ArticlePublisher preview available

Veganic farming in the United States: farmer perceptions, motivations, and experiences

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

Veganic agriculture, often described as farming that is free of synthetic and animal-based inputs, represents an alternative to chemical-based industrial agriculture and the prevailing alternative, organic agriculture, respectively. Despite the promise of veganic methods in diverse realms such as food safety, environmental sustainability, and animal liberation, it has a small literature base. This article draws primarily on interviews conducted in 2018 with 25 veganic farmers from 19 farms in the United States to establish some baseline empirical research on this farming community. Its qualitative perspectives illuminate farmer perceptions of and experiences with veganic growing, including definitions, knowledge acquisition, values, and challenges. Results highlight a lack of agreement about the meaning of veganic agriculture in terms of allowable inputs and scope. Participants have drawn on a wide array of veganic and non-veganic resources to ascend their veganic production learning curves, also relying on experimentation and trial-and-error. Their farming is motivated by a diversity of real and perceived benefits, most notably consistency with veganism, food safety advantages, and plant and soil health benefits. Veganic product sourcing and the dearth of veganic agriculture-specific resources present considerable challenges to farmers. The article briefly discusses possibilities for developing veganic agriculture in the United States, such as through a US-based certification system and farmers’ associations, based on considerations of the trajectory of the US organic farming movement and veganic developments in Europe. Finally, the article suggests the importance of expanded research into soil health and fertility in plant-based systems to support practicing and potential veganic farmers.
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Agriculture and Human Values (2021) 38:1139–1159
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10225-x
Veganic farming intheUnited States: farmer perceptions, motivations,
andexperiences
MonaSeymour1· AlishaUtter2
Accepted: 22 May 2021 / Published online: 7 June 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021
Abstract
Veganic agriculture, often described as farming that is free of synthetic and animal-based inputs, represents an alternative
to chemical-based industrial agriculture and the prevailing alternative, organic agriculture, respectively. Despite the promise
of veganic methods in diverse realms such as food safety, environmental sustainability, and animal liberation, it has a small
literature base. This article draws primarily on interviews conducted in 2018 with 25 veganic farmers from 19 farms in the
United States to establish some baseline empirical research on this farming community. Its qualitative perspectives illu-
minate farmer perceptions of and experiences with veganic growing, including definitions, knowledge acquisition, values,
and challenges. Results highlight a lack of agreement about the meaning of veganic agriculture in terms of allowable inputs
and scope. Participants have drawn on a wide array of veganic and non-veganic resources to ascend their veganic produc-
tion learning curves, also relying on experimentation and trial-and-error. Their farming is motivated by a diversity of real
and perceived benefits, most notably consistency with veganism, food safety advantages, and plant and soil health benefits.
Veganic product sourcing and the dearth of veganic agriculture-specific resources present considerable challenges to farm-
ers. The article briefly discusses possibilities for developing veganic agriculture in the United States, such as through a
US-based certification system and farmers’ associations, based on considerations of the trajectory of the US organic farming
movement and veganic developments in Europe. Finally, the article suggests the importance of expanded research into soil
health and fertility in plant-based systems to support practicing and potential veganic farmers.
Keywords Veganic· Vegan organic· Stockfree organic· Biocyclic-vegan· Sustainable agriculture
Abbreviations
CNG Certified Naturally Grown
CSA Community-supported agriculture
GAP Good Agricultural Practice
GMO Genetically modified organism
OFG Organic Farming and Gardening
SARE Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
VAN Veganic Agriculture Network
VON Vegan Organic Network
Introduction
Interest in alternatives to industrial, chemical-based agri-
culture and its environmental and social consequences
continues to mount. Organic, agroecological, and regen-
erative approaches are often prominent in the discussion of
alternatives. While these paradigms demonstrate some key
differences from one another, one of their commonalities
is the centrality of farmed animals and/or animal manures
and products to each. These models are therefore difficult
or unfeasible for farmers whose financial or geographic
circumstances preclude animal agriculture, and are unac-
ceptable to farmers who do not envision farmed animals or
their wastes and remains as part of an agricultural system.
