bound upwith the concept of terror (Barham, 2003).There is some dispute, at the WTO, as towhether these are acceptable forms ofproprietary designation (p. 129). Even assum-ing that they are accepted, however, theirpotential for stimulating endogenous eco-nomic development in regions that lack adeveloped culture of terror is limited (Ilberyand Kneafsey, 2000a: 230; Parrott et at.,2002; Tregear, 2003). For example, relativelyfew PDO or PGI applications have beenmade from within the UK's Less FavouredAreas (Parrott et at., 2002: 252), despitesubstantial government encouragement(Ilbery and Kneafsey, 2000b: 319).More generally, it has been argued that

economic growth can be generated throughthe production of speciality, or niche market,foods. This resembles the argument, preva-lent in the 1980s and 1990s, that regionaldevelopment can be generated through flexi-ble specialization. While there are examplesof groups of specialist food producers adopt-ing such a strategy successfully (Stassart andWhatmore, 2003), Lovering (1999: 384)warns that delivering economic developmentby encouraging flexible specialized productionfor niche markets can work only underspecific conditions and in some places. AsWinter (2003b) notes, marginalized ruralareas may be unable to cultivate specialityfoods. Furthermore, speciality foodproduction, like PDO and PGI protection,is predicated on uniqueness, not flexiblespecialization. Thus, in a neoliberal marketeconomy, producers ofprotected and special-ity foods may end up competing against eachother for finite niche markets. Committing anumber ofproducers in an area to the produc-tion of one distinct food product for exportis, therefore, a recipe for economic vulner-ability (the case of Parmigiano Reggianocheese is instructive here- see de Roest andMenghi, 2000).

Attempts to promote food relocalizationare also being incorporated into the CAPIn anticipation of changes to WTO rules, the

CAP has acquired a second 'pillar', whichaims to encourage rural development (Grant,2003: 19-21). Following recent agreement onfurther CAP reform, 'modulation' of fundsfrom pillar one to pillar two will begin earlier,in 2005, and will be at a higher rate thanpreviously forecast until 2010.9 France andthe UK are in the vanguard of 'modulation'(Lowe et at., 2002: 6). However, it is inthe UK, where pillar two funding is beingchannelled into rural, as opposed to agricul-tural, development (p. 15), that the prospectsfor CAP-funded food relocalization appearmost promising. The implementation of pillartwo requires member states to draw uprural development plans (p. 11). The onefor England (Wales and Scotland have theirown - p. 12) contains two grant schemes thathave the potential to help producers retainmore ofthe value that gets added to food as itmoves along FSCs. The first is the Processingand Marketing Grant. This is 'designedto improve the agricultural processing andmarketing infrastructure in England ...projects must give primary producers anadequate and lasting share of the resultingbenefits' (MAFF 2000a: 3). Food producersmay also apply for grants under the RuralEnterprise Scheme, for help with the market-ing of 'quality' food, diversification intonew or inon-mainstream' crops or livestock,and the integration of farming with otherpractices (MAFF, 2000b: 3-4). However,although no specific studies of their impacthave been published to date, Morris andBuller (2003: 564-65) suggest that theseschemes are not providing a significant boostto food relocalization.

2 Food quality and labellingAs Goodman (2004: 3) observes, westernEuropean AFNs are closely associated withthe turn to 'quality' food production. Theterm 'quality' can refer both to the character-istics (qualities) and degree of excellence offood. As the following summary of these twouses demonstrates, 'quality' is difficult both todefine and theorize (Parrottetal., 2002: 243).




This, in turn, makes the relationship betweenthe 'quality' turn and alternative systems offood provision problematic.

Although food is corporeal, its characteris-tics are readily translatable into bearers ofvisual, aural, textural and taste sensations, theirdetection and appreciation are culturally medi-ated. Taste, too, is both a physiological processwith a distinct set of purposes (Stassart andWhatmore, 2003) and culturally specific.Thus, similar foods may be valued differentlyby different cultural groups (Mansfield, 2003)and the ability to distinguish subtly differentflavours, for example in wine, can functionas a class marker (Guthman, 2002: 295, 300).Matters are complicated further when tasteinformation is used to evaluate the degree ofexcellence of food. Doing so is predicated ona hierarchical evaluation of food characteris-tics. Such hierarchies are culturally defined,just as the characteristics that underpin themare culturally mediated. There are, therefore,two processes here, both of which can besubject to the operation of power relations.These may, for example, influence the rangeof characteristics that are to count in theevaluation of excellence. There is a strongcase for considering all the characteristics ofa particular food when coming to a judge-ment about its degree of excellence, so asto maximize the chances of their corrobora-ting one another. However, as argued above,the ways in which foods are marketed,particularly by large food producers andretailers, can make such corroborativeevaluations difficult.

Moreover, it is not always easy to detectthe embodiment of particular qualities (in thesense of either characteristics or excellence)in food products. Consumers, therefore, mustoften rely on others' assurances that the foodthey buy has been produced and processed inparticular ways. This lack of first-hand know-ledge presents opportunities for commodityfetishism.10 One way in which those whoseek to provide alternative foods that embodyparticular characteristics (e.g., 'typicality',organic production methods, fair trade) and/or

a high degree of excellence is through the useof product labelling (see, for example, Ilberyet at, 2003). As the victory, in the EuropeanCourt of Justice,11 of Parma ham producers(whose product is protected by a PDO) overa British supermarket chain demonstrates,labelling schemes, if properly policed, mayresist the atomization of food into its con-stituent chemical components, the doublecommodity fetish (by conveying informationabout the economic, social and environ-mental consequences of food productions)and the deskilling of producers.13

However, labelling schemes have twoweaknesses. First, the advantages that labelsbestow on foods bearing them will dependboth on how well the production and process-ing they signify are policed, and on howeffectively the benefits associated with themcan be substantiated. Secondly, labellingschemes may themselves be subject tofetishization. An example ofhow these weak-nesses can compromise labelling schemes isprovided by organic food. It has been claimedthat organic food is healthier and has a higherdegree ofexcellence (tastes better) than con-ventional food. Both claims are contested.For example, the UK Food Standards Agencyargues that 'organic food is not significantlydifferent in terms of food safety and nutritionfrom food produced conventionally'.14 It isdifficult to make an evidential case thatorganic food is healthier partly because oftheway that food science knowledge develops:it is necessary to prove that harm occursbefore a particular production process canbe labelled 'unhealthy'.15 However, there isgrowing resistance to this approach. Stassartand Whatmore (2003: 459-60) argue thatAFNs construct 'profane' food knowledgesin opposition to scientific ones. Organicfarming, for example, is risk averse, aiming toreduce the chances that human interventionin food production will create 'unhealthy'food by minimizing it.

