This presentation analyses how do people value food, comparing two samples, one of food-related professionals working in different countries and one of members of food-buting groups in Belgium. In Belgium, the non-political transformers are compared to the political transformers to understand whether their political stance is related to their valuation of food as a commons or commodity.

1. JOSE LUIS VIVERO POL
PhD Research Fellow in Food Governance
Centre for Philosophy of Law/Earth & Life Institute
Food values & policy beliefs
in collective actions for food in Belgium
Jose Luis Vivero Pol, Philippe Baret, Tom Dedeurwaerdere & Olivier de Schutter
EUROPEAN AGROECOLOGICAL PRACTICES
Action-research for a transformative role
24-25 May 2016, Brussels

2. What do we want to know?
Is the consideration of
food (normative value)
correlated to food policy
beliefs and political
attitudes in the transition
food landscape?
Comparing a global sample
with Belgian case

3. Tradable Good
(Commodity)
Commons
Culture
How is food regarded/valued?
Mono VS Multi-dimensional Food
Human Need
Human Right
Natural resource

4. Food valuations to be explored
• MONO-DIMENSIONAL: economic dimensions
prevail over non-economic ones.
• Value-in-exchange over value-in-use
• This food concept can be regarded as a commodity.
• MULTI-DIMENSIONAL: the economic
dimension, however important it may be, is
not dominant over the non-economic ones.
• This food concept can be considered as a commons

5. Multi-level Perspective on socio-technological transitions Geels (2002)
Exploring narratives in the landscape
Food-related professionals as agents of change (N=95)

6. Global food system: crisis & transition
• Rising Obesity / Steady Hunger (2.3 billion): We eat badly
• Inefficient (wasting one third, yields stagnated, few crops)
• The way we produce/eat food is main driver of climate
change & moving beyond planetary boundaries
• Population as a threat but world produces enough food for all
• Diet transition towards more meat (less efficient, less healthy)
Food kills people
OBESITY: 3.4 million deaths annually, 1120 million people by
2030 (Ng et al. 2014; Kelly et al. 2008)
HUNGER: largest contributor to maternal-child mortality
worldwide, 3.1 million children (Black et al. 2013).

7. Commodification (C) of food as major driver
• (C) dominant force since XIX (Polanyi, 1944; Sandel, 2013; Sraffa, 1960)
• (C): development of traits that fit with mechanized processes
• Human-induced social construct that denies non-economic
attributes of food in favour of its tradable features (durability,
external beauty, standardisation, cheap calories, food miles)
• (C) crowds out non-market values and the idea of food as
something worth caring about (Sandel, 2012).
• (C) root cause of crisis (Magdoff, 2010; Zerbe, 2009; Kloppenburg, 2004).
• Food speculation as ultimate alienation of food from its
primary value-in-use (feeding people)
• Metabolic rift between consumers and distant producers
• Food agency restricted “sovereign act of consuming”

8. Describing the Global Sample
• 725 questionnaires (104 responses, July 2014-
January 2015)
• Questionnaire sent via Twitter
• VIRTUAL COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE (Dubé et al. 2005):
Food-related professionals active in Twitter
(21 countries, 85 different institutions, aware
food consumers, committed food activists)
• Public sector (33.7%), Not-for profit third sector
(48.4%).
• Main weakness: low representation of for-profit
Sector (only 17.9%). No agri-food companies

9. THREE variables of “individual agency in food system
transitions”
(a) Position in the food system transition landscape (REGIME – NICHES)
(b) Political stance vis a vis the (existing) food system
(REFORMERS – TRANSFORMERS)
(c) Valuation of different food dimensions (MONO- & MULTI-DIMENSIONAL)
Reformers gradually improve imbalances without questioning structural causes.
Transformers seek profound-disruptive change in the way we produce, process and
consume food. Two attitudinal stances (Holt-Gimenez & Shattuck, 2011; Akram-Lodhi, 2013).
a) Counter-hegemonic (radical): struggling against dominant food regime, denouncing
the flaws and trying to change radically the way it works.
b) Alter-hegemonic (progressive): being aware of major faultlines but recognising the
impossibility to change the dominant regime. Therefore, detached attitude to confront
and building a different food system instead that satisfies aspirational goals.