Another alternative approach which addresses all of these
issues is veganic agriculture.1 Also commonly known as
* Mona Seymour
mona.seymour@lmu.edu
Alisha Utter
autter@uvm.edu
1 Department ofUrban andEnvironmental Studies, Loyola
Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, LosAngeles,
CA90045, USA
2 Department ofPlant andSoil Science, University
ofVermont, 63 Carrigan Drive, Burlington, VT05405, USA
1 Veganic farmers, advocacy organizations, researchers, journal-
ists, and other actors currently use both “veganic” and “veganics” as
shorthand for “veganic agriculture.” “Veganic” was the colloquial-
ism of choice for farmers quoted in this article, and it is used at some
points in this article outside of direct quotations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
... There is support available on behalf of the organizations offering the three agricultural standards for AFOA, as well as from other grassroots actors. However, in the US for instance, there appear to be no opportunities for students enrolled in sustainable agriculture majors, minors, graduate degree programs, certificate programs, and farmer training programs to learn the principles and practices associated with various forms of animal-free farming (Seymour and Utter, 2021). The situation is likely similar in other world regions. ...
... While there is a small research literature on plant-based fertility, more extensive coverage of fertilizers, crops, and soil types would facilitate more comprehensive and precise formal education on AFOA. It would also assist farmers who are starting out or transitioning outside of the support offered by AFOA certifying organizations, as there is reportedly a strong element of experimentation with soil fertility as part of the AFOA learning curve (Seymour and Utter, 2021). An interesting research example, focused on a variety of management practices and outcomes including and beyond fertility, is the US-based Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial (FST). ...
... Finally, highlighting the financial prospects for organic produce grown without animal byproducts may enhance acceptance of AFOA in the sustainable agriculture movement. Vegan and vegetarian consumers in Germany, for instance, have been found to express interest in stockfree organic products based on animal welfare attitudes (Jürkenbeck and Spiller, 2020), and US veganic farmers have reported enthusiastic responses to their produce from vegan customers (Seymour and Utter, 2021). This suggests that there may be nearly-untapped marketing opportunities for farmers who decide to adopt AFOA. ...
Article
Full-text available
Animal-free organic agriculture resides at the margins of sustainable agriculture discourse, practice, and imaginaries, which center animal-based forms of farming. However, the concerns and goals of sustainable agriculture are overwhelmingly consistent with those of many forms of animal-free organic agriculture (AFOA), described as organic farming sans animal production, labor, and byproducts. Despite this sidelining, AFOA has great potential to contribute to a more robust sustainable agriculture movement. In order to emphasize the continuities between animal-based and animal-free sustainable agriculture, this Perspective identifies a number of key similarities between animal-free and animal-based sustainable farming, including mutual foci on soil health and shared opposition to intensive animal agriculture. It contends that beyond being compatible with sustainable agriculture, AFOA holds answers to some of the difficult questions currently and potentially confronting animal-based agriculture, such as projected impacts of climate change on animal agriculture and stability of supply chains for animal-based soil amendments. Barriers to greater inclusion of AFOA into the sustainable agriculture movement exist as well; this piece suggests potential ways to address some of these challenges, including the integration of AFOA into formal sustainable agriculture education.
... As such a carrot becomes vegan through its (animal-free) production rather than being an inherent quality or due to the identity of its consumer (Hirth 2020). Seymour and Utter (2021) suggested that further research is needed to explore these emergent 'veganic' agricultural practices and how they relate to environmental indicators such as soil health. Veganic farming presents changes in human-environment relationships, affecting and challenging local cultures and food practices, and need to be examined in different parts of the world, paying close attention to how geopolitical and climatic shifts are playing out in tandem. ...
Article
Full-text available
The increasing visibility of veganism and plant-based eating makes it timely for environmental geographers to critically engage with these unfolding debates. In this review, we unpack the complex socio-environmental entanglements of contemporary vegan food practices (VFPs), drawing on food geography literature to reflect on the extent to which veganism can, and does, challenge and transform the hegemonic industrial globalised food system. We consider the productive conversations to be had with sustainability, food sovereignty , food justice and vegetal geographies in promoting the collective potential of VFPs beyond the indi-vidualisation of mainstreamed, 'plant-based' business-as-usual; re-centring production, hitherto relatively invisible in the hegemonic consideration of veganism as just consumption praxis; and engaging with 'multi-elemental' plant ethics. This offers a cross-pollination of ideas through a focus on the geographies of veganism, which promotes the development of relational, placed and scaled analyses of vegan identities, experiences and practices while also bridging the intradisciplinary silos within environmental geography. Engaging with the geographies of veganism offers a timely and grounded lens to critically interrogate key contemporary debates around diverse knowledges, sustainability and justice. As such, the alternative ways of doing, being and relating offered by VFPs show real potential for hopeful, responsive and constructive research.