The claim that organic food tastes betterthan food produced by other means mustalso be treated with caution (Guthman,




2002: 308). Many factors influence the tasteand degree of excellence of a particular food(e.g., variety, freshness and method ofprepa-ration) and it would take a finely tuned palateto isolate the process or place of production.Even where such differentiations are made,as with wine, the level of connoisseurshiprequired in order to make them has classimplications. Making hierarchical distinctionson such a basis is difficult and, moreover,gives ammunition to those who argue thatbuying organic food is primarily an expressionof cultural capital.

Such arguments do a disservice to organicfarming and its supporters. For, as Allen et at.(2003) demonstrate, pioneer organic farmersin California had clear social and economicgoals16 that have been sidelined by the nar-rowing of debate to a discussion about tasteand positivistically defined food safety. Thishas aided both the incorporation of Californ-ian organic agriculture into conventionalFSCs and its redefinition in terms that suitlarge food producers and retailers (Allen et al.,2003). As a result, its social and economicobjectives have been lost and it has largelyceased to be what it once was: an alternativesystem of food provision situated withinalternative distribution and consumptionnetworks.17

3 Weaker alternatives?We argue, therefore, that the turn to 'quality'food production, and the 'defensive localism'approach to food relocalization, are weakeralternative systems of food provision. This isbecause they emphasize the foods concerned,not the networks through which they circulate.This makes them vulnerable to incorporation,and subordination, within conventional FSCs.Indeed, it has been argued that the turn to'quality' food production is driven by largeproducers and retailers: partly to defendmarket share in conditions of market satu-ration for mass-produced foods (Ilbery andKneafsey, 1998: 332-33; Ilbery and Kneafsey,1999: 2210; Flynn et al., 2003: 39, 43;Winter, 2003b: 26); and partly as a way of

appropriating premium profits for 'quality'produce, where 'quality' is defined in linewith their preferred criteria (Gilg andBattershill, 1998: 27-28; Guthman, 2002:303; Hendrickson and Heffernan, 2002: 360,364). There is an irony here, as some labellingschemes, such as organic (Allen et at., 2003)and Fair Trade (Renard, 2003), were devel-oped in order to provide alternatives to theproduce ofconventional FSCs. However, theexistence of these labels demonstrates thatthe production of such foods is not absorbedin their regions of production (de Roest andMenghi, 2000: 447-48; Kneafsey etal., 2001:309; Barham, 2003: 129; Hinrichs, 2003: 36;Tregear, 2003: 100). Thus, the productionboth of'quality' foods and those protected bylabelling schemes relies on spatially extensive(often international) FSCs and, in the case ofcoffee roasting (for instance), multinational-controlled processing facilities, in order tobe viable economically. By being enrolled(Callon, 1986: 211-14) in such networks,these foods become vulnerable to subordina-tion within them in order to serve theinterests oftheir most powerful actors (Allenet at., 2003). This means that they can beconsidered as niche market foods whoseproduction does not challenge the currenttrend towards standardized and globalizedfood production.18

IV Alternative food networks

1 Networks and trustA possible way ofguarding against such incor-poration and subordination might be foralternative systems of food provision to mini-mize their involvement with conventional,multinational FSCs by creating, or becominginvolved with, alternative networks. This ideahas already received attention in the broadercontext of rural development.1 Murdoch(2000), for example, differentiates between'vertical' and 'horizontal' networks. Theformer are organized sectorally and incor-porated into large-scale production andconsumption networks (p. 408). The latter




link small-scale producers in subregionallearning and innovation networks that canfoster endogenous growth (p. 412). It followsthat, in order to stimulate endogenous eco-nomic development, policy-makers shouldconcentrate on encouraging the formationand expansion of horizontal networks.

Kneafsey et a. (2001) use Murdoch'stwofold typology of networks, along withsome of Ray's (1998) 'culture economy' ideas,to develop a more nuanced understanding ofthe interaction of inter- and intra-regionalflows in rural economic development. How-ever, their analysis raises three questions overthe usefulness of 'vertical' and 'horizontal'networks as distinct concepts. First, theadjectives are easy to confuse with theircounterparts in economics; the more so asMurdoch's (2000) definition of vertical net-works focuses on sectoral links and could,therefore, shade into a discussion of verticalintegration. Secondly, in Kneafsey et alto's(2001: 300) model of horizontal and verticalnetworks, the strength of the latter is repre-sented as a combination of relationships withexternal actors in FSCs and external marketoutlets. Thus, signifiers of dimension substi-tute for those of spatial scale. Thirdly, theimplication that trust is present only inhorizontal networks (Kneafsey et a., 2001:300) is an oversimplification. Regular, face-to-face contact is important in informal learningnetworks (Friedman and Watts, 2003), butit does not follow that they must be 'horizon-tal' (i.e., intraregional). This has a particularbearing on attempts to encourage endo-genous economic development, for it hasbeen argued that it is immigrants to ruralareas who tend to be the most innovative(Kneafseyetal., 2001: 303; Sage, 2003: 51).One possible reason for this is that they can'bridge' between networks in their placesof origin and destination (McLean, 2003).The important role played by such 'bridges'or 'weak ties' between networks, in thespread of information and innovation, iswell established (Granovetter, 1973; Burt,2002). Thus, it may be that the interregional

networks to which immigrant entrepreneursbelong, and the social capital that theypossess (expressed in terms of trust) in boththese and intraregional networks, are moresignificant in their ability to make theirenterprises successful.

