Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
our overwhelmingly unsustainable society? Can we expect organic farms
to isolate themselves from the rest of America? There are also intriguing
theoretical questions: how open or closed can an agricultural system be
(energy, markets, inputs) and at what scale (farm, region, national) are we
assessing sustainability (Rigby and Cáceres 2001)?
Allen and Kovach (2000) ask whether it is possible for the organic market
to contribute to progressive environmental and social goals. “Green con-
sumerism” is where people become informed and “vote” with their shop-
ping dollars for products that are more environmentally friendly. Organic
products are specifically labeled to draw these sorts of green consumers, but
are they more environmentally benign? Yes, say the authors, in the current
organic production system. But this could change as organics become more
concentrated and competitive like conventional agriculture. Allen and Ko-
vach note that organic standards cannot include philosophical concepts of
ecological balance, so the holistic basis of organic production has become
segmented into component parts: inputs, methods, soils, crops, markets,
etc.
Next, Allen and Kovach (2000) introduce the topic of “commodity
fetishism” as a means for the market to change social relations. Commodity
fetishism occurs in a capitalist system when the social relations that went
into producing a commodity are concealed when it is sold. Most products
are in this category. Rarely does anybody really think about the working
conditions, salaries, property ownership, or labor fairness when they buy
an item. According to the authors this “hides the source of profits and,
therefore, it deadens social action and resistance” (226). To specifically
address agriculture, they note that “defetishization” means to make these
social and ecological relationships crystal clear, and organic agriculture can
greatly benefit from this openness. Thus marketing of organic products
clearly displays the unique aspects of organic farming, while conventional
products seek to hide their use of pesticides and their high federal subsidies.
You don't buy a box of conventional corn flakes that advertises: “This cereal
is made from GMO corn that was produced with pesticides that polluted
local streams; and we only paid the farmer a quarter, but we're charging you
$3.99 for this box of cereal!” So organic marketing has effectively used de-
fetishization (ormaking explicit the information about organic production)
to woo consumers. But organic advertising only tells you part of the story.
You don't hear about the large-scale organic farms or the big corporations
producing organic goods. Still, defetishization in organic products could
encourage real social change: “This transparency - reaching into the farm,
the scientific laboratories, and government agencies - could contribute”
[88],
(19)
Lines: 218 to 222
———
0.0pt PgVar
———
Normal Page
PgEnds: T
E
X
[88],
(19)