... Vegaanisessa maataloudessa ajatus toimimisesta harmoniassa luonnon kanssa voi olla korostunut.(Mann 2020;Seymour & Utter 2021, 1147-1151 ...
Article
Full-text available
Maidontuotantoa on pitkään pidetty suomalaisen maatalouden kulmakivenä ja merkittävimpänä tuotantosuuntana. Maidontuotanto on vaikuttanut monin tavoin paitsi maaseutuympäristön fyysisiin piirteisiin, myös mielikuviin maaseudusta. Tällä hetkellä maidontuotantoon, kuten ruuantuotantoon yleensäkin, kohdistuu kuitenkin lukuisia haasteita. Monet maitotilat ovat taloudellisissa vaikeuksissa tuottajahintojen laskiessa ja tuotantokulujen kasvaessa, eläinperäisen ruuan tuotantoon ja tuotantoeläinten kohteluun kohdistuu kasvavaa kritiikkiä, ja lisäksi useat maanviljelijät kokevat tulevansa syyllistetyiksi julkisessa keskustelussa ilmastopäästöjen tuottajina. Saadakseen oman äänensä ja näkemyksensä kuuluviin maitotilalliset ovatkin perustaneet sosiaalisen median tilejä, joilla he kertovat työstään ja arkipäivästään omista lähtökohdistaan. Katsauksessani tarkastelen tätä ilmiötä taustoittaen sitä aiemman tutkimuskirjallisuuden avulla ja kartoittaen suomalaista maitotilallisten sosiaalisen median kenttää (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram). Tarkoituksena on luoda pohjaa laajemmalle tutkimukselle siitä, miten maidontuotantoa Suomessa nykyisin käsitellään julkisuudessa, ja miten monenlaisia vastakkainasetteluja sisältävää keskustelua voisi analyyttisesti lähestyä. Kansainvälisessä tutkimuksessa on tunnistettu maanviljelijöiden pyrkimys välittää tietoa suoraan kuluttajille, jolloin he ovat myös sosiaalisessa mediassa alttiita kritiikille elinkeinoaan ja toimintatapojaan kohtaan. Eläintuotantoon liittyvät kohut rakentuvat usein eläinten hyvinvointikysymysten ympärille. Vastakkainasettelu eläinoikeusjärjestöjen edustamien näkemysten ja eläintuottajien välillä on näkyvissä myös suomalaisessa sosiaalisessa mediassa. Maidontuottajat reagoivat eläintuotannosta käytyyn julkiseen keskusteluun ja pyrkivät tekemään työtään kuluttajille tutummaksi ja ymmärrettävämmäksi.
... Last but foremost, it promotes health due to the absence of the risk of soil contamination from antibiotics from animal farming or other pathogens from animal excrement. A healthy, resilient, and living soil is the basis for producing robust plants of high nutritional value for humans [19]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Nitrogen indices could be used to evaluate organic and inorganic fertilization because they provide quantitative measures of nitrogen availability in the soil, allowing for a more accurate assessment of nutrient-management practices and optimization of crop yields. This study investigates the impact of different fertilization types and salinity on various soil parameters in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) cultivation and nitrogen indices. A field experiment was established at the Agricultural University of Athens during the cropping period of 2018–2019 (CP I), 2019–2020 (CP II), and 2020–2021 (CP III) in a split-plot design with two main salinity treatments (high salinity, HS, and conventional salinity, CS) and five fertilization treatments (biocyclic–vegan humus soil (BHS), manure (FYM), compost (COMP), inorganic fertilization (11–15–15), and the control (C). The Nitrogen Balance Intensity (NBI) was statistically significantly affected by the factors of fertilization (p ≤ 0.01) and salinity (p ≤ 0.001) for CP I. The maximum NUEcrop value was recorded in the FYM treatment (0.83 ± 0.04) and the minimum in the COMP treatment (0.64 ± 0.04). Physiological efficiency (PE) was not significantly affected by any treatment for CP III. The fertilization factor significantly affected the NUEsoil index (p ≤ 0.001) for all three CPs. For CP I, the highest Nitrogen Uptake Efficiency (NUpE) value was recorded in the BHS treatment (27.08 ± 7.31) and the lowest in the C treatment (13.22 ± 7.31). There were no significant differences in CP I and CP II NUEbalance values among the NPK, BHS, and FYM treatments. These findings underscore the potential of organic fertilizers in addressing the global nitrogen challenge and promoting environmentally sustainable farming practices.