Although the terms 'vertical and 'horizon-tal' network are open to critique, this doesnot mean that the ideas underlying them areunsound. The conceptual differentiationbetween networks that operate within adefined area and those that link it to others,and the greater potential of the former togenerate endogenous economic develop-ment, are relevant to alternative systems offood provision. Moreover, although it cannotbe argued that trust has a specific spatialcomponent, the issue of personal contact isimportant to it. This raises the possibility thattrust is related to individuals' use of space.Here, Blois' (1999: 202-207) distinctionbetween trust (that tends to be granted by,and to, individuals) and reliance may be use-ful. For, if applied carefully, it could provide afruitful way of thinking about the differenttypes ofrelationship that tend to predominateat different spatial scales.

2 Short food supply chains:stronger alternatives?Taken together, these factors suggest thatone means of building stronger alternativesystems of food provision might be to reval-orize short food supply chains (SFSCs). Theverb 'revalorize' is used advisedly here. Thereis nothing new about SFSCs: they precededthe now conventional, internationalizedFSCs, and have not been entirely displacedby them (Battershill and Gilg, 1998: 477;Hinrichs, 2000: 298; CPRE, 2002a). However,there is growing interest in the apparentresurgence ofwhat Morris and Buller (2003)call the 'local food sector'. Evidence, particu-larly concerning how and where economicvalue is added and retained within SFSCs, isscarce (p. 560). Nevertheless, studies ofrecent developments in England and theUSA, such as farmers' markets (Holloway




and Kneafsey, 2000; LaTrobe, 2001; Hinrichs,2000; 2003; Archer et a., 2003), boxschemes (Dirrschmidt, 1999), farm shops(Youngs, 2003) and community-supportedagriculture (Hinrichs, 2000), ofthe survival ofvente directe in France (Battershill and Gilg,1998; Gilg and Battershill, 1998) and thegrowth of farm-based butchers' shops inUmbria (Ventura and Milone, 2000), give anidea ofthe extent to which the revalorizationofSFSCs can represent a stronger alternativeto increasingly globalized FSCs than thealternativefood networks discussed in sectionIII. From these and other studies it maybe argued that revalorized SFSCs presentfour dimensions of alternativeness.

First, as suggested by the phrase 'local foodsector', SFSCs may present a spatial alterna-tive to conventional FSCs (Renting et a.,2003: 398). For instance, they may reducethe distance that food travels between thesites of its production and sale. In many casesthis is achieved by direct sales (producers toconsumers) through, for example, farmersmarkets, farm shops and box schemes (Gilgand Battershill, 1998: 30; Diirrschmidt, 1999:134; Hinrichs, 2000: 298-99; LaTrobe, 2001:183; Morris and Buller, 2003: 562; Youngs,2003: 532). However, it may also be achievedby bringing food into places that are poorlyserved by conventional FSCs: so-called food'deserts'. Lang and Rayner (2003: 72) notethat, in the UK, poorer areas suffer higherrates of ill health. In such areas, fresh food iseither more expensive than processed food(Dowler and Caraher, 2003: 59) or not read-ily available, and often both (Wrigley, 2002:2031). Dowler and Caraher (2003: 63) groupfresh, healthy food with the provision ofcleanwater and sewerage as a utility to which allshould have access as of right. Althoughdefining it as a utility will not necessarilyincrease the consumption of fresh, healthyfood in areas where it is most lacking,20 pre-liminary results from a study in Leeds suggestthat'retail provision intervention may have amarked effect on improving the diet of themost "at risk" groups in nutritional terms

(Wrigley et a., 2002: 2078). Moreover, localfood initiatives can provide work for localpeople in food distribution and sales andmay, if managed appropriately, provide analternative outlet for local farms' produce.

Although the examples given above arespatially bounded,21 several authors arguethat SFSCs can also be spatially extended(Raynolds, 2002: 420; Hinrichs, 2003: 36;Renting et al., 2003: 399). Examples includefairly traded produce and direct selling bytelephone, post or the internet. In such cases,the 'short' in SFSCs may refer to the reducednumber of powerful intermediaries betweenproducer and consumer. For, althoughspatially extended SFSCs may still rely onmultinational companies (e.g., courier firms),they minimize contact with FSCs dominatedby large food producers and retailers. There isan argument for considering direct sales 'at adistance' as SFSCs, although they are perhapsa weaker alternative than, for example, afarmers' market, because of their reliance onconventional communications networks.However, the same cannot be said for theother types of spatially extended SFSC pro-posed by Raynolds (2002) - fairly tradedproduce - and Renting et a. (2003: 394) -

covering organic and 'quality' food. These, aspresently constituted, are alternative foodnetworks and, as such, represent weakeralternatives still. In the case of fairly tradedproduce, it is the labelling that establishesa link between producer and consumer(Whatmore and Thorne, 1997: 298). Thereis, as Renard (2003: 95) warns, a danger thatthe values associated with fairly tradedproduce could be 'neutralized' ifit is 'capturedby the dominant actors of the market' (cfthe salutary example of Californian organicagriculture discussed in section III). Rentinget a. (2003: 399) also suggest that extendedSFSCs may be created using certificationlabels. Their definition ofproximity thus tran-scends propinquity to encompass cultural'likeness' and knowledge conveyed by prod-uct labels (p. 400). However, in the absenceof empirical examples, it is not clear how




such 'short' FSCs differ from those of, say,supermarkets.

Secondly, SFSCs may present a socialalternative to conventional FSCs (Rentinget al., 2003: 398). The ability to buy food inthe area in which it was produced, and inparticular directly from the producer, mayimprove the flow of information about it(LaTrobe, 2001: 182; Morris and Buller, 2003:560), thereby improving food traceability andreducing the scope for commodity fetishism.Research in England has found relatively highlevels of trust in local food among its con-sumers (Diirrschmidt, 1999: 149-50; Archeret al., 2003: 492; Youngs, 2003: 538). Suchresearch also appears to suggest that trust inlocal food, often expressed as a'liking' for it, ismore important than food 'patriotism' (q.v.Hinrich s, 2 0 03: 4 0) - for example, support forlocal producers - at least among Englishconsumers. Thus, personal interaction andtrust may be important to the (re)growth ofSFSCs. For example, farmers in Gloucester-shire interviewed by Morris and Buller (2003)claimed that the benefits of becominginvolved with the local food sector werethat it helped to re-establish trust betweenconsumers and producers, and promoted 'asense of community integration' (p. 564).Such communities are not simply expressionsof spatial proximity, however. Instead, asDiirrschmidt (1999) found when studying abox scheme in Bristol, they may be inter-preted as an 'alternative support networkbetween like-minded people' (p. 145, italics inoriginal).

