Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A tripartite standards regime analysis of the contested development of a sustainable agriculture standard

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As concerns over the negative social and environmental impacts of industrial agriculture become more widespread, efforts to define and regulate sustainable agriculture have proliferated in the US. Whereas the USDA spearheaded previous efforts, today such efforts have largely shifted to Tripartite Standards Regimes (TSRs). Using a case study of the Leonardo Academy’s initiative to develop a US sustainable agriculture standard, this paper examines the standards-development process and efforts by agribusiness to influence the process. Specifically, we analyze how politics operate in seemingly “depoliticized” TSRs, and how agribusiness and the USDA use “framing practices” and procedural complaints to influence the standard-development process. We contend that although governance mechanisms are a potentially powerful tool for advocates of alternative agrifood, their efficacy may be constrained by science-based requirements, an agribusiness countermovement, and a captured state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, the term “alternative” is used to denote a wide breadth of food and agricultural practices from farm-to-table that are oriented towards increasing the social and/or environmental sustainability of agriculture; and/or the healthiness of and/or access to food (Morgan et al. 2006). Thus, our use of alternative agriculture includes agricultural practices embedded in agrarian and populist ideals, as well as Progressive science-based and market-based initiatives that seek to reform industrial agriculture. While we are aware that this alternative-conventional categorization does not capture the proliferating patchwork of sustainable to unsustainable agrifood practices (Morgan et al. 2006; Konefal and Busch 2010), for the purposes of this paper “alternative” serves as a heuristic device for categorizing those agricultural practices that seek to counter and/or reform industrial agriculture.

  2. LISA was the title of a competitive grants program to develop and promote widespread adoption of more sustainable farming and ranching systems. It was created by the USDA as a result of extensive lobbying by advocates of alternative agriculture. In 1990 the name was changed to the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Educational Program (SARE). Critics argue that LISA/SARE projects tend to neglect social and economic equity issues, emphasizing instead mainly environmental issues. Thus, programs that are funded tend to be mildly-reformist, and some critics argue that they are too strongly influenced by conventional agriculture to be a driver of sustainable social change (Allen 2004; Jordan and Constance 2008; Tanaka and Bhavsar 2008).

  3. A TSR is a complex governance system that involves multiple organizations, vertical and horizontal relations, and extensive oversight. It consists of a standards setting sub-system and conformity assessment sub-system, both of which are characterized by three tiers of authority and oversight.

  4. The case was constructed based on data gathered from relevant organizations’ websites and trade association newsletters.

  5. It needs to be noted that like most other sectors, the implementation of neoliberal policies in the food and agricultural sector was uneven and often contradictory (Guthman 2008). Politicians and businesses interests supported neoliberal reforms in some areas, but at the same time, also sought to maintain social welfare policies that benefited their constituencies or business interests. Thus, some subsidies have been eliminated while others maintained; moreover other countries have been pressured to liberalize their agrifood trade policies, while the US has maintained certain trade protections.

  6. In some cases, the national AO for the standards developing and conformity assessment sub-systems are the same organization. For example, in the US, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is the AO for both sub-systems, whereas in Canada, the Standards Council of Canada serves as the AO for both sub-systems.

  7. The Leonardo Academy is an ANSI accredited SDO. It has administered the development of numerous ASNI standards since 2005 (Leonardo Academy 2009a, b). SCS is a CB in the field of environment, sustainability and food quality. Over the past two decades it has developed standards and certification programs related to environmental improvements, social accountability, and product performance (SCS 2010). ANSI is the official US AO representative to ISO (ANSI 2010).

  8. The purpose of the VeriFlora standard is to establish a comprehensive framework and common set of environmental, social, and quality requirements by which to demonstrate that an agricultural product has been produced and handled in a sustainable manner, from soil preparation and seed planting through production, harvest, post-harvest handling, and distribution for sale.

  9. Signatories of the letter to ANSI included organizations such as the American Farm Bureau, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, Biotechnology Industry Association, and National Corn Growers Association, among others.