... This suggests a virtually untapped consumer base. However, veganic agriculture still has many technical, agronomic and socioeconomic challenges (Schmutz and Foresi, 2017;Mann, 2020;Seymour and Utter, 2021). In this regard, Hirth (2021) details the case of the Bradley Nook Farm, one of the farms in this case study. ...
... As previously stated, there is little research that has explored the perceptions of cultured meat within farming communities. Research has considered farmer perceptions with regard to veganic farming in the US (Seymour and Utter, 2021), insect production with German farmers (Weinreis et al., 2023), and cultured meat with farmers in Finland (Räty et al., 2023). In the United Kingdom, Crawshaw and Piazza (2023) compared the perceptions of livestock farmers and non-farmers toward three animal-free foods and cultured meat. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background The environmental and social impacts of cultured meat, and its economic viability, are contingent on its implications for food production and for agriculture. However, the implications of cultured meat production for farmers have not yet been thoroughly investigated and are poorly understood. The aim of this research was to engage with the farming sector in critically assessing cultured meat as a technology which could profoundly affect future farm livelihoods, land use, rural and farming communities and agricultural value chains. Ensuring farmers’ voices, and potential ‘counter-narratives’ inform the development of cultured meat is not only inclusive, but could identify unexpected impacts of this emerging technology and contribute to the framing of the social license of the industry developing them. Methods Six focus groups were undertaken with 75 UK farmers from a variety of farming sectors and regions. Questions focused on what the term ‘cultured meat’ means to farmers, the potential impacts of cultured meat, and potential business scenarios arising for farmers. All meetings were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Results and discussion Farmers expressed complex and considered reflections on cultured meat, raising several perceived opportunities and risks associated with the themes of ‘ethics and affective’ narratives, ‘environment-based’ narratives, and ‘socio-economic’ narratives. Aspects of foci of power, food system control and transparency associated with cultured meat emerged from the conversations, as well as cultured meat’s potential impacts on the environment and on jobs, farming/rural communities and connecting with the land. Conclusion Globally, meat production underpins the livelihoods of many rural communities, so a transition to cultured meat is likely to have deep-seated ethical, environmental, and socio-economic impacts. Within the discourse on cultured meat the voices of farmers are often lost. While not claiming to be representative of all UK farming, this study engaged UK farmer perspectives as a way of starting the substantive process of greater stakeholder inclusion in cultured meat innovation pathways, and which should underpin responsible technology transitions in agriculture.
Article
Full-text available
Leafy vegetables are a highly variable group of perishable food that broadly can be defined as vegetables grown for their edible leaves. This study was conducted to investigate the safety of commodities grown at farms and those sold in various retails globally, cascading to South Africa, and to determine the identification and characterization of the microbiota. Therefore, the authors conducted a desktop and literature review using popular trusted search engines with special keywords. For this study, the authors-maintained research material from 2010-2024, constituting research articles, reviews, book chapters, thesis, research short communications, and industrial short communications. From this study, it could be deduced that leafy green commodities differ from intact vegetables with regard to their physiology, handling, processing, and storage. In addition, various agronomic activities were identified as contributing to the contamination of leafy greens at various stages of minimal processing, including distribution. More studies have shown that various types of microorganisms are found in leafy vegetables purchased at small-scale farms and retail stores. Concerning that, characterise those that are pathogenic to human health and those that are beneficial and how to treat through antibiotics the diseases caused by those that are pathogenic to our health. Furthermore, the findings of this study revealed that some opportunistic pathogen communities in fresh leafy vegetables are diverse and can pose a health risk to consumers, leading to death. Finally, food safety and security remain a global challenge, and stunting continues to affect the majority of developing countries. Thus, future studies should focus on improving food safety management systems reducing food poisoning, recall incidents and outbreaks by controlling critical points and food security in primary horticulture production environments even at retail and determining which antimicrobials will inhibit the growth of specific bacteria causing a certain infection.