Thirdly, there is potential for SFSCs tobe alternative economically. Indeed, theyare so almost by definition, existing in the'interstices of the mainstream' (Morris andBuller, 2003: 564). However, matters becomemore complex when attention is focusedon the food producers that supply SFSCs.As noted above, Sage (2003) found littleevidence of producers existing beyond con-ventional economic marginality on the basisofrelations ofregard (q.v. Lee, 2000). Never-theless, evidence from France and England

shows that farmers participating in the localfood sector tend to operate on a relativelysmall scale (Battershill and Gilg, 1998: 480;Morris and Buller, 2003: 563) compared totheir 'conventional' counterparts. Ironically,this may make them more conventional eco-nomically. For, as Battershill and Gilg (1998:479) found, farmers participating in ventedirected tended to receive less in subsidy pay-ments from the CAP, the lion's share ofwhichgoes to larger farms. Vente directed farmers,therefore, had a 'tendency towards modestself-reliance' (p. 479). Morris and Buller(2003: 562), too, found that economicconsiderations, particularly the higher pricethey can get, are an important incentive forfarmers to become involved in the localfood sector.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake toclass such producers as conventional simplybecause they acknowledge the centrality ofeconomic considerations to their enterprises.For, as Lee and Leyshon (2003: 193) pointout, 'all economies are irreducibly material'.The economic is the 'means through whichpeople sustain their lives' (Lee, 2000: 140).Thus, any economic activity that is unable to'make a living' for those undertaking it willfail. There are, however, different ways ofmaking a living, and Lee (2000: 138) arguesthat 'it is possible to identify spaces ofproduc-tion within the market but outside the normsofcapitalist evaluation' (italics in original). It isthis that producers involved with the localfood sector could be doing. Caution is neces-sary because there is, as yet, little evidencefor such a claim. However, two UK studies(DEFRA, 2003; Morris and Buller, 2003)found that most small businesses engagedin the local food sector are run by peoplewhose commitment goes beyond 'making aliving' to encompass social objectives, such asthose noted above, and environmentalbenefits, such as reductions in food miles andin the use of agro-chemicals.

Although evidence is thin, a fourth way inwhich the revalorization of SFSCs mayprovide a stronger alternative to conventional




FSCs is by encompassing a wider range ofproduce than alternative food networks.Both the 'quality' turn and the 'defensivelocalism' manifested in many labellingschemes (PDO, PGI, etc.) tend to concen-trate on processed (high value-added) foods(e.g., wine, cooked meats, some cheeses22).They tend to bypass low value-added foodthat has undergone no, or relatively little,processing (although there are exceptions,such as Jersey Royal potatoes, which have aPDO). However, relatively low value-addedfood figures prominently in Gloucestershire'slocal food sector (Morris and Buller, 2003:562, Table 1). Similarly, consumers inter-viewed by Archer et at. (2003: 494)expressed a strong preference for beingable to buy fruit and vegetables at farmersmarkets, with meat and dairy/eggs cominga distant second and third, respectively.

V Weaker, stronger, or hybridalternatives?Although the foregoing sections argue thatit is possible to classify different alternativesystems of food provision as either weaker orstronger, it bears repeating that this is not tosuggest that all AFNs can be neatly dividedinto one oftwo types. Instead, we argue that,in economic terms, AFNs can be classifiedas weaker or stronger on the basis of theirengagement with, and potential for subordi-nation by, conventional FSCs operating in aglobalizing, neoliberal polity. However, thisprovisional assessment has several 'blindspots', arising from the angle from which thesubject has been reviewed and the paucityof published studies in certain key areas.Some ofthese are explored below.

First, it should not be assumed that systemsof food provision which present a strongereconomic alternative are more beneficial,either environmentally or socially, thanconventional FSCs. For instance, Gilg andBattershill (1998: 36) note that many ventedirected producers farm in a conventional (pro-ductivist) manner. Direct sales are, therefore,no guarantee of environmentally sustainable

production, unlike (at least in intent) foodlabelled as organically grown. It has also beenargued that stronger alternative systems offood provision, such as farmers' markets, arepotentially reactionary (e.g., white, bourgeoisand harking back to a rural idyll23) andmay promote social and spatial exclusivity(Holloway and Kneafsey, 2000: 294-95;Guthman, 2002: 299; Hendrickson andHeffernan, 2002: 365-66; Allen et al., 2003:63; Hinrichs, 2003: 41; Winter, 2003b: 301).While there is evidence that participants inEngland's local food sector(s) are engagingwith the world as they find it, and not tryingto (re)create an imaginary past (Diirrschmidt,1999:150; DEFRA, 2003: 1), detailed scrutinyofthe social and environmental consequencesof (economically) stronger alternative systemsof food provision would be welcome.

In addition, the economic consequences of(economically) stronger alternative systemsof food provision also merit further study. Forexample, a number of small-scale food retail-ers interviewed by Morris and Buller (2003)reported a decline in local food sales overrecent years, something that the authorsascribe to encroachment from supermarketsand 'the growth of alternative retail outlets,such as farmers' markets' (p. 564). This con-tradicts Holloway and Kneafsey's (2 000: 291 )argument that farmers' markets provide alocal multiplier effect by drawing more shop-pers into town or city centres, and raisesthe possibility that an extant alternative sys-tem of food provision (through small-scale,local retailers) is losing out to a new one.Thus, the extent to which new alternativesystems of food provision are generatingadditional sales of local produce, as opposedto providing new outlets for it, is unclear.Furthermore, smaller shops, as employers oflocal people and consumers of local services(CPRE, 2002a: 5; 2002b: 6; DEFRA, 2003:20), are likely to provide a larger local multi-plier effect than, say, farmers' markets, whichare unlikely to generate local employment (asstallholders must be involved in production)and have fewer overheads. Thus, if farmers'




markets take business from local shops intheir catchment area, they may have a delete-rious impact on the local economy. Moreover,research by two of the present authors sug-gests that, as their businesses mature, some'alternative' food producers reduce theirinvolvement with farmers markets infavour of more 'stable' relationships withwholesalers and large retailers (Ilbery andMaye, 2005).

