In recent decades, the governance of food safety, food quality, on-farm environmental management and animal welfare has been shifting from the realm of ‘the government’ to that of the private sector. Corporate entities, especially the large supermarkets, have responded to neoliberal forms of governance and the resultant ‘hollowed-out’ state by instituting private standards for food, backed by processes of certification and policed through systems of third party auditing. Today’s food regime is one in which supermarkets impose ‘private standards’ along the (...) food supply chain to ensure compliance with a range of food safety goals—often above and beyond those prescribed by government. By examining regulatory governance in Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom we highlight emerging trajectories of food governance. We argue that the imposition of the new private forms of monitoring and compliance continue the project of agricultural restructuring that began with government support for structural adjustment schemes in agriculture and that these are most evident in the UK and Australia where neoliberalism is an entrenched philosophy. However, despite Norway’s identity as a social democracy, we also identify neoliberal ‘creep’ into the system of food governance. Small-scale producers in all three nations are finding themselves increasingly subject to governance through private, market-based mechanisms that, to varying degrees, are dominated by major supermarket chains. The result is agricultural restructuring not through the traditional avenues of elected governments, but via non-elected market operatives. (shrink)

This paper provides new insights into the food security performance of long and short food chains, through an analysis of the resilience of such chains during the severe weather events that occurred in the Australian State of Queensland in early 2011. Widespread flooding cut roads and highways, isolated towns, and resulted in the deaths of people and animals. Farmlands were inundated and there were food shortages in many towns. We found clear evidence that the supermarket-based food chain delivery system experienced (...) significant difficulties in supplying food to flood-affected towns. In contrast, more localized food supply chains—which relied upon supply from growers in peri-urban areas and community-based food initiatives—remained largely intact, and provided food at a time when the supermarkets were limited in their ability to respond to consumer demand. However, on closer examination of food distribution during flooding in the regional city of Rockhampton and in the State capital, Brisbane, the demarcation of success between “long” and “short” food chains became blurred. Both types of food supply chains shared some key resilience characteristics in responding to crisis but diverged in other important ways. We argue that conceptualizing food chains in terms of key elements of resilience—scale, diversity, flexibility and cohesion—may be more fruitful than the short-long dichotomy alone. This approach is particularly useful when prioritizing food security as the basis for evaluating food system sustainability in a context of predicted increases in extreme weather events and future climate change. (shrink)

Food regime theory focuses upon the dynamics, and agents, of change in capitalist food and farming systems. Its exponents have been able to identify relatively stable periods of capital accumulation in the agri-food industries, along with the periods of transition. Recently, scholars have argued that—following a first food regime based upon colonial trade in bulk commodities like wheat and sugar, and a second food regime typified by industrial agriculture and manufactured foods—there is an emerging third food regime. This new regime (...) is one that is lead by global corporations that are profiting from the re-organisation of agri-food chains. The delivery of ‘fresh/healthy’ foods is one manifestation; another is the sale, by supermarkets, of ready-meals and other own-brand products. This paper argues that behind the movement to a putative Third Food Regime are changes to the financial system. ‘Financialisation’—the increased influence of finance capital on the agri-food system—not only provides new opportunities for profit-making by hedge funds and private equity consortia, but also creates a situation in which agri-food companies, including food manufacturers, international commodity traders and supermarkets, may benefit. Supermarkets for example, are moving into banking, and are altering their role as they move from being retailers of products, into the provision of capital. Food regime theory needs to consider what lies ‘behind’ the transformation of food and fibre production, to examine not only the role of finance capital in re-shaping relations up and down the agri-food supply chain, but also investigating the tendency for agri-food capitals to seek profits from financial transactions. (shrink)

The analysis of the financialization of food and farming has tended to focus on issues such as the impact on the productive and input sectors of the food chain, including the role of asset management companies, private equity consortia and other financial institutions in acquiring and managing farmland. However, processes of financialization impact along the whole agri-food supply chain, including the retail and food service sectors. This paper analyses the take-over by a private equity company of Somerfield, one of the (...) UK’s leading supermarket chains, and the impact the subsequent restructuring had on the management and organization of the retailer’s operations. In doing so, the paper not only extends the analysis of the effects of financialization on the food system, but also raises questions about the extent to which the supermarkets are the dominant actors in the establishment and management of agri-food supply chains. (shrink)

Self-regulation has become a mantra for both governments and private industry in the neoliberal era. Yet, problems remain in terms of supermarket accountability and control. Governments everywhere appear to be under increasing pressure to move beyond the self-regulatory model by enacting legislation which better monitors and polices supermarket-supplier relations. In most cases, the appointment of an oversight authority—known variously as an ombudsman, watchdog, or adjudicator—with the power to set standards and apply sanctions, and to whom suppliers can appeal in cases (...) of perceived abuse, has been advocated. This paper investigates the role of watchdogs and ombudsmen as potential governance mechanisms for overseeing supermarket-supplier relations and explores, in detail, escalating pressure for their appointment within the UK and Australia over the last 20 years. The pursuit of regulatory frameworks to monitor, and adjudicate on, problems arising out of changing power relationships along agri-food supply chains in these two countries has been met with strong resistance from supermarkets; however, after 20 years of debate, it appears that these governments may be on the path towards legislating for an independent body to handle disputes. This paper critically examines ‘self-regulation’ and concludes that watchdogs and ombudsmen are only a partial solution, at best, to the problems that are arising from the neoliberal settings which govern relations between food suppliers and food retailers. (shrink)

Public concern over environmentalquality and food safety has culminated in thedevelopment of markets for “green” foods – foodsthat are variously construed as fresh, chemical-free,nutritious, natural, or produced in anenvironmentally-sustainable manner. Understanding theemergence of “green” foods is dependent on analysisboth of the ways in which foods are produced andprocessed, and of the meanings that are attached tothem at each stage of their production,transformation, and consumption. The notion of “green”foods is thereby understood here as a fluid andcontestable signifier that myriad actors involved (...) inthe production/consumption cycle may attempt to shapefor their own purposes. This paper explores corporate capital's recent attempts, through certification logosand advertising, to signify the “healthiness” andenvironmental virtues of organically-produced foods inAustralia and New Zealand. These attempts have not,however, been universally successful either in termsof gaining consumer interest, or in gaining agreementsbetween farmers, certifying organizations, andcapitalist firms over the meaning of “organic” and thepractice of “sustainable” agriculture. The experienceof corporate involvement in the organics industry isillustrative of yet-to-be-resolved processes ofreflexive modernization. As food production andtransformation continues to produce environmental andsocial risks, the question of just what makes food“green” will continue to be a source of social conflict. (shrink)