Standard fare or fairer standards: Feminist reflections on agri-food governance

McMahon, Martha

doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9249-y

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous authors suggest that industrial, "factory" food production systems, which necessitate overuse of antibiotics in animals, are a threat to a safe food supply (Buckley, 2015;McMahon, 2011;Nestle, 2003;Worosz, Knight, Harris, & Conner, 2008). To deal with the increasing threat posed by industrial food production, regulators introduced science-based rules and controls to stem the flow of foodborne disease rather than requiring industry to reduce the scale of food production.…”

Section: Food Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intent of the BC Meat Inspection Regulation change was to standardize meat production in the province, protect public health, and foster confidence in the BC food supply (McMahon, 2011). However, impacts of the new regulations on smallscale producers included higher slaughter costs, lower profit margins, lost revenues, loss of farm status, and reduced livestock production (Johnson, 2008).…”

Section: Conflicts In Food Safety and Local Foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Food Safety and Food Security: Mapping Relationships

Martin

Perkin

2016

JAFSCD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food safety regulations designed for industrialscale food producers can create insurmountable challenges when applied to small-scale food producers. These challenges can make for a frustrating environment for food consumers, producers, and regulators, at times leading to tensions between food producers and people working in food safety. The objective of this study was to identify ways to reduce these tensions and promote intersectoral collaboration. We used concept mapping, a structured, participatory, mixed-method approach, to solicit ideas and synthesize input from those working in food safety and food security. We sent invitations to 96 individuals working in food safety or food security, and 50 completed the online concept mapping. Twenty-three participated in categorizing and ranking all the resulting statements. The findings were 'mapped' into six clusters: (1) communicating, (2) understanding intent, (3) educating, (4) understanding risk and regulation, (5) recognizing scale, and (6) enhancing partnerships. We further reduced these six clusters into three categories: "relationships," "education," and "context." Although there are no quick or easy ways to ease tensions between those working in food safety and food security, we suggest four practical ways to ease tensions to ensure safe and accessible food: (1) a collaborative group at a high regulatory level that shares authority is needed; (2) building relationships across disciplines should be considered as part of public health work; (3) regulatory documents should be written in plain language; and (4) food safety regulations should account for differences in scale of production with supportive resourcing.

show abstract

Section: Food Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conflicts In Food Safety and Local Foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Safety and Food Security: Mapping Relationships

Martin

Perkin

2016

JAFSCD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The topic has also been explored under feminist approaches addressing the gender implications of the power and control relationships within the food system (Patel 2012), the impact of public food safety regulations (McMahon 2011) or peasant women's contribution to the evolution of the FSv concept (Desmarais 2007).…”

Section: The Concept Of Fsvmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting established instruments to build useful food sovereignty indicators

Binimelis

Rivera-Ferré

Tendero³

et al. 2014

Development Studies Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent context of global food emergency and ecological crisis has increased the relevance of people's struggle for food sovereignty (FSv), which promotes the transformation of the dominant food system and claims 'the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems'. Revisiting two Spanish and Catalan articles developing FSv indicators, this article aims at discussing the need and utility of developing FSv indicators at different territorial levels. Confronting these two territorial scales, the paper also identifies common steps that can facilitate other future processes of building FSv indicators. As a conclusion, the paper suggests that these processes of building indicators can contribute to providing political direction at different geographical scales for the implementation of the FSv proposal. At the same time, they favor the movement's self-reflexivity in its practices while supporting the collective shaping of future actions.

show abstract

“…Between 2007 and 2010, I studied the impact of new food-safety regulations on local small-scale farmers near where I live in British Columbia (BC), Canada [2]. What I learned about the potential consequences of current trends in food-safety governance and the harmonization of regional or global standards raised troubling questions about the future of vibrant small-scale farms and thriving local economies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What I learned about the potential consequences of current trends in food-safety governance and the harmonization of regional or global standards raised troubling questions about the future of vibrant small-scale farms and thriving local economies. While much recent research literature now stresses the need to recognize the connections between human and environmental health [3][4][5][6], my research showed me how easily efforts for greater local food security 2 and ecological and resilient agriculture can be undermined in the name of food-safety. The context for changes in BC's food-safety governance is important.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Food is to be Kept Safe and for Whom? Food-Safety Governance in an Unsafe Food System

McMahon

2013

Laws

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that discussion of new food-safety governance should be framed by the realization that the dominant food system within which food-safety governance is designed to makes food safe is itself a structural and systemic sources of food un-safety, poor health and a future of food insecurity for many. For some, an appropriate policy response lies in addressing the connections between the food system and diseases such as heart disease, obesity and diabetes. For others it means subsuming food-safety governance within food security governance. For yet others, safe food implies food sovereignty governance and the primacy of a climate change resilient food system. Conventional approaches to food-safety governance are typically framed within a liability model of responsibility that has limited usefulness for addressing institutional, structural or systemic sources of harm such as those critics increasingly attribute to the dominant food system and which are not amenable to remedy by food-safety governance as it is widely understood. One cannot identify critical hazard points where risk is to be managed. These are food-system safety challenges. Because food-safety governance is so deeply political there needs to be greater attention to issues of governance rather than the more usual focus on the technologies of food-safety. Feminist political theorists have much to contribute to re-thinking food-safety governance in the context of diversity and the complexities of power. One could usefully start with the simple questions, "what food is to be kept-safe, for whom and who is the subject of food-safety governance in a post-Westphalian political economic order?" These questions can help unpack both the narrow parochialism and the misleading universalism of food-safety talk. This paper answers that neither the citizens of a particular state (or network of states) nor the falsely universalizing identity of 'the consumer' are adequate answers to these questions about 'who' and 'what'. Answering these questions about who and what with respect to food-safety governance brings issues OPEN ACCESS

show abstract

Standard fare or fairer standards: Feminist reflections on agri-food governance

Cited by 36 publications

References 26 publications

Food Safety and Food Security: Mapping Relationships

Food Safety and Food Security: Mapping Relationships

Adapting established instruments to build useful food sovereignty indicators

What Food is to be Kept Safe and for Whom? Food-Safety Governance in an Unsafe Food System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About