Further examination of the economic con-sequences of an expansion ofnew alternativesystems of food provision could also informdebates over the use of local food as a tool ofspatial economic policy. For, although studieshave been made ofattempts to use 'defensivelocalism' as a regional development tool in theEU (e.g., Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1998; 1999;2000a; Knickel and Renting, 2000; de Roestand Menghi, 2000; Parrott et al., 2002;Barham, 2003), policy-makers are beginning toinvestigate the economic development poten-tial of the local food sector (e.g., DEFRA,2003). In the UK, this is likely to take twoforms. First, support for individual projectsthough EU structural funds and CAP pillartwo grant schemes, such as the Processingand Marketing Grant and the Rural EnterpriseScheme, particularly in regions where foodand drink production forms a 'cluster' (q.v.DTI, 2001). Morris and Buller (2003: 564-65)suggest that, in Gloucestershire, such schemeshave had limited impact. However, furtherresearch is required to determine whether thisfinding holds good elsewhere. Secondly, 'local-ized' procurement of food is being advocatedas a means by which the public sector can pro-vide a significant boost for local and regionaleconomies. The beneficial impacts ofthis couldbe pronounced in lagging regions, where publicsector buying power can have a significantimpact on economic activity.24 Although EUrules forbid 'spatial' discrimination in tenderinvitations for public procurement contracts,Morgan and Morley (2002) argue that it is pos-sible for committed public-sector institutionsto buy local food and, at the same time,improve their catering service to clients and

staff Indeed, the UK government recentlyannounced a review of public procurement,partly in order to examine whether smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) aregetting a 'fair' chance to compete forsupply contracts.25

However, public procurement oflocal foodwill not guarantee that economic value will beretained locally, nor that the local food sectorwill be able to maintain itself as a stronger(economic) alternative to conventional sys-tems of food provision. Local suppliers mayend up being taken over or put out of busi-ness, and profits may be remitted elsewhere.What is required, therefore, is more researchinto the functioning of local food economies,to complement and expand on that done byauthors such as Jones (2003) in Languedocand Morris and Buller (2003) in Gloucester-shire. For, as argued above, it seems likely thatit is alternative food production and distribu-tion networks, rather than individual 'nodes'(people, produce or enterprises) within them,that have most potential to provide a strongalternative to conventional FSCs. The needfor more work of this sort is underlined bypreliminary findings from research into waysof improving linkages between food sectorSMEs in Europe's lagging regions.26 Thisresearch has found that there is no straight-forward division between production for localand nonlocal markets, nor between 'quality'and conventional food. Instead, Ilbery andMaye (2005) suggest a diverse local foodeconomy (Figure 1) characterized by fourmain types of production/consumptionnetwork: speciality (e.g., 'quality' foods);community (local food projects); commodity('standardized' conventional food); and public(e.g., public procurement).

Future research could consider, in the lightof Figure 1, whether it may be necessary tobegin thinking of alternative systems offood provision as being hybridized whenconsidered at the level of the individualenterprise. There are at least two ways inwhich this might be happening. First, as Gilgand Battershill (1998: 33) and Morris and




Speciality

Public Community

Commodity

Figure I Schema of a local food economy

Buller (2003: 563, Table II) found, individualproducers may engage with more than one ofthe above types of production/consumptionnetwork This raises interesting questions:are stronger alternative systems of food pro-vision currently too marginal economically toenable food producers to 'make a living' fromthem? Are they regarded as one alternativewhich can be exploited as circumstances orprofitability allow? Secondly, if the idea ofthere being weaker and stronger economicalternatives to conventional FSCs survivessuch scrutiny, research could consider the'alternativeness' of alternative systems offood provision with reference to social andenvironmental criteria, thereby producingstronger hybrid alternatives that combineeconomic, social and environmental factorsSuch alternatives are, of course, utopian:pointing to a future better world But, thenagain, so is neoliberalism

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to three anonymous refereesfor their constructive criticisms and sugges-tions This article stems from work done aspart oftwo projects: 'Relocalization and alter-native food networks: a comparison of tworegions', funded by the Economic and SocialResearch Council (R000239980); and 'Supplychains linking food SMEs in Europe's laggingrural regions' (SUPPLIERS), funded by theEU (QLKS CT-2000-00841) Thanks aredue, therefore, to colleagues in the universi-ties of Exeter and Wales (Aberystwyth)with whom we are working on them

Notes1 As recent themed issues of the British Fbod

Journal (vol 105(8), 2003), Environment andPlanningA (vo1 35(3), 2003), Journal ofRuralStudies (vol 19(1), 2003) and SociologiaRurmlis (vol 42(4), 2002) attest A recent




issue of Social and Cultural Geography(vol. 4(1), 2003) was also, from a differentperspective, devoted to food.

2. For more detail on the 'globalization' of FSCs,see Fagan (1997); Watts and Goodman(1997).

3. Quotation taken from paragraph 13 of theWTO's Doha declaration, retrieved 7 May2003 from http://www.wto. org/english/thewtoe/minist e/minO 1_e/mindecl e.htm

4. Hendrickson and Heffernan (2002) exemplifythe impact of vertical integration in the USgrain industry; Renard (2003: 90) notes thatfour companies dominate global coffee roast-ing; and European food retailing is dominatedby a small number of supermarkets (Pooleet al., 2002).

5. Our use of the adjective 'social' here corre-sponds with Latour's (2000: 113) definition ofit as 'a way of tying together heterogeneousbundles'. In other words, marketing discourse(see following note) seeks to tie individualsinto social networks favoured by the neo-liberal 'project', while disconnecting themfrom those that it does not favour.

6. Watts (2004) argues that marketing canbe analysed as a 'discourse', in the sense inwhich the concept was developed by Foucault(1972).

