Governments, grassroots, and the struggle for local food systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating

Abstract

This document is the author's post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.

Farming along desire lines: Collective action and food systems adaptation to climate change

“…Yet these processes can often be biased towards those who have the time, inclination and financial capacity to act as witnesses. Governments have a tendency of accepting suggestions at a surface level while maintaining the status quo—in the case of Canada, a neoliberally minded, export‐based market economy—in agriculture and food systems rather than moving towards any radical or even necessary changes (Beilin, Sysak, & Hill, ; Laforge, Anderson, & McLachlan, ).…”

“…Farmers can be reluctant to adopt suggestions from governments they mistrust or apply for grants that add to their administrative burdens (Soubry, ; Stock, Er, et al, ). Laforge et al point out that government processes often ‘reinforce unequal power relations by restricting (containing), often through the direct enforcement of limitations through regulations, or diluting (co‐opting) emerging grassroots alternatives through technologies of governmentality’ (, p. 674). Co‐opting can be particularly damaging to collective action when governments support programmes which pursue dominant trajectories rather than more transformative approaches (Laforge et al, ).…”

“…Laforge et al point out that government processes often ‘reinforce unequal power relations by restricting (containing), often through the direct enforcement of limitations through regulations, or diluting (co‐opting) emerging grassroots alternatives through technologies of governmentality’ (, p. 674). Co‐opting can be particularly damaging to collective action when governments support programmes which pursue dominant trajectories rather than more transformative approaches (Laforge et al, ). Moreover, governments are notoriously, dangerously slow to action, considering the rate at which impacts of climate change are affecting livelihoods (IPCC, ).…”

“…What is the place of government in recognizing collective action if that action emerges in spite of a governing body? How can governing institutions support climate adaptation without accidentally or intentionally co‐opting or corrupting collective action to their own agendas, as Laforge et al () point out?…”

Is the Emergence of the “Fresh Prep” Food Service Provider an Entrée into Local Foods?

“…Capturing regional scale in the food system requires more and larger buyers entering regional markets and scaling local production to meet the those buyers’ needs (Mount ; Nost ), while maintaining the core values attributed to a smaller direct market system (Bloom and Hinrichs ). However, growing markets to capture the economic benefits of local production creates a tension between the economic and social expectations of the local food movement and opens the door for corporate cooptation, threatening core issues of equity and justice for farmers and farm workers (Allen ; Cleveland, Carruth, and Mazaroli ; DeLind ; Laforge, Anderson, and McLachlan ).…”