Introduction the Global Environmental Politics of Food • Jennifer Clapp and Caitlin Scott*

Home , Environmental politics, Food politics

Introduction The Global Environmental Politics of Food • Jennifer Clapp and Caitlin Scott*

This special issue seeks to expand our understanding of the complex inter- linkages between the politics and governance of the global environment, on one hand, and the global food system on the other. The articles in this issue explore insights that the field of global environmental politics can bring to questions of food system sustainability, while at the same time considering what the relationship between food systems and the environment reveals about the nature of global environmental politics. The authors examine how issues at the intersection of environment and food are framed in international political settings; the articles explore the political and economic dynamics surrounding different actors—including states, corporations, civil society organizations, and marginalized populations—in shaping debates around how best to govern these issues. This focus on the global environmental politics of food is, in our view, much needed. In the decade since the 2007–08 global food crisis, people have become increasingly more aware of the linkages between food systems and environmental systems. The industrial production, distribution, storage, and market- ing systems that provide much of the world’s food utilize large amounts of water and fossil energy and contribute significantly to deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, chemical exposure, depletion of fisheries, and climate change. The extent of the ecological crisis associated with the global food and agriculture system is widely understood in the scientific community and backed by growing volumes of empirical data that have enormous policy significance (e.g., Foley et al. 2011; Garnett 2013). However, academic analysis of the political dynamics at the intersection of environmental systems and food systems has thus far re- ceived far less attention. Important work in the field of GEP has begun to emerge on some specific aspects of the intersection of agriculture and the environment, and on the challenges associated with developing effective governance of these issues. This work

* We thank the participants in this special issue for comments and feedback on this framework document. We would also like to thank Susan Altman and Rachel McQuail for their superb editorial support for this special issue.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 2 • The Global Environmental Politics of Food

includes studies about the rise of biofuels (e.g., Bastos Lima and Gupta 2013; Neville 2015; Stattman and Gupta 2015), unsustainable fisheries (e.g., Havice and Campling 2010; Gulbrandsen and Auld 2016), the implications of genetically modified organisms (e.g., Falkner and Gupta 2006; Stephan 2012), and the ecological damage caused by palm oil production (e.g., Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2011; Schleifer 2016). These studies add helpful insights to the GEP liter- ature, highlighting cases of environmental problems that arise from activities related to food and agricultural production. These studies typically examine these issues through the lens of environmental problems such as deforestation, biodiversity loss, biosafety, and resources depletion. They also tend to focus on specific governance regimes that have emerged to address those environmental problems. This focus is understandable for a field that emerged in an era of growing concern about global environmental problems and the governance regimes that have emerged to address them. However, the focus on specificenviron- mental outcomes and environmental governance regimes risks downplaying the multiple interconnected environmental effects of food system activities, many of which do not have an established governance regime to address them. Meanwhile, other fields of study, such as geography, sociology, and inter- disciplinary food studies, have increasingly focused their analyses on problems present in the food system, including questions of sustainability and social justice. Researchers in these fields often make the case that the environmental damage associated with the global industrial food system is an outgrowth of the capitalist expansion of agriculture (e.g., Weis 2010; McMichael 2011; Sage 2012). Many of these studies call for resistance in the form of local food systems that are por- trayed as less environmentally damaging and more socially just. Although they provide important analysis on the broader economic structures and dynamics that drive many problems in the food system today, such academic research is often less concerned about questions of power, legitimacy, political discourse, and governance, which are at the center of GEP analyses. Thus, they often dismiss political dynamics as part and parcel of the broader economic system that they argue needs to be replaced. This approach tends to leave the politics of the environmental dimensions of the food system, and attempts to govern it, underexplored. The articles in this special issue seek to address the limitations of both the GEP and food studies literatures by taking the broader food and agriculture system as a starting point, and connecting its functioning to questions of environmental politics and governance. The novelty of this approach is that it opens up space for a deeper conversation on the political dynamics surrounding the multiple and interconnected environmental implications of the ways we provi- sion food, and invites analysis of these linkages even where no discrete environmental governance regime exists. Below, we map out a conceptual framework for analyzing the global environmental politics of food in this broader way. Drawing from both GEP and food studies literatures, this framework focuses on four key features of the food system writ large that matter for sustainability