7. Where power is defined as the ability tostructure the possible field of action of others(Foucault, 1982: 221).

8. For instance, a British pressure group, Friendsof the Earth, runs a Campaign for Real Food.Retrieved 2 May 2003 from http://wvw.foe.co.uk/campaigns/real food

9. Summary of the CAP Reform Agreement -

26 June 2003. Retrieved 30 July 2003from www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/agreement-summary.htm

10. As Cook and Crang (1996) argue, suchfetishism may comprise both a mystificationof the means of production and attempts toassociate food with particular knowledges,qualities or emotions; this latter process oftenbeing achieved through advertising.

11. The Court's decision was reported in TheIndependent (21 May 2003: 3).

12. Although this may entail increased surveil-lance and control of farmers' and processors'activities (see, for example, Litchfield, 2002:10-13; Wiskerke, 2003: 443).

13. The deskilling of farmers is well advanced inparts ofthe USA (Hendrickson and Heffernan,2002: 359).

14. Retrieved 23 May 2003 from http://www.foodstandards. gov. uk/science/s ciencetopics/organicfood/

15. The emergence of variant Creutzfelt-JakobDisease is a case in point: by the time the'unhealthy' food was recognized as such,deaths had already occurred.

16. In addition, of course, to the environmentalgoals of organic farming.

17. It should be noted that this argument is adeparture from Allen et all's (2003) opposi-tional/alternative conceptualization.

18. What Allen et al. (2003) define as 'alternative'.19. One example is the EU-sponsored IMPACT

research programme - see Knickel andRenting (2000), Ventura and Milone (2000)and other papers in Sociologia Puralis 40(4).

20. Because, as Bourdieu (1984: 179-83, 194-99)demonstrated, social class and cultural milieuinfluence people's attitudes to food.

21. Although, as DEFRA (2003) makes clear, thespatial boundaries in question are not clearlydelineated and may vary between, forexample, producers and consumers.

22. According to de Roest and Menghi (2000:439), cheese and processed meats accountfor 53% of Italian PDO and PGI awards.

23. The 'rural idyll' is, as Little (1999: 439-40)observes, an overused and underexaminedconcept.

24. For example, Morgan and Morley (2002: 60)note that public procurement accounts for11% ofWelsh Gross Domestic Product.

25. News of the review retrieved 19 September2003 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/uk/3179907.stm

26. Supply chains linking food SMEs in Europe'slagging rural regions (SUPPLIERS, QLKS-CT-2000-00841); see, for example, Ilbery andMaye (2005).

ReferencesAllen, P., FitzSimmons, M., Goodman, M. and

Warner, K. 2003: Shifting plates in the agifoodlandscape: the tectonics ofalternative food initiativesin California. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 61-75.

Archer, G.P., Garcia Sanchez, J., Vignali, G. andChalliot, A. 2003: Latent consumers' attitude (sic)to farmers' markets in north west England. BritishFood Journal 105, 487-97.




Barham, E. 2003: Translating terroir: the globalchallenge of French AOC labelling. Journal ofRural Studies 19, 127-38.

Barrett, H.R., Ilbery, B.W., Browne, A.W. andBinns, T. 1999: Globalization and the changingnetworks of food supply: the importation offresh horticultural produce from Kenya into the UK.Transactions of the Institute of British GeographersNS 24, 159-74.

Battershill, M.R.J. and Gilg, A.W. 1998: Traditionallow intensity farming: evidence of the role of ventedirecte in supporting such farms in northwestFrance, and some implications for conservation policy.Journal ofRural Studies 14,475-86.

Bell, D. and Valentine, G. 1997: Consuminggeographies. We are where we eat. London: Routledge.

Blois, K.J. 1999: Trust in business to businessrelationships: an evaluation of its status. Journal ofManagement Studies 36, 197-215.

Bourdieu, P. 1984: Distinction. A social critique of thejudgement of taste (translated by R. Nice). London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Burt, R.S. 2002: Bridge decay. Social Networks 24,333-63.

Callon, M. 1986: Some elements of a sociology oftranslation: domestication of the scallops andfishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In Law, J., editor, Power,action and belief A new sociology of knowledge?London: Routledge, 196-233.

Carrier, J.G. and Miller, D., editors 1998: Virtualism:a new po itical economy. Oxford: Berg.

Cook, I. 1999: ReviewofGoodman, D. and Watts, M.J1997, editors, Globalisingfood. Agrarian questions andglobal restructuring. Transactions of the InstituteofBritish Geographers NS 24, 514-16.

Cook, I. and Crang, P. 1996: The world on a plate.Culinary culture, displacement and geographicalknowledges. Journal ofMaterial Culture 1, 131-53.

Council for the Protection of Rural England(CPRE) 2002a: Food webs. A report on local foodnetworks in east Suffolk which demonstrates the impor-tance of local shops and services to local communities.London: Council for the Protection of Rural England.2002b: Down your way? A CPRE briefing onsupermarkets and local foods. London: Council forthe Protection of Rural England.

Crewe, L. 2000: Geographies ofretailing and consump-tion. Progress in Human Geography 24, 275-90.

de Certeau, M. 1984: The practice of everyday lfe(translated by S. Rendall). Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.

de Roest, K. and Menghi, A. 2000: Reconsidering'traditional' food: the case of Parmigiano Regianocheese. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 439-51.

Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs (DEFRA) 2003: Local food - a snapshot ofthe sector Report of the working group on local food.

London: Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs.

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) 2001:Business clusters in the UK: a first assessment.London: Department ofTrade and Industry.

Dowler, E. and Caraher, M. 2003: Local food projects:the new philanthropy? The Political Quarterly 74,57-65.

Diirrschmidt, J. 1999: The 'local' versus the 'global'?'Individualised milieux' in a complex 'risk society'.The case of organic food box schemes in the SouthWest. Explorations in Sociology 55, 131-52.

Evans, N., Morris, C. and Winter, M. 2002: Concep-tualizing agriculture: a critique of post-productivismas the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography26, 313-32.

Fagan, R. 1997: Local food/global food: globalizationand local restructuring. In Lee, R. and Wills, J.,editors, Geographies of economies, London: Arnold,197-208.

