Foodopoly and Barnyard and Birkenstocks: Two Approaches for Changing Food Systems

The food we eat is the center of increasing attention in both popular media and academic discourse which focuses on the immediate connections of diet and health as well as the broader consequences for the environment and social justice. New metaphors such as the food chain and food deserts capture public attention and are employed in narratives of hidden dangers, larger systemic problems, and often crises. Wellknown investigative journalists such as Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser reveal links between commodity subsidies, high-fructose corn syrup, the obesity epidemic, corporate control, and labor issues. In the wake of this critique of the industrial food system, a diverse set of alternatives such as farmers markets, CSAs, and food hubs re-work the relationships between producers and consumers to change the cultural and ecological valences (organic, fair trade, local) of the food we eat. In a relatively short period of time, the largely taken-forgranted aspects of the conventional food system have been thoroughly deconstructed and alternatives have become conventions. The question now is how often do these narratives need repeating? More importantly, how significant are the alternatives? What ideologies do they represent and are these the only means of intervention? Two recent books contribute to the larger critique, while focusing analysis on some new areas and possible new strategies for change. The title Foodopoly: The Battle Over The Future of Food and Farming in America, as well as the jacket cover image of a gang of wheat combine harvesters working at the scale of a large agribusiness operation, seem to offer the familiar critique. However, the author, Wenonah Hauter, challenges the idea that more informed consumers can change the food system. She states, Bwe cannot shop our way out of this mess.^ Foodopoly goes beyond the strategy of Bvoting with our forks^ to analyze the structural aspects of the food system— the corporate, scientific, industrial frameworks, and policy decisions that created and depended on the system in the first place. Following the introduction which frames this argument, Hauter unpacks how powerful interests shaped farm and food policy with a vision of economic efficiency of large industrial farms linked to a global Bfree market^ which would mean cheaper food as well as fewer farmers. Subsequent chapters follow how this vision influenced Federal food policy in the 1960s, and the consequences it has had for corporate consolidation, deregulation of food safety, factory farming (including organics), and control of genetic resources. It is a very clear and substantive argument that provides a foundation for structural alternatives. Based on her analysis of policy and power relationships, Hauter challenges individuals and groups involved in various food movements (local, organic, fair trade, etc.) to politicize their activities and advocate for larger policy changes, regulation and enforcement, and ultimately build political power for significant change. One obvious place to begin to change the food system is on the ground at the level of production. However, Barnyard and Birkenstocks: Why Farmers and Environmentalists Need Each Other examines the difficulty of making such policy and regulatory change on the farm. It highlights the fact that * Matthew Potteiger ranchotomatillo@earthlink.net