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 Jennifer Clapp and Caitlin Scott • 3

politics and governance. Each contribution speaks to these features and the dynamics that surround them in various ways. First, the current global food system is highly complex and distanced. Food provisioning is deeply intertwined with global economic relationships, including farm input markets, production, agricultural commodity trade, food processing, retail and distribution, as well as consumption. Today’s agrifood supply chains are typically elongated in terms of the physical distance food travels and the number of agents involved. The average plate of food in North America, for example, travels approximately 1500 miles before it is consumed, and little information is typically conveyed to buyers about associated production methods, labor conditions, or environmental dynamics. This lack of information about globally sourced “food from nowhere” (Campbell 2009) has sparked enormous debate over “food miles” in the past decade (Iles 2005) and has promoted a widespread reaction in the form of food localism. Complexity is exacerbated by unpredictable weather as well as the growing role of financial actors in commodity markets, which contribute to highly unstable markets (Jarosz 2009; Ghosh 2010). Agricultural commodities also serve multiple functions beyond food, such as ingredients for fuel and other industrial uses, making it increasingly challenging to untangle the multiple supply-and-demand dynamics in food markets and their effects on food security and sustainability (Dauvergne and Neville 2009). The phenomena that make this system so complex lead to physical as well as mental separation between production and consumption (Princen 2001, 2002; Clapp 2015). Highly complex and distanced food supply chains have important implications for the global environmental politics of food. Distance makes it easier for powerful agents in the supply chain to externalize costs, as feedback loops become severed with the lack of informationexchangeasproductschange hands (Princen 2002). In such a context, it is difficult to situate responsibility for environmental damage in the food system or to mount campaigns of resistance (Clapp 2014). Long and complex supply chains also create the opportunity for multiple entry points through which to frame problems at the intersection of environmental systems and food systems—from the environmental consequences of how food is grown, to the ecological effects of its distribution, to the impacts of consumption. Not surprisingly, governance initiatives have emerged at various places along supply chains: from those targeting the farm level, such as the promotion of climate-smart agriculture by international organizations (Newell and Taylor 2018); to efforts to mediate corporate activity along agrifood supply chains, such as certification schemes (Fortin 2013; Auld 2014); to policies aimed at changing individual food choices (Garnett et al. 2015; Wellesley et al. 2015). Second, there are multiple, and often competing, scientific models for how to foster greater sustainability in the food system. Some analysts promote the idea that we need to retain large-scale production and distribution systems, albeit with adjustments on the margins to make them more sustainable, if we are to achieve sustainable food security. This approach advocates models such as

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 4 • The Global Environmental Politics of Food