Flynn, A., Marsden, T. and Smith, E. 2003: Foodregulation and retailing in a new institutionalcontext. The Political Quarterly 74, 38-46.

Foucault, M. 1972: The archaeology ofknowledge (trans-latedby A.M. Sheridan Smith). London: Tavistock.

- 1982: The subject and power. In Dreyfis, H.L. andRabinow, P, Michel Foucault: beyondstructuralism andhermeneutics, Brighton: Harvester Press, 208-26.

Friedman, A. and Watts, D.C.H. 2003: Evaluatingthe sustainability action network. Paper presentedat the Ninth Annual International SustainableDevelopment Research Conference, JubileeCampus, University ofNottingham, UK, 25 March.

Gilg, A.W. and Battershill, M. 1998: Quality farmfood in Europe: a possible alternative to the industri-alised food market and to current agri-environmentalpolicies: lessons from France. Food Policy 23, 25-40.

Goodman, D. 2004: Rural Europe redux? Reflectionson alternative agro-food networks and paradigmchange. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 3-16.

Goodman, D. and DuPuis, E.M. 2002: Knowingfood and growing food: beyond the production-consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture.Sociologia Ruralis 42, 5-22.

Granovetter, M. 1973: The strength of weak ties.American Journal ofSociology 78, 1360-80.

Grant, W. 2003: The prospects for CAP reform. ThePolitical Quarterly 74,19-26.

Guthman, J. 2002: Commodified meanings andmeaningful commodities: re-thinking production-consumption links through the organic system ofprovision. Sociologia Ruralis 42, 295-311.

Gwynne, R.N., Klak, T. and Shaw, D.J.B. 2003:Alternative capitalsms. Geographies of emergingregions. London: Arnold.

Harvey, D. 2000: Spaces ofhope. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.




Hassanein, N. 2003: Practising food democracy: apragmatic politics of transformation. Journal of RuralStudies 19, 77-86.

Hendrickson, M.K. and Heffernan, W.D. 2002:Opening spaces through relocalization: locatingpotential resistance in the weaknesses of the globalfood system. Sociologia Ruralhs 42, 347-69.

Hinrichs, C.C. 2000: Embeddedness and local foodsystems: notes on two types of direct agriculturalmarket. Journal ofRural Studies 16, 295-303.

- 2003: The practice and politics of food systemlocalization. Jo urnal ofRural Studies 19, 33-45.

Holloway, L. and Kneafsey, M. 2000: Reading thespace ofthe farmers 'market: a preliminary investiga-tion from the UK. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 285-99.

Ilbery, B. and Bowler, I. 1998: From agriculturalproductivism to post-productivism. In Ilbery, B.,editor, The geography of rural change, London:Longman, 57-84.

Ilbery, B. and Kneafsey, M. 1998: Product and place:promoting quality products and services in the laggingregions of the European Union. European Urban andRegional Studies 5, 329-41.

- 1999: Niche markets and regional speciality foodproducts in Europe: towards a research agenda.Environment and PlanningA 31, 2207-22.

- 2000a: Producer constructions of quality in regionalspeciality food production: a case study from southwest England. Jo urnal ofR ural Studies 16, 217-30.

- 2000b: Registering regional speciality food and drinkproducts in the United Kingdom: the case of PDOsand PGIs. Area 32, 317-25.

Ilbery, B. and Maye, D. 2005: Food supply chains andsustainability: evidence from specialist food producersin the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy, inpress.

Ilbery, B., Kneafsey, M., Maye, D., Buller, H. andMorris, C. 2003: Labels with(out) a cause? Acomparative analysis of product labelling schemes inNorth America and Europe.In Walford, N. andEvans, N., editors, Innovations in rural areas. Fourth-colloquium ofAnglo-French ruralgeography, Clermont-Ferrand: Universitaires Blaises Pascal, 255-73.

Jones, A. 2003: 'Power in place': viticultural spatialitiesof globalization and community empowerment inLanguedoc. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers NS 28, 367-82.

Kneafsey, M., Ilbery, B. and Jenkins, T. 2001:Exploring the dimensions of culture economies inrural west Wales. Socioologia Rurahls 41, 296-310.

Knickel, K. and Renting, H. 2000: Methodological andconceptual issues in the study of multifunctionalityand rural development. So ciolog ia Rurals 40, 512-28.

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 1996: Reading images.The grammar ofvisual design. London: Routledge.

La Trobe, H. 2001: Farmers' markets: consuming localrural produce. International Journal of ConsumerStudies 25, 181-92.

Lang, T. and Rayner, G. 2003: Foodandhealth strategyin the UK: a policy impact analysis. The PolztzcalQuarterly 74, 66-75.

Latour, B. 2000: When things strike back: a possiblecontribution of 'science studies' to the socialsciences. British Journal ofSociology 51, 107-23.

Lazonick, W. 1991: Business organization and the mythof the market. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Lee, R. 2000: Shelter from the storm? Geographies ofregard in the worlds of horticultural production andconsumption. Geoforum 31,137-57.

Lee, R. and Leyshon, A. 2003: Conclusions: re-makinggeographies and the construction of 'spaces of hope'.In Leyshon, A., Lee, R. and Williams, C.C., editors,Alternative economic spaces, London: Sage, 193-98.

Leyshon, A. and Lee, R. 2003: Introduction. InLeyshon, A., Lee, R. and Williams, C.C., editors,Alternative economic spaces, London: Sage, 1-26.

Leyshon, A., Lee, R. and Williams, C.C. editors,2003: Alternative economic spaces. London: Sage.

Litchfield, C., editor, 2002: The orgyanic directory 2002-2003. Totnes, Devon: Green Books, in associationwith the Soil Association.

Little, J. 1999: Otherness, representation and thecultural construction of rurality. Progress inHuman Geography 23,437A2.

Lockie, S. 2002: 'The invisible mouth': mobilizing'the consumer' in food production-consumptionnetworks. Sociologia Rurals 42, 278-94.

Lockie, S. and Kitto, S. 2000: Beyond the farm gate:production-consumption networks and agri-foodresearch. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 3-19.