10. Table 2. Composite variable to analyse mono- and multi-dimensionality of food valuation
# Economic Dimension % Non-economic dimension %
Strongly mono-dimensional
At least 2 out of 4 economic dimensions are
preferred
Mildly mono-dimensional
Only one out of 4 economic
dimensions is preferred
Multi-dimensional
None of the four economic
dimensions is preferred
14 14a. Food, as a scarce resource,
has to be distributed according to
market rules
11.6% 14b. The State has the obligation
to guarantee the right to food to
every citizen
88.4%
17 17a. Food is a natural resource
that it is better exploited by the
private sector
12.6% 17b. Food is a natural resource
that it is better exploited by
citizens
87.4%
18 18a. Food is a commodity whose
access is exclusively determined
by the purchasing power of any
given customer
28.4% 18b. Free food for all is good 71.6%
19 19a. The best use of any food
commodity is where it can get
the best price, either fuel,
feeding livestock or exporting
market
16.8% 19b. A bread loaf (or a culturally-
appropriated equivalent) should
be guaranteed to every citizen
every day
83.2%
Mono-dimensional respondents that opted for market-minded or for-profit sentences
when forced to choose (economic dimensions of food are dominant over non-economic).
Multi-dimensional respondents preferred public-minded or not-for-profit sentences and
hence we assume that non-economic dimensions of food are dominant.

11. Regime/niches not significantly correlated to political stance or valuation food
Table 6: Correlations amongst the agency variables
SMD MMD MTD RE SNI ANI RNI
Strongly mono-dimensional (SMD) 1
Mildly mono-dimensional (MMD) 1
Multi-dimensional (MTD) 1
Regime (RE) -0.024 0.087 -0.050 1
Small Niche (SNI) 0.001 -0.128 0.102 1
Alternative Niche (ANI) -0.010 0.116 -0.085 1
Revolutionary Niche (RNI) 0.040 -0.096 0.045 1
Gradual Reformer (GR) 0.321* 0.016 -0.272* 0.152 -0.145 0.068 -0.105
Alter-hegemonic (AHT) -0.065 0.043 0.017 -0.116 -0.072 -0.040 0.263*
Counter-hegemonic (CHT) -0.230* -0.060 0.235* -0.021 0.210* -0.021 -0.174
* Correlations significant at 95% level

12. • Valuation of food is significantly correlated with
the political stance vis a vis the food system.
• Gradual reformers are positively correlated to the
mono-dimensional valuation of food
• Transformers are significantly correlated to the
multi-dimensional valuation of food
• Strongly mono-dimensionals (not mildly) are
significantly correlated to gradual reformers
• Multi-dimensionals are positively correlated to
counter-hegemonic transformers but not to alter-
hegemonic
NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP

13. Preferred Food Policy Beliefs Total
sample
P
value
Strongly
Mono-
dimensional
N=18
Mildly mono-
dimensional
N=18
Multi-
dimensional
N=59
#
Relative preference: Simply describing agreement-disagreement, not confronting different beliefs
6.- Living organisms, such as seeds, animal breeds or genes
shall not be patented by individuals or corporations
77 0,082 10
a
14
ab
53
b
9f
Absolute preference: selecting and ranking different and contrasting beliefs
7.- Food can be at the same time a private good and an
essential resource for our survival and identity
26 0,011 11
a
6
ab
9
b
20a
11.- If food is distributed according to the market rules, we
will never achieve food security for all
45 0,325 4a
7ab
34b
20g
Note: N=95. Differences have been measured using Fisher’s exact test and p-values are corrected by Holm’s correction.
Differences in preferred food policy beliefs (17) are significant (different levels) in JUST:
Two beliefs among the three groups that value food dimensions differently
SO…no significant differences in food policy beliefs between different
normative food valuations

14. REGRESSION
Food valuation +
sector of activity +
few policy beliefs
explain political
attitude
Age, gender, food-related
experience or personal
involvement in food activities
have
NO explanatory power to
determine political attitude
vis a vis the existing food
system and the valuation of
food dimensions
Dependent variable: Political stance via a vis the
food system
Gradual Reformers
N=25 (against 70)
Counter-hegemonic
transformers
N=32 (against 63)
Independent agency variables Signif Signif.
Valuation of food (confronting economic & non-
economic dimensions)
Strongly Mono-
dimensional
(+)*** Multi-dimensional (+)**
Food Policy Beliefs Current food system
capable of producing
sustainable food
(+)*** Living organisms (seeds
or genes) shall not be
patented by individuals
or corporations
(+)***
Food Dimensions Food has to be
beautiful and cheap
(+)*** Freedom from hunger is
a human right as
important as the right
not to be tortured
(+)**
Control variables
Country Hunger stricken
country
(+) Hunger stricken country (+)***
Age Age between 31-50 (+)** Age above 50 (-)
Gender Male (+) Male (+)
Food related experience
Between 3-10 yrs
experience
(-)** More than 10 yrs (+)
Self-described sector of food activities
Public sector (+)** Self-regulated collective
action Informal
arrangement)
(+)***
Personal involvement in food activities
Being part of a group
to increase public
awareness
(-)** Sensitizing close
relatives
(+)
Prob > F = 0.0007 Obs N=95 Prob > F = 0.0008 Obs N=95
Note 1: *** = statistically significant at the 1%, ** =5% level. Note that the table shows associations, not necessarily causal
relationships.