  10. However, five USDA representatives participated as observers of the first Standards Committee meeting.

  11. ISO/IEC Guide 65 is a set of standards that specify general requirements for CBs operating product certification systems. It was developed by ISO and aims to verify the efficacy of CBs throughout the world in a consistent manner.

  12. With the Keystone Center, a “non-profit organization that specializes in facilitating scientific and policy outcomes that are enabled by expert science, careful convening and skilled progress” (Alexander 2007), a diverse group of growers, environmental organizations, and companies are currently working on to develop sustainable production and measures. The group includes American Farm Bureau Federation; American Soybean Association; Bayer CropScience; Cargill; Conservation International; DuPont; Environmental Defense Fund; and General Mills among many others.

  13. Wal-Mart began its sustainability initiative efforts in 2005. The stated objectives of the initiative are for Wal-Mart (1) to be supplied 100% by renewable energy, (2) to create zero waste, and (3) to sell products that sustain people and the environment (Wal-Mart 2010).

Abbreviations

AA:

Accreditor association

ANSI:

American Standards Institution Initiative

AO:

Accreditation organization

CB:

Certification body

IAF:

International Accreditation Forum

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

SCS:

Scientific certification systems

SDO:

Standard-development organization

SMO:

Social movement organizations

TSR:

Tripartite standards regime

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

References

  • Alexander, S. 2007. New agricultural sustainability initiative launched. The Keystone Center. News Release. August 14. http://keystone.org/files/file/SPP/environment/field-to-market/Release_SustainableAg08-2007.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American agrifood system. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 2007. ANSI Standard Action 38(40): 19. http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Action/2007%20PDFs/SAV3840.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2010.

  • ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 2010. About ANSI overview. http://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/overview/overview.aspx?menuid=1. Accessed 10 April 2010.

  • Arny, M. 2008a. Letter addressed to Jane Earley, Earley and White Consulting Group, LLC and the conventional agriculture associations entitled, Response to Procedural Complaint: National Sustainable Agriculture Product Standard: SCS-001. Leonardo Academy. Feb 25. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Arny, M. 2008b. Letter addresses to Mr. Charles Conner, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture in response to letter of June 6. Leonardo Academy. June 24. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Arny, M. 2008c. Letter to Ms. Anne Caldas regarding the Leonardo Academy response to USDA, AMS appeal to ANSI Executive Standards Council regarding the Leonardo Academy accreditation. Leonardo Academy, October 3. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Bain, C., E. Ransom, and M.R. Worosz. 2010. Constructing credibility: Using technoscience to legitimate strategies in agrifood governance. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 25(3): 160–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, T. 2003. Certifying forests and factories: States, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest product fields. Politics and Society 31: 433–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R.D., and D.A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biotechnology Industry Association et al. 2008. Letter to Mr. Michael Arny, President of Leonardo Academy. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Bonanno, A., and D.H. Constance. 2008. Stories of globalization: Transnational corporations, resistance, and the state. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L.G., and M.R. Keyes. 2007. A review of the draft standard for trial use. Scientific Certification Systems. Presentation made at the Establishing a National Sustainable Agriculture Standard Opening Stakeholder Dialogue. October. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Buller, H., and C. Morris. 2004. Growing goods: The market, the state, and sustainable food. Environment and Planning A 36: 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. 2007. Performing the economy, performing science: From neoclassical to supply chain models in the agrifood sector. Economy and Society 36(3): 437–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. Forthcoming. The private governance of food: Equitable exchange or bizarre bazaar? Agricultue and Human Values.

  • Busch, L., and C. Bain. 2004. New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociology 69(3): 321–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H. 2006. Sustaining the unsustainable: Agro-food systems and the environment in the modern world. In Handbook of rural studies, ed. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P.H. Mooney, 212–229. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldes, A. 2009. ANSI executive standards council: Summary decision. ANSI. January 13, 2009. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Callon, M. 2007. An essay on the growing contribution of economic markets to the proliferation of the social. Theory and Society 24(7–8): 139–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashore, B., G. Auld, and D. Newsom. 2004. Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, S. 2008a. Industry ‘antsy about ANSI’ sustainable agriculture standard. Food Chemical News 50(49): 15–16.