genetically modified seed and chemical packages, sustainable intensification, and the use of big data as an input into agricultural decision-making as a means to deliver more food output using fewer resources such as land, pesticides, and fuel (Paarlberg 2010; Garnett et al. 2013). Such an approach also promotes more globalized food trade as a way to capitalize on efficiencies of production in certain locations so as to maximize production (Baldos and Hertel 2015; Hertel 2015). Others promote smaller-scale and more diverse food production systems based on agroecological principles and more localized distribution systems (Holt- Giménez and Altieri 2013). Promoters of this approach make the case that these more diverse and smaller scale systems are required for more sustainable food systems because they enrich biodiversity, do not rely on synthetic chemicals, and work to mitigate climate change (Koohafkan et al. 2012). These competing models for sustainability in the food system matter for the global environmental politics of food because they feed directly into highly polarized ideational debates that promote very different narratives about which model should be prioritized in international policy and governance initiatives. Although the competing visions for sustainable agricultural production outlined above are each based on scientific ideas and studies, they emerge from different disciplines and as such are grounded in different concepts, languages, and methods. For example, while each model appeals to the idea of “efficiency” as a key component of sustainability, they interpret this idea very differently. The large-scale scientific model that draws on economics and technological inno- vation prioritizes cost and resource efficiency, while the small-scale and diverse model that draws on ecology and environmental social sciences prioritizes ecological and energy efficiency (Clapp 2017). The result is a political discourse on agricultural sustainability that is often disjointed, in which advocates of different models talk past one another and fail to fully engage in productive dialogue on pathways forward. Indeed, such an impasse occurred in the case of the Inter- national Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development(IAASTD),whichsoughttoarriveatascientific consensus on the path forward for agriculture in the mid-2000s; industry players and civil society actors both walked out (Scoones 2009; Feldman and Biggs 2012). Advancing policy and governance for more environmentally sound food systems is extremely challenging in such a highly charged political context. Third, governance initiatives that address sustainability issues as they re- late to food, fisheries, and agricultural systems tend to be weak and fragmented (Biermann 2009; Zelli and Van Asselt 2013). This fragmentation occurs between international agencies as well as between nodes of governance from the local to the global level. Although the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is tasked with the coordination of food security governance internationally, it competes for authority with economic governance bodies whose rules matter for food security, such as the World Trade Organization and the G20 (McKeon 2015). At the same time, there is no one “environmental regime” for food system sustainability but rather a series of governance initiatives that tend to focus on

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 Jennifer Clapp and Caitlin Scott • 5

specific environmental issues rather than the food system as a whole. Some of these initiatives are state-based agreements that address problems that touch on food and agriculture systems, such as climate change (the UN Framework Con- vention on Climate Change and the Paris Accord), biodiversity and biosafety (the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety), and chemicals (the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions). Private, market- based initiatives are also prevalent, for example certification schemes that govern value chains for specific food and agricultural products such as palm oil, soy, and seafood. There are also myriad local and national regulations that address food, agriculture, fisheries, and land that have a bearing on sustainability but lack sufficient coordination with global initiatives. Also, in some areas of the food system-environment interface there are few rules at all, with no clear governance institution or regime responsible for ensuring sustainability. This weak and fragmented governance landscape presents enormous challenges for the global environmental politics of food. It is difficult to address the multiple and interconnected environmental problems associated with the rise of an increasingly industrialized food and agriculture system through governance arrangements that focus only on specific environmental problems and are dis- connected globally as well as across jurisdictions and scales. Global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) demonstrate a global awareness of the need to address interrelated problems at multiple scales. How- ever, it is as yet unclear how meeting these goals at local and national levels would mesh with global economic governance regimes that promote deeper market integration, when that integration is seen by many to be a key driver of numerous environmental problems (Kopnina 2016). The proliferation of market-based certification schemes for addressing the environmental problems associated with particular food commodities also demonstrates a growing ap- preciation for the need to achieve food system sustainability in a way that cuts across scale (Derkx and Glasbergen 2014). But a crowded landscape of such initiatives can also contribute to a race to the bottom as new initiatives vie for influence in the food system, lowering standards to lure signatories. The growing popularity of market-based initiatives has also drawn in civil society actors as partners who are seen as legitimating forces for those schemes, but has also led to critiques of organizations such as WWF for taking part in the weakening of governance on these issues (Dauvergne 2016). Fourth, asymmetrical power dynamics prevalent within the global food system play an important role in shaping the environmental politics of food (Clapp and Fuchs 2009). The global industrial food system is characterized by extreme concentration among the transnational corporations that dominate the business of food from production to distribution (Howard 2016; Lang and Heasman 2015). Food system scholars often use an hourglass to describe the power structure in the system, in which the narrow part of the hourglass is dominated by a handful of powerful transnational corporations (Sage 2012). Consumers and producers sit on either side of that chokepoint, and although

