"We feed the world": the political ecology of the Corn Belt's driving narrative

Rissing, Andrea

doi:10.2458/jpe.2959

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specific-interest groups are likely to remain opposed to GM and gene-edited foods based on their value systems regarding agriculture, food, ecosystems and nature (Zilberman, Rausser and Wesseler, 2023). For example, there are ongoing tensions in rural communities between conventional agriculture and agroecological approaches to farming (Rissing, 2021). In some cases, the use of GM crops has led to divisions among conventional farmers and organic or non-GM farmers and conflicts over fears of cross contamination (seed, pollen and chemical drift from companion herbicides) and lost organic and international markets (Venus et al, 2016;Gupta, 2018;Paull, 2019).…”

Section: Societal Factors and Public Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

Gene editing and agrifood systems

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

vi NARS scientists we can further advance breeding of crops critical to feeding much of the world's population like cassava, sorghum, millet and banana.Around the world, governments have taken a practical approach towards regulation: in cases where changes made via genome editing are synonymous with changes that could have been made using conventional breeding, products undergo similar safety assessments. For edits that lead to insertions of DNA, governments can rely on over three decades' worth of experience in transgenics. This clear regulatory approach has spurred investment by academic and public-sector developers who now have a path to product approvals.Any review of genome editing technology should be accompanied by a discussion on ethics. Valid concerns have been raised over the desire for an unaltered natural environment, maintenance of ancient germplasm, as well as animal rights, and cultures around the world will have questions about how the technology might comply or conflict with religious beliefs. Platforms for societal engagement are much needed to facilitate discussions on ethics, and to educate the public on the technology. Individuals should have the ability to choose products that meet their needs and adhere to their belief systems. A consumer of the future may choose an edited variety because they prioritize sustainability, animal welfare, have allergies, or prefer the taste. A farmer of the future may choose to grow an edited crop because it preserves a favoured variety while making it more resilient to a changing climate, or because it increases yield, or captures carbon from the atmosphere. A successful path to the future is one that includes informed choice.It is my hope that this report will serve as a guiding document for those seeking to responsibly and equitably deploy genome editing technologies. All of human health depends on agriculture. It has been just over 10 years since CRISPR genome editing emerged as a tool; now it is time to wield it wisely.

show abstract

Section: Societal Factors and Public Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

Gene editing and agrifood systems

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response, some farmers pursue capitalintensive economies of scale, some stop farming, and some tap into the same reserves of family labor that have long reproduced agriculture (Kohl and Bennett, 1982;Reinhardt and Barlett, 1989). Others opt out of the commodity system by pursuing direct-market or niche production (Paxson, 2013;Campbell and Veteto, 2015;Janssen, 2018), even as the logics of globalized industrial agriculture continue to influence their alternative agricultural livelihoods (Rissing, 2021). Yet, critical agrarian scholarship is rarely in conversation with the full accounting of nationally available data collected by the USDA; its empirical evidence is more often rooted in case studies or analyzing publicly available data at face value.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The State of US Farm Operator Livelihoods

Burchfield¹,

Schumacher²,

Spangler³

et al. 2022

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In nine of the last 10 years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported that the average funds generated on-farm for farm operators to meet living expenses and debt obligations have been negative. This paper pieces together disparate data to understand why farm operators in the most productive agricultural systems on the planet are systematically losing money. The data-driven narrative we present highlights some troubling trends in US farm operator livelihoods. Though US farms are more productive than ever before, rising input costs, volatile production values, and rising land rents have left farmers with unprecedented levels of farm debt, low on-farm incomes, and high reliance on federal programs. For many US farm operators, the indicators of a “good livelihood”—stability, security, equitable rewards for work—are largely absent. We conclude by proposing three axes of intervention that would help US agriculture better sustain all farmers' livelihoods, a crucial step toward improving overall agricultural sustainability: (1) increase the diversity of people, crops, and cropping systems, (2) improve equity in access to land, support, and capital, and (3) improve the quality, accessibility, and content of data to facilitate monitoring of multiple indicators of agricultural “success.”

show abstract

“…With one exception: most of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States today are genetically modified and destined for consumption by livestock or transformation into industrial products and food additives(Rissing, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The vegan industrial complex: the political ecology of not eating animals

Trauger

2022

Journal of Political Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many political ecologists and geographers study ethical diets but most are curiously silent on the topic of death in the food system, specifically what or who is allowed to live and what is let die in the "doing of good." This article aims to show how the practice of eating produces the socio-ecological harm most ethical consumers set out to avoid with their dietary choices. I examine the food systems that produce ethical products for 1) the hierarchical ordering of consumer health in the Global North over the health and well-being of workers in the Global South and 2) how vegetarianism involves the implicit privileging of some animals over others. The article takes take a genealogical approach to the political ecology of food ethics using Black and Indigenous studies in conversation with animal geographies. I draw on Mbembe's (2016) necropolitics, Weheliye's (2014) "not quite human" and Lowe's (2015) critique of humanism to develop a conceptual framework for what lives or dies as a result of ethical dietary choices. I use this framework to examine commodities for the socio-ecological harm that their production extends into the world under the guise of "doing good" or "being ethical." Taking a harm reduction and food sovereignty approach, I advocate for a new ethical framework that includes a limited case for consuming animals.

show abstract

"We feed the world": the political ecology of the Corn Belt's driving narrative

Cited by 6 publications

References 33 publications

Gene editing and agrifood systems

Gene editing and agrifood systems

The State of US Farm Operator Livelihoods

The vegan industrial complex: the political ecology of not eating animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About