  • Clapp, S. 2008b. USDA seeks to scuttle ANSI sustainable agriculture standard. Food Chemical News 50(43):22–23.

  • Clapp, S. 2009. USDA fails to derail ANSI sustainable ag standard. Food Chemical News 50(48):17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J., and D. Fuchs. 2009. Agrifood corporations, global governance, and sustainability: A framework for analysis. In Corporate power in global agrifood governance, ed. J. Clapp, and D. Fuchs, 1–26. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, B. L. 2008. Letter to Ms. Anne Caldas, ANSI, in support of the USDA/AMS appeals letter. US Department of Commerce. September 12. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Conner, C. 2008a. Letter from Mr. Charles F. Conner, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, to Mr. Michael Arny, President of the Leonardo Academy, nominating three USDA officials to the Standards Committee. USDA. May 20. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Conner, C. 2008b. Letter from Mr. Charles F. Conner, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, to Mr. Michael Arny, President of the Leonardo Academy, expressing concerns over ANSI standards process, methodology, and contents. USDA. June 6. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Constance, D.H. 2010. Sustainable agriculture in the United States: A critical examination of a contested process. Sustainability 2(1): 48–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, L. 2008. Letter to Ms. Anne Caldas, ANSI, to request Leonardo Academy ANSI accreditation be revoked. USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service. September 11. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Fridell, M., I. Hudson, and M. Hudson. 2008. With friends like these: The corporate response to fair trade coffee. Review of International Political Economy 40(8): 8–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., A. Kalfagianni, and T. Havinga. Forthcoming. Actors in private food governance: the legitimacy of retail standards and mutlistakeholder initiatives with civil society. Agriculture and Human Values.

  • Gibbon, P., and S. Ponte. 2008. Global value chains: From governance to governmentality. Economy and Society 37: 365–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D. 2003. The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: Reflections and agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2008. Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39(3): 1171–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatanaka, M. 2010. Certification, partnership, and morality in an organic shrimp network: Rethinking transnational alternative agrifood networks. World Development 38(5): 706–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatanaka, M., and L. Busch. 2008. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system: An objective and socially mediated governance mechanism. Sociologia Ruralis 48: 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2006. Differentiated standardization, standardized differentiation: The complexity of the global agrifood system. In Between the local and the global, volume 12: Confronting complexity in the contemporary agri-food sector, ed. T. Marsden, and J. Murdoch, 39–68. London: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., and G. Lawrence. 2005. Introduction: Globalization and agricultural governance. In Agricultural governance: Globalization and the new politics of regulation, ed. V. Higgins, and G. Lawrence, 1–15. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S. 2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. 2010. Discover ISO. http://www.iso.org/iso/about/discover-iso_what-standards-do.htm. Accessed July 6 2010.

  • Jaffe, D., and P.H. Howard. 2010. Corporate cooptation of organic and fair trade standards. Agriculture and Human Values 27: 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. 2002. Governance and meta-governance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. Lancaster, UK: Department of Sociology, Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, J.L., and D.H. Constance. 2008. Sustainable agriculture and the social sciences: Getting beyond best management practices and getting into food systems. Southern Rural Sociology 23(1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konefal, J., and L. Busch. 2010. Markets of Multitudes: How biotechnologies are standardising and differentiating corn and soybeans. Sociologia Ruralis 50: 409–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konefal, J., and M. Mascarenhas. 2005. The shifting political economy of the global agrifood system: Consumption and the treadmill of production. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 49: 76–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konefal, J., M. Mascarenhas, and M. Hatanaka. 2005. Governance in the global agro-food system: Backlighting the role of transnational supermarket chains. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardo Academy. 2007a. Leonardo Academy ANSI standard development. October 19. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/ansi.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Leonardo Academy. 2007b. Establishing a national standard for sustainable agriculture. October 19. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/projecs/SustainAgStdDevelopment.htm. Accessed 20 April 2009.