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 6 • The Global Environmental Politics of Food

they are more numerous and are deeply affected by decisions made in the middle, they hold much less power within the food system than the large corporations. There is also enormous inequity in terms of the power of rich and poor countries in the global food system, with rich countries having more influence in policy settings such as the G20, G8, WTO, and World Bank (Margulis 2013). These unequal power dynamics have profound implications for the global environmental politics of food. Powerful actors with clear economic interests, such as transnational corporations, financial actors, influential states, and key institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, and FAO can influence the complex landscape of food system governance in ways that suit their own needs and ideational preferences regarding sustainability (McKeon 2015). Meanwhile, civil society organizations and social movements often receive less air time in policy debates, and are regularly left out of the conversation on designing governance for more sustainable food systems (Schouten et al. 2012). Corporate players possess structural power that gives them privileged positions in policy and governance arenas, and they are able to direct significant resources to lobbying activities and public relations exercises that seek to shape public perceptions regarding food policy and governance (Fuchs et al. 2016). More powerful gov- ernments also utilize their positions in global governance arenas to promote agricultural models for sustainability that suit their own agricultural and trade interests (Clapp 2017). These dynamics raise important questions regarding participation, equity, and justice that are central to the environmental politics of food. These four features of the food system overlap with one another in myriad and complex ways. Power inequities in the food system, for example, play out in the polarized debates over what constitutes sustainability, as well as which governance regimes should prevail. Complexity and distance reinforce the fragmentation of governance initiatives, providing openings for powerful actors to advance their agendas. These overlaps make untangling the global environmental politics of food especially challenging, as this special issue of GEP highlights. Taking these challenges as a launching point, the articles in this issue tease out the global environmental politics of a range of food system sustainability debates, governance initiatives, and outcomes. This approach helps to better illuminate the tricky terrain facing policymakers who seek more sustainable food systems. The articles cover a range of issue areas within the food system– environment interface. The research articles in this special issue examine complexity, competing discourses, governance fragmentation, and asymmetrical power dynamics across a range of issues from production to consumption. These dynamics are illustrated in the first two articles through a closer look at corporate influence over production practices. Clapp’s contribution shows that increasing corporate concentration in the food system has important implications for food system sustainability, and yet, governance around mergers and acquisitions fails to account for sustainability.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 Jennifer Clapp and Caitlin Scott • 7

The analysis brings attention to the effects of weak and fragmented governance, the power of corporate actors to shape policy debates regarding sustainable agriculture and competition policy, and the way in which complexity and distance obscure the drivers of mergers, each of which reduces pressure to reg- ulate corporate concentration as a means to promote food system sustainability. Dauvergne’s contribution features similar themes, showing how powerful industry actors have created and disseminated a narrative of sustainable palm oil that discredits independent smallholders while enhancing weakly enforced private governance initiatives. This narrative allows the industry to continue practices that wreak havoc on local environments thorough deforestation and biodiversity loss. This contribution also highlights the increasing complexity of the palm oil industry, with concurrent changing and expanding global supply chains. The next two contributions explore questions of power and fragmentation across scales as they apply to access and control of natural resources that under- gird food systems. Newell, Taylor, and Touni examine the dynamics surrounding global governance initiatives that promote climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in developing countries. With a focus on the case of Kenya, their contribution highlights power inequities across multiple scales that have led to a particular in- terpretation of CSA in the country. Their findings reveal the prioritization of a private and market-led model of agriculture that can work against the pursuit of the SDGs regarding food, water, energy, and land. Havice and Campling’scontribu- tion takes a historical approach to understand how the governance of fisheries and seafood supply chains has been shaped by periods of change using insights from food regime theory (Friedmann and McMichael 1989). They show that the norms that govern resource access and control have long been shaped by power relations at the nexus of state and market. The continued central role of the state in shaping the private ordering of seafood governance, they argue, feeds into “continued expansionary, volume-driven extractivist logics,” which have led to the crisis now seen in fisheries globally. The following two research articles examine the ways in which consumer demands for more sustainably produced foods interact with power, polarized sustainability narratives, and fragmented governance of complex agrifood supply chains. Scott’s contribution examines the ways in which Big Food companies are responding to greater calls for more sustainable dietary choices through participation in sustainable sourcing initiatives for their ingredients, including palm oil, sugar, and cocoa, among others. Although these efforts aim to reduce the environmental impact of processed foods, which form a growing proportion of diets worldwide, sustainable sourcing initiatives do little to address the growing consumption of unhealthy foods encompassed in the wider discourse of sustainable diets. The result is that Big Food companies lend legitimacy to certain parts of the sustainable diets discourse but not others. Starobin’s contribution examines the ways in which European demands for honey free from genetically modified (GM) pollen had an impact on local demands for stronger