Lovering, J. 1999: Theory led by policy: the inadequa-cies of the 'New Regionalism' (illustrated from thecase of Wales). International Journal of Urban andRegional Research 23, 379-95.

Lowe, P., Buller, H. and Ward, N. 2002: Setting theagenda? British and French approaches to the secondpillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal ofRural Studies 18,1-17.

Mansfield, B. 2003: Fish, factory trawlers, and imitationcrab: the nature of quality in the seafood industry.Journal ofRural Studies 19, 9-21.

McLean, A. 2003: Rural economies: stepping stones tohealthier futures. Paper presented at the WestMidlands Rural Affairs conference, Hereford, UK,4 April.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(MAFF) 2000a: Processing and Marketing Grant.London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.2000b: The Rural Enterprise Scheme. London:Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Morgan, K. and Morley, A. 2002: Relocalrising thefoodchain: the role ofcreative public procurement. Cardiff:The Regeneration Institute, Cardiff University, inassociation with Powys Food Links, the SoilAssociation and Sustain.




Morris, C. and Buller, H. 2003: The local food sector.A preliminary assessment of its form and impact inGloucestershire. British Food Journal 105, 559-66.

Morris, C. and Evans, N. 2004: Agricultural turns,geographical turns: retrospect and prospect. JournalofRural Studies 20, 95-111 .

Murdoch, J. 2000: Networks -anewparadigmofruraldevelopment? Journal ofRural Studies 16, 407-19.

Murdoch, J. and Miele, M. 1999: 'Back to nature':changing 'worlds of production' in the food sector.Sociologia Ruralis 39, 465-83.

Murdoch, J., Marsden, T. and Banks, J. 2000:Quality, nature and embeddedness: some theoreticalconsiderations in the context of the food sector.Economic Geography 76, 107-25.

Parrott, N., Wilson, N. and Murdoch, J. 2002:Spatializing quality: regional protection and thealternative geography of food. European Urban andRegional Studies 9, 241-61.

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. 2002: Neoliberalizing space.Antipode 34, 380-404.

Poole, R., Clarke, G.P. and Clarke, D.B. 2002: Growth,concentration and regulation in European food retailing.European Urban and Regional Studies 9, 167-86.

Potter, C. and Burney, J. 2002: Agricultural multi-functionality in the WTO - legitimate non-tradeconcern or disguised protectionism? Journal ofRuralStudies 18, 35-47.

Ray, C. 1998: Culture, intellectual property and territo-rial rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 3-20.

Raynolds, L.T. 2002: Consumer/producer links inFair Trade coffee networks. Sociologia Ruralis 42,404-24.

Renard, M.-C. 2003: Fair trade: quality, market andconventions. Journal ofRural Studies 19, 87-96.

Renting, H., Marsden, T.K. and Banks, J. 2003:Understanding alternative food networks: exploringthe role of short food supply chains in rural develop-ment. Environment and PlanningA 35, 393-411.

Rose, G. 2001: Visual methodologies. An introductionto the interpretation ofvisual materials. London: Sage.

Sage, C. 2003: Social embeddedness and relations ofregard: alternative 'good food' networks in south-west Ireland. Journal ofRural Studies 19, 47-60.

Sinclair, J. 1987: Images incorporated: advertzszng asindustry and ideology. London: Croom Helm.

Stassart, P. and Whatmore, S.J. 2003: Metabolisingrisk: food scares and the un/re-making of Belgianbeef Environment and PlanningA 35,449-62.

Tregear, A. 2003: From Stilton to Vimto: usingfood history to re-think typical products in ruraldevelopment. Sociologia Ruralis 43, 91-107.

Ventura, F and Milone, P. 2000: Theory and practiceof multi-product farms: farm butcheries in Umbria.Sociologia Ruralis 40, 452-65.

Watts, D.C.H. 2004: Evaluating British railway posteradvertising: the London and North Eastern Railwaybetween the wars. Journal of Transport History 25,in press.

Watts, M.J. and Goodman, D. 1997: Agrarian ques-tions. Global appetite, local metabolism: nature,culture, and industry in fin-de-siecle agro-foodsystems. In Goodman, D. and Watts, M.J., editors,Globalising food. Agrarian questions and globalrestructuring, London: Routledge, 1-32.

Weatherell, C., Tregear, A. and Allison, J. 2003:In search of the concerned consumer: UK publicperceptions of food, farming and buying local.Journal ofRural Studies 19, 233-44.

Whatmore, S. 2002: Hybrid geographies. Natures,cultures, spaces. London: Sage.

Whatmore, S. and Thorne, L. 1997: Nourishingnetworks. Alternative geographies of food. InGoodman, D. and Watts, MA, editors, Globalisingfood. Agrarian questions and global restructuring,London: Routledge, 287-304.

Whatmore, S., Stassart, P. and Renting, H. 2003:What's alternative about alternative food networks?Environment and PlanningA 35, 389-91.

Williamson, J. 1983: Decoding advertisements. Ideologyand meaning in advertising. London: Marion Boyars.

Wilson, G.A. 2001: From productivism to post-productivism ... and back again? Exploring the(un)changed natural and mental landscapes ofEuropean agriculture. Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Geographers NS 26, 77-102.

Winter, M. 2003a: Geographies of food: agro-foodgeographies - making reconnections. Progress inHuman Geography 27, 505-13.2003b: Embeddedness, the new food economy anddefensive localism. Journal ofRural Studies 19, 23-32.

Wiskerke, J.S.C. 2003: On promising niches andconstraining socio-technical regimes: the case ofDutch wheat and bread. Environment and PlanningA35, 429-48.

Wrigley, N. 2002: 'Food deserts' in British cities: policycontext and research priorities. Urban Studies 39,2029-40.

Wrigley, N., Warm, D., Margetts, B. and Whelan,A. 2002: Assessing the impact of improved retailaccess on diet in a 'food desert': a preliminary report.Urban Studies 39, 2061-82.

Youngs, J. 2003: A study offarm outlets in north westEngland. British Food Journal 105, 531-4 1.



progress in human geography, 27(4): 505-13 - sage publications

Documents