Preprint
Full-text available
Europe’s nitrogen (N) crisis demands innovative food systems solutions to improve N cycling. This study modelled the potential of different diets and circular fertilization strategies to enhance food system N use efficiency (NUE), reduce N surplus, and minimize reliance on synthetic N fertilizers. Results show that circularity helps to improve NUE and total N losses but does not consistently improve N surplus per ha. Synthetic N fertilizer could be reduced by 95% if healthy diets were consumed in circular food systems, increasing NUE from the current 0.17 to 0.53. The reduction of synthetic N fertilizer led to increased use of manure and showed considerable trade-offs with land use and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe). In contrast, circular systems in which vegan diets were consumed showed the lowest land use and GHGe and a relatively high NUE (~ 0.3). This emphasizes the importance of considering trade-offs and synergies between different environmental impacts when redesigning food systems.
Article
Full-text available
Salinity is a paramount factor that poses challenges to agricultural productivity and sustainability. At the same time, fenugreek is valued as a forage crop for its medicinal properties in addition to its extensive edible use. The objective of this study is to explore how fertilization and salinity impact soil physical properties and root system development in fenugreek cultivation. A field experiment was established at the Agricultural University of Athens during growing seasons 2019-2020 (1st GS) and 2020-2021 (2nd GS) in a split-splot design with the 2 main salinity treatments (High salinity; HS & Conventional salinity; CS) and 5 fertilization treatments (biocyclic-vegan (BHS), manure (FYM), compost (COMP), inorganic fertilization (11-15-15) and the control (C). Soil porosity was statistically significantly affected by both salinity (p<=0.05) and fertilization (p<=0.001). Also, organic matter was significantly affected by fertilization (p<=0.001). HS (59.78±2.65) resulted in 20.02% fewer nodules on plant roots compared to CS treatments (71.75±2.65). The maximum number of nodules was recorded in the FYM treatment (68.93±0.77). In addition, mean root diameter was affected by fertilization (p<=0.01) COMP (2.92±0.31 mm) and NPK treatments (2.83±0.31 mm) resulted in 19.52% and 23.32% smaller root diameter respectively compared to BHS, while FYM (2.68±0.31 mm) resulted in a 30.22% smaller diameter. A significant increase of seed yield was noticed under organic fertilization where the highest yield of 2.1 t ha−1 was recorded in BHS (2nd GS). Although fenugreek was affected by high salinity, it demonstrated considerable resistance and maintained its yields, rendering it a crop suitable for challenging soils.
Article
Full-text available
Plants get exposed to multiple stresses throughout their phenological growth stages. At most, these stresses are attributed to single or combined stresses like salinity, water deficits, wounding, mineral deficiencies, potting bag size, soil/root media density and type, soil pH, and the type of production system employed. Multistress factors have been widely reported to reduce the plant growth and development, strength, yield, and quality of horticultural crops globally. In the literature, reports extensively recommended the use of silicon-based biostimulants to improve the growth and development of commercial horticultural plants; however, little has been reported in South Africa on the recovery response mechanisms of beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.), lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), and kale (Brassica oleracea L.) grown under multi-stress conditions treated with silicon-based biostimulants, and using the cheaper eco-friendly production systems. In South Africa, most silicon-based biostimulant production companies reserve their novel concoctions as their company secrets; thus, many of the products are never tested in public to ascertain and monitor compliance with the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies, and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947 in South Africa. On the other hand, emerging farmers and smallholder growers are failing to afford existing agricultural insurance options, thereby affecting their yields against the commercially developed farmers. Although the government aids farmers, the assistance does not cover all costs associated with the multistress losses. Some farmers and growers adopted advanced production systems; however, at most, these systems are costly and rely primarily on electricity as a source of power, which is a challenge in South Africa. This paper explains various production systems used by commercial and emerging farmers, and the smallholder growers in South Africa to reduce costs related to multistress losses. Moreover, an alternative eco-organic production system that applies silicon-based biostimulant as a novel idea for commercial vegetables grown under extreme multi-stress conditions is recommended for emerging farmers and smallholder growers in South Africa. Future studies should be based on eco-friendly production systems in vegetable production in line with Sustainable Development Goals, to combat poverty and improve the livelihood of the African countries.