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 8 • The Global Environmental Politics of Food

regulation of GM crops in Mexico. Her article shows how a coalition of honey producers, peasant farmers, and social movements was able to defeat multi- national agro-biotech firm Monsanto’s attempts to acquire permits for GM soy plantations in that country. Starobin finds that the unique characteristics of honey as a commodity contributed to the outcome, highlighting how un- expected features of a struggle may empower actors to overcome traditional power relations. The special issue concludes with two forum articles that speak to the challenges created by the increasing complexity and distance in the food system. Weis provides a compelling commentary that connects the sixth mass extinction, and the growing biodiversity and climate crises, to the continued growth of livestock production globally. He uses the notion of “ghosts” to evoke the loss of non-human animals and the term “things” to symbolize the commodification of, and disregard for, animal life in livestock’s supply chains and ultimate consumption. The two connect to “draw the acceleration of commodification and violence of biological simplification into focus.” This discussion motivates readers to think about the outcomes from complex supply chains in a system where humans hold power over animals and the environment. Bastos Lima’s commentary also highlights complexity in the food system, detailing the expanding flexibility of crops for multiple food and nonfood uses and the resulting challenges involved in disentangling the differing dimensions of supply chains and their implications for food security and the environment. The piece stresses the important political and economic ramifications of a transition to greater flexibility in the agrifood sector, raising critical questions about its power structures and incentives. Collectively, the contributions to this special issue provide analysis that spans the various activities within the food system from production to consumption—and feature different debates over a range of environmental issues including climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, chemical exposure, resource use and depletion (e.g., fisheries, water, land), animal welfare, and sustainable consumption. We recognize that these articles by no means cover all of the possible issues that connect the politics of environment and food system interactions on a global scale, but we hope that they provide a reasonable sampling across a range of issue areas. By placing these articles side-by-side, and drawing on the conceptual framework articulated above, our hope is to begin to stitch together a comprehensive picture of the emerging global environmental politics of food.

References

Auld, Graeme. 2014. Constructing Private Governance: The Rise and Evolution of Forest, Coffee and Fisheries Certiﬁcation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Baldos, Uris Lantz C., and Thomas W. Hertel. 2015. The Role of International Trade in Managing Food Security Risks from Climate Change. Food Security 7 (2): 275–290.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 Jennifer Clapp and Caitlin Scott • 9

