Sanitizing agri-food tech: COVID-19 and the politics of expectation

Reisman, Emily

doi:10.1080/03066150.2021.1934674

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An interesting question is who will invest in (and profit most from) the emerging economy of repair. What we have shown above points towards a prevalence of start-up firms actively seeking techno-scientific innovations, a finding that resonates with recent agro-food scholarship on the dynamics in such areas of techno-scientific experimentation as digital and precision farming (Clapp and Ruder, 2020) as well as the tendency for start-ups to pursue 'solutions' to agro-industrial challenges, steering these towards expected agro-food futures as much as present circumstances (Reisman, 2021). To what extent larger, more consolidated agribusiness firms come to invest in 'brother layer solutions' will be consequential for the further trajectory of agro-industrial development in the sector.…”

Section: Foreclosing Alternative Food Futures?supporting

confidence: 66%

The ‘brother layer problem’: Routine killing, biotechnology and the pursuit of ‘ethical sustainability’ in industrial poultry

Rutt

Jakobsen

2022

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global poultry industry culls approximately seven billion day-old male layer chicks annually. Superfluous to both egg and meat, male ‘brother’ layers constitute a momentous problem, simultaneously economical and ethical, to the poultry industry. In this article, we scrutinize present and proposed alternatives to routine killing involving multiple biotechnological innovations, including novel methods for fetus sexing, genome editing technologies and re-sexing. We utilize a political ecological perspective that views attempts to solve the ‘brother layer problem’ as discursive and techno-scientific ‘fixes’ to problems of the capitalist poultry industry's own making and to rising demands for ethics and environmental-friendly animal agriculture. This context opens new avenues for profit-making by and for an expanding matrix of actors we view as an evolving ‘economy of repair’ that is built in part by public resources. Further, these fixes constitute an ostensible ‘ethical sustainability’ meant to signal both animal welfare and environmental improvements, which seem to work towards stabilizing agro-industry, thereby foreclosing alternatives to agro-industrial intensification.

show abstract

Section: Foreclosing Alternative Food Futures?supporting

confidence: 66%

The ‘brother layer problem’: Routine killing, biotechnology and the pursuit of ‘ethical sustainability’ in industrial poultry

Rutt

Jakobsen

2022

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the pandemic has been used to make the case for further investments in agriculture and food that go beyond those promoted in 2007/2008, most prominently investments in the recently much-hyped areas of ag-and food-tech. As Fairbairn and Guthman (2020, p. 587) note, Silicon Valley's ag-and food-tech scene was quick in identifying COVID-19 as an opportunity and presented the pandemic as amplifying the need for its existence (see also Reisman, 2021). As ag-investment in farming has become increasingly established, new digital ag-and food technologies are presented as a "fix" for social issues-such as exploitative labour conditions on farms and in processing factories-as well as undercapitalized and therefore newly emerging lucrative investment opportunities.…”

Section: Covid-19 As a Push For Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agri-investment Cashing in on COVID-19

Sippel

2022

Beyond Global Food Supply Chains

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global agri-food relationships are continuously changing. However, some periods can be perceived as critical moments when sudden events challenge established patterns and introduce new dynamics within the agri-food system. Many observers identified the food price hikes in 2007/2008 as such a “turning point”. The food price hikes were seen as a stark reminder of the fragility and volatility of the global food system and interpreted as signalling a structural crisis in agriculture and its organizational and institutional frameworks. The 2008 crisis produced both winners and losers. Among the winners were institutional investors that started engaging much more actively in the area of productive resources. Roughly ten years later, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted global agri-food relationships again, perhaps even more profoundly. This chapter juxtaposes the crises of 2007/2008 and 2020/2021 and explores the role of financial actors within them. It analyses how financial investors, who emerged as powerful actors out of the 2008 crisis, responded to, and dealt with, the COVID-19 crisis. It further investigates how the pandemic has been rhetorically framed, what investment strategies were promoted, and how financial investors anticipate their engagement with agri-food in (post-)pandemic times.

show abstract

“…Labor-related inequities disproportionately affect people of color (Freshour, 2017;Liu & Apollon, 2011;Sachs et al, 2014;Weiler, 2022), and both the legacies and contemporary forces of colonialism and racism limit access to becoming a food producer (Levkoe & Offeh-Gyimah, 2020). While technological solutions to labor shortages have gained further support in light of the pandemic, they are far from a panacea (Reisman, 2021) and risk exacerbating injustices within food systems, for example, as increased automation of tasks perceived to be highly skilled may result in more farmers relying on racialized migrant workers (Rotz et al, 2019). Current scientific paradigms upon which much of industrial agriculture depends create a divide between those who "know" agriculture and those who "do" agriculture (Coolsaet, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways for advancing good work in food systems: Reflecting on the international Good Work for Good Food Forum

Klassen

Medland²,

Nicol³

et al. 2023

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crucial roles that workers, especially seasonal and migrant workers, play in our food systems have come under renewed attention in recent years. The coronavirus pandemic resulted in food workers being recognized as critical or essential workers in many countries. In 2021, this coincided with the UN International Year of Fruits and Vegetables (IYFV), highlighting the importance of horticultural crops to healthy lives globally. Yet, workers’ quality of life in this most labor-intensive form of food production is often disregarded, or in the case of the UN IYFV, misconstrued. The agriculture-migration nexus—on which food systems depend—remains recognized as a challenge, yet there is limited debate about how it could be ameliorated and a lack of articulation of desirable alternatives. While alternative food and peasant movements propose food system transformation and alternative labor futures based on agroecology, labor lawyers and other advocates propose regulation and formalization of workplace regimes to ensure fair working conditions. Most recently, a third possibility has emerged from agri-tech innovators: a techno-centric future with far fewer agricultural workers. These three archetypes of agricultural labor futures (agroecological, formally regulated, and techno-centric) have the potential to leave food scholars and activists without a unified, coherent vision to advance. Addressing this gap, this paper reports and builds on insights harvested from the international Good Work for Good Food Forum, organized by the authors with the aim of shaping consensus on positive visions for work in food systems. About 40 scholar-activists across three continents discussed the current challenges facing food workers and crafted a collective vision for good food work. This vision is documented in the form of nine principles supported by a framework of seven enabling pathways. We conclude by emphasizing the need for a people-centered incorporation of technology and a re-valuation of food workers’ contributions to global food systems. We offer the vision as a collective platform for action to advocate for and organize with workers in food systems.

show abstract

Sanitizing agri-food tech: COVID-19 and the politics of expectation

Cited by 27 publications

References 65 publications

The ‘brother layer problem’: Routine killing, biotechnology and the pursuit of ‘ethical sustainability’ in industrial poultry

The ‘brother layer problem’: Routine killing, biotechnology and the pursuit of ‘ethical sustainability’ in industrial poultry

Agri-investment Cashing in on COVID-19

Pathways for advancing good work in food systems: Reflecting on the international Good Work for Good Food Forum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About