Article
Full-text available
A growing number of farmers are excluding animal inputs from crop production, an approach commonly referred to as veganic or stockfree organic agriculture. This research-based article discusses the soil health and fertility strategies reported by a sample of U.S. veganic farmers. These approaches may be relevant beyond the veganic community to farmers seeking innovative methods for produce safety and nutrient cycling. Agricultural outreach professionals (AOPs), including Extension personnel, play a critical role in supporting veganic practices by serving as cross-pollinators between farmers and research institutions. Thus, the article endeavors to expand AOP familiarity with veganic practices and benefits.
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores both the necessities and the options for an agricultural system in which no animals are killed by reviewing existing literature. It first identifies a causal chain which can be labelled as vegan wave and which might generate a consensus that animals should not be killed for human consumption. By raising issues of nutrient supply, grassland management and beekeeping, the paper shows that vegan-organic agriculture, vegan-conventional agriculture and post-lethal vegetarian agriculture are three options for such a pathway. Yet, many technical and socioeconomic questions still need to be resolved.
Article
Full-text available
Meat and, less so, dairy are contested for their significant ethical and social‐ecological impacts. Abjuring animal products, veganism is conventionally treated as a dietary ideology related to consumer identities. Drawing upon practice and materialist turns, this article explores variations in the performance of veganism and how its boundaries are drawn. Yet, rather than an eating practice, I suggest to look at veganism more broadly and conceptualised as a food practice which also involves provisioning. By example of stockfree organic agriculture (SOA), a production‐based, processual understanding is outlined by which plant foods are “vegan” if animal by‐products are not used as fertilisers in crop cultivation. Thereof, a conceptual case is made to shift the focus away from veganism as a consumer identity and towards performative vegan food practices (VFP) as a global responsibility to reduce the ‘long shadow’ of livestock and maintain Earth as a relatively safe operating space.
Article
Full-text available
Recently, more and more research has been conducted on what sustainable nutrition could look like. Stockfree-organic agriculture is one possible approach but a relatively new and unstudied cultivation method. In addition to organic agriculture, it excludes any animal by-products during the whole cultivation process. Among the consumers of organic food are especially many vegetarians and vegans. To attract this target group, first farms in Europe have started to follow the stockfree-organic agriculture principles. As it is important to know the consumers’ point of view on new developments in agriculture at an early stage of the diffusion process, this study deals with consumers’ evaluation of stockfree-organic agriculture to draw conclusions about a possible market potential. This is especially important for stockfree-organic farmers, as well as for organic farmers who are considering converting their cultivation method, and for retailers who wonder whether it is worthwhile to offer these products. The data was collected in 2019 by means of an online survey. The sample consisted of 500 German respondents. Principal component and cluster analyses were used to identify consumer segments according to their attitudes towards the acceptance, advantages, and disadvantages of stockfree-organic agriculture. Additionally, the different segments were compared with each other according to various attitudes and eating behaviours. Overall, animal welfare considerations and environmental aspects were of particular importance to consumers. Animal usage was clearly rejected by one segment, which contained 24% of the sample. Nearly all vegetarians and all vegans supported stockfree-organic agriculture, whereas heavy meat consumers tended to refuse the support of stockfree-organic agriculture. The supporting group valuing high animal welfare and health concerns was much larger than the current status of this niche segment would suggest. This could be a major challenge for the agricultural sector in the long term, but could also include opportunities for greater sustainability.