  • Leonardo Academy. 2008. First national sustainable agricultural standard setting initiative moves into high gear. Press Release. September 29. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/newsandevents/press-release/76-first-national-sustainable-agriculture-standard-setting-initiative-moves-into-high-gear-.html. Accessed 11 April 2010.

  • Leonardo Academy. 2009a. Leonardo Academy history overview. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/about/history.html. Accessed 10 April 2010.

  • Leonardo Academy. 2009b. ANSI standards development history. http://www.leonardoacademy.org/about/history/standards-history.html. Accessed 10 April 2010.

  • Loconto, A., and L. Busch. 2010. Standards, techno-economic networks, and playing fields: Performing the global market economy. Review of International Political Economy 17: 507–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T., R. Lee, A. Flynn, and S. Thankappan. 2010. The new regulation and governance of food: beyond the food crisis? New York: Routledge.

  • Marsden, T., A. Flynn, and M. Harrison. 2000. Consuming interests: The social provision of foods. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., and S. Prudham. 2004. Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35: 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P., and H. Friedmann. 2007. Situating the “retail revolution”. In Supermarkets and agri-food supply chains, ed. G. Lawrence, and D. Burch, 291–320. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., T. Marsden, and J. Murdoch. 2006. Worlds of food: place, power, and provenance in the food chain. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutersbaugh, T. 2005. Just-in-space: Certified rural products, labor of quality, and regulatory spaces. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutersbaugh, T., D. Klooster, M. Renard, and P. Taylor. 2005. Certifying rural spaces: Quality-certified products and rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies 21: 381–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P. 2000. Environmental NGOs and globalization: The governance of TNCs. In Global social movements, eds. R. Cohen and S. M. Rai, 117–133. London: Athlone Press.

  • Peck, J., and A. Tickell. 2002. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34(3): 380–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peine, E., and P. McMichael. 2005. Globalization and global governance. In Agricultural governance: Globalization and the new politics of regulation, ed. V. Higgins, and G. Lawrence, 19–34. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponte, S., and P. Gibbon. 2005. Quality standards, conventions and the governance of global value chains. Economy and Society 34(1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynolds, L.T. 2002. Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks. Sociologia Ruralis 42(4): 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, T., J.-M. Codron, L. Busch, J. Bingen, and C. Harris. 1999. Global change in agrifood grades and standards: Agribusiness strategic responses in developing countries. International Food and Agribusiness Management 2(3): 421–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renard, M.-C. 2003. Fair trade, quality, market and conventions. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCS (Scientific Certification Systems). 2010. About scientific certification systems. http://www.scscertified.com/about_scs.php. Accessed 27 March 2010.

  • Shreck, A. 2005. Resistance, redistribution, and power in the Fair Trade banana initiative. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal 50(155): 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E., B. Page, and M. Kaika. 2002. Sustainability and policy innovation in a multi-level context: Crosscutting issues in the water sector. In Participatory governance in multi-level context: Concepts and experience, ed. P. Getimis, H. Heinelt, G. Kafkalas, R. Smith, and E. Swyngedouw, 107–131. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, K., and V.M. Bhavsar. 2008. The role of Southern SARE projects in enhancing the quality of life in rural communities in the South. Southern Rural Sociology 23(1): 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P.L. 2005. In the market but not of it: fair trade coffee and Forest Stewardship Council certification as market-based social change. World Development 33(1): 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wal-Mart. 2010. Global sustainability report—2010. http://walmartstores.com/Sustainability/7951.aspx. Accessed 29 July 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Sam Houston State University, Box 2446, Huntsville, TX, 77341, USA

    Maki Hatanaka, Jason Konefal & Douglas H. Constance

Authors
  1. Maki Hatanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Konefal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Douglas H. Constance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maki Hatanaka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hatanaka, M., Konefal, J. & Constance, D.H. A tripartite standards regime analysis of the contested development of a sustainable agriculture standard. Agric Hum Values 29, 65–78 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9329-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9329-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation