Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The recombinant BGH controversy in the United States: Toward a new consumption politics of food?

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

Abstract

The history of the controversy overrecombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is exploredin terms of the issue of the potential robustness ofa consumption-driven ``new'' politics of food andagriculture. It is noted that while the dominanthistorical traditions in the social sciences haveserved to discount the autonomous role that consumersand consumption play in modern societies, there hasbeen growing interest in consumption within foodstudies as well as other bodies of scholarship such aspostmodernism, social constructivism, socialcapital/social distinction, and environmentalsociology. A review of the shifting pattern ofdiscourses during the rBGH controversy shows thatconsumption-driven claims and politics played atangible, but relatively minor role. Even so, it issuggested that the rBGH experience along with paralleltrends in food politics (e.g., anti-pesticidecampaigns such as the ``Alar scare,'' agribusinessattempts to intimidate opponents through fooddisparagement laws, conditions-of-productionprovisions of the World Trade Organization agreement)could make the consumption/consumer dimension of foodpolitics more important in the future.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich, L. and N. Blisard (1999). “Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: Lessons from the rBST experience.” In Current Issues in Economics of Food Markets. Washing-ton, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 6 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barham, B. L., F. H. Buttel, D. Jackson-Smith, J. McNichol, and S. D. Wood (1995). “The political economy of rBST adoption in America's dairyland.” Technical Report No. 2. Madison: Agricultural Technology and Family Farm Institute, School of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beardsworth, A. and T. Keil (1997). Sociology on the Menu. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H. (1995). “Global impacts of agricultural biotech-nology.” In T. B. Mepham et al. (eds.), Agricultural Bioethics(pp. 345-360). Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H. (1997). “Some observations on agri-food change and the future of agricultural sustainability movements.” In M. Watts and D. Goodman (eds.), Globalising Food(pp. 344-365). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H. (1998). “Nature's place in the technological trans-formation of agriculture: Some reflections on the recombinant BST controversy in the USA.” Environment and PlanningA30: 1151-1163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, W. W. (1979). The Development of American Agri-culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eder, K. (1996). The Social Construction of Nature. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgell, S., K. Hetherington, and A. Warde (eds.) (1996). Consumption Matters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. S. (1990). “Potential public health hazards of biosynthetic milk hormones.” International Journal of Health Services20: 73-84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Branch of the Federal Government (1994). Use of Bovine Somatotropin (BST) in the United States: Its Potential Effects. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallert, R. T. McGuckin, C. Betts, and G. Bruner (1987). BST and the Dairy Industry, AER 579. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra, G. (1993). “Is BGH sustainable? The consumer perspective.” In W. C. Liebhardt (ed.), The Dairy Debate(pp. 1-63). Davis: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd (1997). “Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics.” Science, Technology, and Human Values22: 98-124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, I. (1974). Frame Analysis.NewYork: Harper Colophon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D. and M. Redclift (1991). Refashioning Nature. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halkier, B. (1999). “Consequences of the politicization of consumption: The example of environmentally friendly consumption practices.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning1: 25-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallberg, M. C. (ed.) (1992). Bovine Somatotropin: The New Biotechnologies and Emerging Issues. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalter, R. J. (1985). “The new biotech agriculture: Unforeseen economic consequences.” Issues in Science and Technology2: 125-133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalter, R. J., R. Milligan, W. Lesser, W. Magrath, L. Tauer, and D. Bauman (1985). Biotechnology and the Dairy Industry, AER 85-20. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University.

  • Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L. and J. Kloppenburg, Jr. (1991). “Aiming for the discursive high ground: Monsanto and the biotechnology controversy.” Sociological Forum6: 427-447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodinsky, J., Q. Wang, and D. Conner (1998). “rBST Labeling and Notification: Lessons From Vermont.” Choices(American Agricultural Economics Association), Third Quarter (pp. 38-40).

  • Koshland, D. E. Jr. (1994). “A milk-free zone.” Science264: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. and R. P. Wrubel (1995). Agricultural Biotech-nology and the Environment. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappé, F. M. (1991). Diet for a Small Planet.NewYork: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebhardt, W. C. (ed.) (1993). The Dairy Debate.Davis: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T., J. Murdoch, P. Lowe, R. Munton, and A. Flynn. (1993). Constructing the Countryside. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald (eds.) (1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements.NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. D. and M. N. Zald (1973). The Trend of Social Movements in America. Morristown, New Jersey: GeneralLearning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, W. A. (1996). Sociologies of Food and Nutrition. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P. H. and T. J. Majka (1995). Farmers' and Farm Workers' Movements. New York: Twayne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1986). Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. Washington, DC: OTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1991). The US Dairy Industry at a Crossroad. Washington, DC: OTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, A. M. (1994). Changing Structure of US Dairy Farms, AER 690. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayburn, E. B. (1993). “Potential ecological and environmental.20 FREDERICK H. BUTTEL effects of pasture and BGH technology.” In W. C. Liebhardt (ed.), The Dairy Debate(pp. 247-276). Davis: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redclift, M. (1996). Wasted: Counting the Costs of Global Consumption. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, W., R. MacRae, and L. Stahlbrand (1999). Real Food for a Change. Toronto: Get a Life! Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. J. and R. H. Warland (1992). “Consumer responses to milk from rbST-supplemented cows.” In M. C. Hallberg (ed.), Bovine Somatatropin. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaargaren, G. (1996). The Ecological Modernization of Production and Consumption. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, G. and T. Worsley (1995). The Food System. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tweeten, L. (1991). “The costs and benefits of bGH will be distributed fairly.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics4: 108-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warde, A. (1997). Consumption, Food, and Taste. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, R. (1996). The Industrial Reorganization of US Agri-culture. Greenbelt, Maryland: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rural Sociology, Institute for Environmental Studies, and Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Frederick H. Buttel

Authors
  1. Frederick H. Buttel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buttel, F.H. The recombinant BGH controversy in the United States: Toward a new consumption politics of food?. Agriculture and Human Values 17, 5–20 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007636911210

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007636911210

Search

Navigation