Citizens are called upon to become active participants in creating a more sustainable food system. As food citizens, people participate in defining and constructing their food systems according to their needs and values. In food policies, the concept of food citizenship is often left undefined or with reference only to individual activities. In the food citizenship literature, the role of nonhuman agency in constituting food citizenship needs more examination. Here we investigate food citizenship activities in a citizen-led community-supported agriculture group (...) and explore the role of materiality in constituting food citizenship. We ask (1) what is the role of material-discursive arrangements in community-supported agriculture activities, and (2) how does materiality constitute food citizenship? We analyze semi-structured interviews, as well as observation and visual material, using qualitative content analysis. Our findings indicate that materialities, such as the field, time, and body, play a central role in community-supported agriculture activities. With materialities, food citizenship is understood as collective and active doing, aiming to change the food system. Instead of endorsing food citizenship as a human trait or status, we claim that it is more productive to regard it as a phenomenon, produced in intra-action with(in) material-discursive arrangements. Acknowledging nonhuman agency emphasizes the political, collective, and responsible nature of citizenship as well as the power relations behind the constitution of citizenship. We conclude that in food policies more attention should be paid to collective ways of civic participation and to the materiality of becoming a food citizen. (shrink)

Alternative food networks (AFNs) have become increasingly important in response to growing concerns about industrial animal agriculture’s harmful impacts on animals. Alternative animal agriculture seeks to address problems with industrial animal agriculture given its purported emphases on animal welfare and, more controversially, “happy” meat. Debates in critical food studies and animal studies literature, however, caution against the glorification of “alterity” and how welfare claims provide an ethical façade for violence towards farm animals. These debates, while critically important, leave little room (...) for exploring the complexities of alternative animal agriculture, human-farm animal relations, and care. In this article, I build upon the insights of critical food studies scholarship that takes a reflexive and hybrid approach to studying AFNs and literature that explores the complex dynamics of human-farm animal relations. Drawing on qualitative interviews with grass-fed beef farmers in Ontario, Canada, I present an analysis aimed at unsettling divisive thinking about food practices and relations. First, I reflect on how farmers understand their work as an ethical alternative to industrial beef production, benefiting animals, people, and the environment. I then detail the emotional dynamics that shape cows’ commodification and relations with farmers, adding to scholarship that demands more attention to affective dimensions of care for animals in AFNs. Lastly, I discuss grass-fed beef farming challenges and contradictions, empirically exploring, for example, how grass-fed beef farming operates as a niche market whose accessibility is shaped by socio-economic privilege. Collectively, these insights contribute to discussions about the complexities of grass-fed beef farming as an alternative food network with benefits and problems, impacting the wellbeing of animals, people, and the environment. (shrink)

In recent decades, there has been a proliferation of alternative food networks which promote an agenda of reconnection, allegedly linking consumers and producers to the socio-ecological origins of food. Rarely, however, does the AFN literature address “origins” of food in terms of animals, as in the case of meat. This article takes a relational approach to the reconnection agenda between humans and animals by discussing how the phenomenon of animal welfare and “happy” meat are enacted by producers and consumers in (...) mundane, embodied, and nuanced ways. Utilizing hybrid conceptualizations of human–animal relations through “natureculture” and “being alongside”, we demonstrate that consumers and producers of AFNs perform natureculture entanglements daily, often considering humans and animals as part of one another and the ecological system. Nonetheless, we also point to how participants in AFNs set boundaries to distance themselves from moments of animal life and death, explaining away uncomfortable affective naturecultures through commodification logics. Drawing on qualitative data from consumers and producers of food networks in Austria, we introduce the concept of “human–animal magnetism” to illustrate that the draw for humans to care about other animal lives exists within a spectrum of attraction and disassociation, engendered through specific human–animal interactions. Ultimately, we offer a cautiously hopeful version of alterity in AFNs of meat in which more caring human–animal relations are possible. (shrink)