Bastos Lima, Mairon G., and Joyeeta Gupta. 2013. The Policy Context of Biofuels: A Case of Non-Governance at the Global Level? Global Environmental Politics 13 (2): 46–64. Biermann, Frank. 2009. The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis. Global Environmental Politics 9 (4): 14–40. Campbell, Hugh. 2009. Breaking New Ground in Food Regime Theory: Corporate Environmentalism, Ecological Feedbacks and the ‘Food from Somewhere’ Regime? Agriculture and Human Values 26 (4): 309–319. Clapp, Jennifer, and Doris Fuchs. 2009. Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clapp, Jennifer. 2014. Financialization, Distance and Global Food Politics. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (5): 797–814. Clapp, Jennifer. 2015. Distant Agricultural Landscapes. Sustainability Science 10 (2): 305–316. Clapp, Jennifer. 2017. The Trade-ification of the Food Sustainability Agenda. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (2): 335–353. Dauvergne, Peter, and Kate J. Neville. 2009. The Changing North–South and South–North Political Economy of Biofuels. Third World Quarterly 30 (6): 1087–1102. Dauvergne, Peter. 2016. Environmentalism of the Rich. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Derkx, Boudewijn, and Pieter Glasbergen. 2014. Elaborating Global Private Meta-Governance: An Inventory in the Realm of Voluntary Sustainability Standards. Global Environmental Change 27: 41–50. Falkner, Robert, and Aarti Gupta. 2006. The Influence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa. Global Environmental Politics 6 (4): 23–55. Feldman, Shelley, and Stephen Biggs. 2012. The Politics of International Assessments: The IAASTD Process, Reception and Significance. Journal of Agrarian Change 12 (1): 144–169. Foley, Jonathan A., Navin Ramankutty, Kate A. Brauman, Emily S. Cassidy, James S. Gerber, Matt Johnston, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Christine O’Connell, Depaak K. Ray, Paul C. West, Christian Balzer, Elena M. Bennett, Stephen R. Carpenter, Jason Hill, Chad Monfreda, Stephen Polasky, Johan Rockström, John Sheehan, John Sheehan, Stefan Siebert, David Tillman, and David P. M. Zaks. 2011. Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature 478 (7369): 337–342. Fortin, Elizabeth. 2013. Transnational Multi-Stakeholder Sustainability Standards and Biofuels: Understanding Standards Processes. Journal of Peasant Studies 40 (3): 563–587. Friedmann, Harriet, and Philip McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the State System: The Rise and Decline of National Agricultures, 1870 to the Present. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (2): 93–117. Fuchs, Doris, Antonietta Di Giulio, Katharina Glaab, Sylvia Lorek, Michael Maniates, Thomas Princen, and Inge Røpke. 2016. Power: The Missing Element in Sustainable Consumption and Absolute Reductions Research and Action. Journal of Cleaner Production 132: 298–307. Garnett, Tara, Michael C. Appleby, Andrew Balmford, Ian J. Bateman, Tim G. Benton, Phil Bloomer, Barbara Burlingame, Marian Dawkins, Liam Dolan, David Fraser, Mario Herrero, Irene Hoffmann, Pete Smith, Philip K. Thornton, Camilla Toulmin, Sonja J. Vermeulen, and H. Charles J. Godfray. 2013. Sustainable Intensification in Agri- culture: Premises and Policies. Science 341 (6141): 33–34.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 10 • The Global Environmental Politics of Food

