Biotechnology and seed supply Essays

Biotechnology and seed supply Essays Biotechnology and seed supply Essay Biotechnology and seed supply Essay Exploratory research was carried out and the empirical data presented here was gathered by a number of methods. Documentary material was analysed, such as: the societys rules; its website and members web forum; newsletters; annual reports; and its 2005-10 business plan. A site visit was carried out, with participant observation at the co-op as it traded. An informal interview was carried out with a staff member and also general discussions with other co-op staff on the site visit. The DFC was chosen as a case study because of its distinct character in the Irish context. It acts as a concentrated site of empirical evidence helping to ground recent theorisation in the field of food studies. Stake (1995) makes the argument that the unique case is not an appropriate basis for wider generalisation or for a theoretical inference of some kind but rather to capture cases in their uniqueness (p3). This makes the unique case more appropriate for showing how academic theorisation can translate into practice on the ground. The broad field of food studies has recently had an injection of complex and diverse theorisation on how food is now, and more ideally should be, delivered from producers to consumers. The newly emerging concept of food democracy, with food citizens its foundational and central actors, has particular relevance and cross-over with food co-operatives and the broad co-operative ideology. The need for consumer participation in food supply In relation to the alternative food movement, Hassanein (2003) identifies uncertainties regarding its sustainability and capacity to create meaningful change. Some alternative food activists take a stronger approach than others. A weaker example includes farmers markets. This initiative enables farmers to add value to their produce, which helps the farmer, but does not address other food system issues. The foundation of a stronger approach must involve the active participation of citizens in how their food is produced and supplied. People need to practice what is termed food democracy and: actively participate in the food system, rather than remaining passive spectators on the sidelines food democracy is about citizens having the power to determine agro-food policies and practices locally, regionally, nationally and globally (p79). Food democracys key difference to other approaches and academic theorisations is its pragmatism. Hassanein (2003) suggests other discussions have highlighted important issues with food supply, but question what definitions of, for example, a sustainable food system means in practice and asks what it means to equitably balance environmental soundness, economic viability, and social justice for all sectors of society? Therefore, Hassanein (2003) contends food democracy must play a central part of the effective transformation of the agro-food system. Food citizens are active in a food democracy, it is citizen led. The structure of the conventional food system does not facilitate consumer participation and also gives them little, if no, control. Control of food supply has been concentrated with a decreasing number of food manufacturers and retailers. There is also concentration of ownership with agro-chemical companies that supply important inputs for farming. These companies are also diversifying into biotechnology and seed supply. Lang (2004) discusses the role of the consumer in this supply dominated system, arguing it is rhetoric to suggest that the food supply chain is consumer led, rather it is more like a loop: food corporations have large budgets for advertising, which aims to create and manipulate demand, not serve it. The theory of food democracy aims to re-orientate control back to key stakeholders in the food system: consumers and producers. The food co-operative could be the key tool that helps theory meet practice. Co-ops, by their very nature, should be participatory and democratic. A participatory system in practice The theory of food democracy has been discussed, with the co-op as its ideal delivery vehicle. The DFC has been practicing a more democratic method of food supply for over 20 years. The DFC case shows how food democracy can be practiced and also some of the limitations that can arise. A system of representative democracy is employed to govern the co-op. A co-ordinating body (CB), composed of twelve members, is elected at the annual general meeting. The CB is the co-ops decision making body and is responsible for running the organisation in its members interest. Around ten staff members run the co-op from day to day, most on a part-time basis and are often recruited from its member base. Members are encouraged to voice their opinions on how the co-op should be run, so the CBs activities are in line with member concerns. The co-ops newsletter is one vehicle for discussion of issues and regularly calls for members to submit their views. The co-op recognises that vocal members voices can be heard more clearly than quieter members, but advocates that the co-op aims to remain in touch with all members views, representing the consensus and not the few (Co-op News 2006). All members are entitled to trade at the co-op and can also directly participate in running the organisation through volunteering. The DFC operates a help rota system where members can volunteer two hours of their time every five to seven weeks. All members receive a discount on the co-ops produce, but help rota volunteers receive a greater discount in return for their efforts. Food citizens are not model citizens when given the opportunity to participate. Maintaining a steady volunteer base on the help rota has become an issue for the co-op. It recently had to reduce volunteering intervals from seven to five weeks. This change affects members who already give up their time to volunteer, by having to volunteer more often. This potentially results in further deterioration of the spirit of volunteering within the co-op. Existing volunteers have to give up more of their time, while others volunteer none of theirs. In an attempt to promote the value of volunteering to new co-op members, one measure the co-op has adopted is re-introducing Failte; an orientation meeting for new members explaining their rights and responsibilities. Mobilising member participation is widely recognised as an issue for the co-operative sector and within food initiatives that attempt to involve consumers. DeLind (1999) highlights issues with moblising participation in community supported agriculture initiatives and suggests the issue is that we are dealing with individualised communities and not dealing with communitised individuals, with those who participate doing so for themselves, which she describes as a highly individual or personalised resistance a resistance primarily of consumers not of citizens (p8-9). However, beyond the issues with mobilising participation, it can also be argued that even introducing and promoting the concept of participation has significance. The co-op promotes member participation on an on-going basis. In the broad context of alternative food initiatives, Allen et al (2003) suggest: Participation may get people and communities to think about issues they may never have confronted or considered before, and to then become effective agents of agri-food system change (p73). Allen et al (2003) also suggest there are other unexpected benefits. These initiatives may be the seeds of social change important in consumers developing a critical consciousness in which people view food as more than a commodity and fuel for the body (p73). Alternative food practices can provide motivation to others, inspiring a wider movement of such practices (Hendrickson and Heffernan 2003).