Article
Full-text available
The number of consumers who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet and people who purchase organic food is increasing worldwide. The labelling of food products with a vegan label only refers to the ingredients, not to the production method. Therefore, animal products e.g. slurry, meal pellets and animal by-products can be used in the chain of agricultural production. A new biocyclic-vegan label, which refers to an exclusion of any animal by-product during production, was introduced in Germany in 2017. The product life cycle consists of five stages. The production method of biocyclic-vegan agricultural products is a new approach. Therefore, very little is known about consumer awareness of these products. As a result, this study is of an exploratory nature and investigates which needs biocyclic-vegan products can satisfy and which additional values these products offer in comparison to organic products. As little is known about the biocyclic-vegan production method, telephone interviews involving six experts and six vegetarian/vegan consumers from Germany were carried out. The interviews took place in January 2018. The consumer convenience sample was selected based on age, gender and profession while the experts were selected based on their expertise. On average the interviews lasted 20 minutes. The interviews consisted of 20 questions. Both, consumers and experts were included to gain knowledge from each perspective. The three key results are that most interviewees knew about biocyclic-vegan production and were able to explain the meaning. Another major result is that consumers mention that the purchase reason is to support the idea of biocyclic-vegan agriculture while experts name ethical reasons as a main purchase reason. The third key result is that the barriers of purchasing the products are the price, lack of knowledge and credibility. As this is an explorative study, further research is needed e.g. more in-depth interviews consisting of a larger sample size and a more diverse sample including consumers following different diets such as flexitarians. Moreover quantitative approaches would give valuable insights into the topic.
Chapter
This book documents current practices in organic agriculture and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. All major aspects of organic agriculture are explored including historical background and underlying principles, soil fertility management, crop and animal production, breeding strategies, crop protection, animal health and nutrition, animal welfare and ethics, economics and marketing, standards and certification, environmental impacts and social responsibility, food quality, research, education and extension. The book has 18 chapters and a subject index. A special feature of this book is a series of 5 'Special Topics', smaller sections that address key questions or challenges facing organic agriculture. These sections are intended to provide a more detailed analysis of specific issues that cannot be covered as sufficiently in the larger general chapters.
Chapter
The radical transformation of our food systems is necessary to address the social and environmental crises of our time. This can only be led by grassroots social movements, as the solutions that come from corporate, governmental, and philanthropic actors are false solutions that maintain the status quo. They find legitimacy by misportraying the nature of the problems to be solved and promoting deeply entrenched narratives of lack. This chapter explores these and counters that we already have the solutions to create sustainable, ecological food systems. It advocates for a transition to a food system based on vegan agroecology, where nonhuman animals are included in our circle of moral concern, and speaks of the stirrings of a new movement: the veganic farming movement.
Chapter
This chapter distills six key themes from the preceding chapters on ways forward toward a sustainable and responsible food and agriculture system. These themes reflect the need for more holistic paradigms and mindsets that can deal with complexity; narratives of abundance rather than scarcity; ecological and multifunctional paradigms of agriculture; decentralizing power in the food and economic systems; diets that promote human and planetary health; and powerful social movements and civil society. These themes then inform the elaboration of the concept of “inclusive responsibility” in relation to our food and agriculture system. Inclusive responsibility reflects a move toward an alternative ethical framework based on the core values of inclusion, interdependence, pluralism, justice, equity, and care, and encompasses the six foregoing themes. Inclusive responsibility can be integrated and applied at every level of the food and agriculture system, from local to global, from production to consumption, and from individual to community and society. The chapter concludes by offering a possible vision for an inclusively responsible food and agriculture system built on the agriculture paradigm of “Conservation Agriculture-Based Veganic Agroecology.”
Book
An analysis of the successes and failures of the organic movement, focusing on coalition dynamics, movement-state relations, and market-based strategies for social change. In the early 1970s, organic farming was an obscure agricultural practice, associated with the counterculture rather than commerce. Today, organic agriculture is a multi-billion dollar industry; organic food can be found on the shelves of every supermarket in America. In Organic Struggle, Brian Obach examines the evolution of the organic movement in the United States, a movement that seeks to transform our system of agriculture and how we think about food. Obach analyzes why the organic movement developed as it did and evaluates its achievements and shortcomings. He identifies how divergent interests within the diverse organic coalition created vulnerabilities for the movement. In particular, he examines the ideological divide between those he calls the “spreaders,” who welcome the wider market for organic food and want to work with both government and agribusiness, and the more purist “tillers,” who see organic practices as part of a broader social transformation that will take place outside existing institutions. Obach argues that the movement's changing relationship with governmental institutions is crucial to understanding the trajectory of the organic sector. The government-run National Organic Program fostered dramatic growth and deep corporate penetration of the organic market. While many activists were disillusioned by changes in the organic industry that came with corporate and government involvement, Obach sees a failure in the essential market- based strategy adopted by the movement early in its history. He argues for a refocus on policy efforts that can reshape the agricultural system as a whole.