Garnett, Tara, Sophie Mathewson, Philip Angelides, and Fiona Borthwick. 2015. Policies and Actions to Shift Eating Patterns: What Works? A Review of the Evidence of the Effectiveness of Interventions Aimed at Shifting Diets in More Sustainable and Healthy Directions. Food and Climate Research Network and Chatham House. Available online at: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_chatham_house_0.pdf, last accessed February 15, 2018. Garnett, Tara. 2013. Food Sustainability: Problems, Perspectives and Solutions. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72 (1): 29–39. Ghosh, Jayati. 2010. The Unnatural Coupling: Food and Global Finance. Journal of Agrarian Change 10 (1): 72–86. Gulbrandsen, Lars H., and Graeme Auld. 2016. Contested Accountability Logics in Evolv- ing Nonstate Certification for Fisheries Sustainability. Global Environmental Politics 16 (2): 42–60. Havice, Elizabeth, and Liam Campling. 2010. Shifting Tides in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Tuna Fishery: The Political Economy of Regulation and Industry Responses. Global Environmental Politics 10 (1): 89–114. Hertel, Thomas W. 2015. The Challenges of Sustainably Feeding a Growing Planet. Food Security 7 (2): 185–198. Holt-Giménez, Eric, and Miguel A. Altieri. 2013. Agroecology, Food Sovereignty, and the New Green Revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1): 90–102. Howard, Philip. 2016. Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat? London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Iles, Alastair. 2005. Learning in Sustainable Agriculture: Food Miles and Missing Objects. Environmental Values 14 (2): 163–183. Jarosz, Lucy. 2009. Energy, Climate Change, Meat, and Markets: Mapping the Coordi- nates of the Current World Food Crisis. Geography Compass 3 (6): 2065–2083. Koohafkan, Parviz, Miguel A. Altieri, and Eric Holt Gimenez. 2012. Green Agriculture: Foundations for Biodiverse, Resilient and Productive Agricultural Systems. Inter- national Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 10 (1): 61–75. Lang, Tim, and Michael Heasman. 2015. Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets,2nd edition. London and New York: Routledge Earthscan. Kopnina, Helen. 2016. The Victims of Unsustainability: A Challenge to Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 23 (2): 113–121. Margulis, Matias E. 2013. The Regime Complex for Food Security: Implications for the Global Hunger Challenge. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and Inter- national Organizations 19 (1): 53–67. McKeon, Nora. 2015. Food Security Governance: Empowering Communities, Regulating Corporations. London: Routledge. McMichael, Philip. 2011. Food System Sustainability: Questions of Environmental Governance in the New World (Dis)Order. Global Environmental Change 21 (3): 804–812. Neville, Kate J. 2015. The Contentious Political Economy of Biofuels. Global Environmental Politics 15 (1): 21–40. Newell, Peter, and Olivia Taylor. 2018. Contested Landscapes: The Global Political Economy of Climate-Smart Agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (1): 108–129. Paarlberg, Robert. 2010. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021 Jennifer Clapp and Caitlin Scott • 11

Princen, Thomas. 2001. Consumption and its Externalities: Where Economy Meets Ecology. Global Environmental Politics 1 (3): 11–30. Princen, Thomas. 2002. Distancing: Consumption and the Severing of Feedback. In Confronting Consumption, edited by Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca, 103–131. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sage, Colin. 2012. Addressing the Faustian Bargain of the Modern Food System: Connecting Sustainable Agriculture with Sustainable Consumption. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 10 (3): 204–207. Schleifer, Philip. 2016. Private Governance Undermined: India and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Global Environmental Politics 16 (1): 38–58. Schouten, Greetje, Pieter Leroy, and Pieter Glasbergen. 2012. On the Deliberative Capacity of Private Multi-Stakeholder Governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics 83: 42–50. Scoones, Ian. 2009. The Politics of Global Assessments: The Case of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (3): 547–571. Stattman, Sarah L., and Aarti Gupta. 2015. Negotiating Authority in Global Biofuel Gover- nance: Brazil and the EU in the WTO. Global Environmental Politics 15 (1): 41–59. Stephan, Hannes R. 2012. Revisiting the Transatlantic Divergence over GMOs: Toward a Cultural-Political Analysis. Global Environmental Politics 12 (4): 104–124. Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J., Bas Arts, and Pieter Glasbergen. 2011. Interaction Manage- ment by Partnerships: The Case of Biodiversity and Climate Change. Global Environ- mental Politics 11 (4): 89–107. Weis, Tony. 2010. The Accelerating Biophysical Contradictions of Industrial Capitalist Agriculture. Journal of Agrarian Change 10 (3): 315–341. Wellesley, Laura, Catherine Happer, and Antony Froggatt. 2015. Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption. London: Chatham House. Available online at: https://www.chathamhouse.org//node/19095, last accessed February 15, 2018. Zelli, Fariborz, and Harro van Asselt. 2013. Introduction: The Institutional Fragmenta- tion of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses. Global Environmental Politics 13 (3): 1–13.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00464 by guest on 29 September 2021