15. Valuation of food is correlated to
political attitudes in food transitions
• The way food activists value food is related to
the political attitude with regard to the
existing food system and its transition
trajectories (gradual reformers or
transformers) regardless the position in the
transition landscape of the global food system
(regime or niches).
• The sector (public, for-profit, not-for-profit)
plays also a role but further research needs to
be undertaken

16. Multiples “loci of resistance” with
shared food valuations
• The institutional diversity of this research shows
there is a multiplicity of “loci of resistance” with
counter-hegemonic attitudes to challenge the
existing food system, and they have a convergent
regard of food as a multi-dimensional resource
(life-sustaining element, human right, natural
resource, cultural determinant and tradable good),
a multi-dimensionality that prevails over the
mono-dimensionality of gradual reformers

17. Describing the Belgian sample
• Members of food buying groups (N=58) in 6 urban areas of
Belgium: Antwerpen (11), Leuven (15), Limbourg (2), Bruxelles (8),
Ottignies-LLN (10) and Liege (12).
Mostly considered as a Social Movement (by default)
• AMAP (Associations to support Peasants’ Agriculture). They are a
sort of Community-Supported Agriculture
• GASAP (Solidarity Purchasing Groups with Peasants’ Agriculture).
local name used for Community-Supported Agriculture in the
Brussels region.
• GAS (Solidarity Purchasing Group). This specific named is only used
within the Grez in Transition Network, an initiative that may be a
hybrid between GASAPs and GACs.
Mostly considered as a social enterprise (by default)
• GAC (Joint Purchasing Groups) in Walloon region
• Voedselteams (Joint Purchasing Groups) in Flandre region.

18. THREE variables of “individual agency in food system
transitions”
(A) Prevailing socio-economic orientation
(FBG as a social movement – as a social enterprise by self-description)
(B) Political stance vis a vis the (existing) food system
(REFORMERS – NON POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS – RELATIONAL POLITICAL –
ISOLATIONIST POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS)
(C) Valuation of different food dimensions (MONO- & MULTI-DIMENSIONAL)
NON POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS (N=16): Aimed at transforming the existing food
system by doing things with no political dimension
RELATIONAL POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS (N=20): Aimed at transforming the existing
food system by interacting with existing policies and governmental authorities, either
implementing better existing policies or showing innovative practices to policy makers.
ISOLATIONIST POLITICAL TRANSFORMERS (N=19): Aimed at building a different food
system by creating a new agri-food system independently of any political evolution (no
contacts with authorities).

19. N=60 Strongly Mono-
dimensional
At least 2 out of 4
economic
dimensions
7
Mildly Mono-
dimensional
Only 1 out of 4
economic
dimensions
15
Multi-
dimensional
None of 4
38
REFORMERS
Aimed at improving the existing food system
with no or soft political dimension undertaken
either by implementing existing policies or
showing innovative practices
5
0
(0%)
1
(20%)
4
(80%)
NON POLITICAL
TRANSFORMERS
Aimed at transforming the existing food system
by doing things with no political dimension
16
3
(18.8%)
5
(31.2%)
8
(50%)
RELATIONAL
POLITICAL
TRANSFORMERS
Aimed at transforming the existing food system
by implementing better existing policies or
showing innovative practices to policy makers 20
3
(15%)
5
(25%)
12
(60%)
ISOLATIONISTS
POLITICAL
TRANSFORMERS
Aimed at building a different food system by
creating a new agri-food system independently
of any political evolution
19
1
(5.3%)
4
(21%)
14
(73.7%)

20. Non Political Transformer Political Transformer
Mono-dimensional 0.1558 -0.1558
Strongly mono-dimensional (SMD) 0.1157 -0.1157
Mildly mono-dimensional (MMD) 0.0852 -0.0852
Multi-dimensional (MTD) -0.1558 0.1558
Implementing existing policies (IEP) -0.1538 0.1538
Show innovative practices (SIP) -0.4284* 0.4284*
Create new food system(CNF) -0.4653* 0.4653*
Counter-hegemonic (CHT)
0.1801 -0.1801
Alter-hegemonic (AHT)
-0.1801 0.1801
FBG as Social Movement (by self-priority) (SM)
-0.2631* 0.2631*
FBG as Social Enterprise(by self-priority) (SE)
0.3087* -0.3087*
FBG social movement by default (AMAP+GASAP+GAS)
-0.0986 0.0986
FBG social enterprise by default (Voedselteams+GAC)
0.0986 -0.0986
Correlations amongst the split agency variables BELGIAN FOOD BUYING GROUP (N=55, the five reformers out)
* Correlations significant at 95% level

21. Food dimensions not so significative
• The way members of food buying groups
(alternative niches in food transitions) value
food is not strongly correlated to the
prevailing socio-economic orientation or
political attitude vis a vis the existing food
system.
• And yet, Non-political transformers (NonPT)
are more likely to value food as a commodity
than Isolationist Political Transformers (IsoPT)

22. Transformative VS Political FBG
• The political stance is however strongly correlated
to the prevailing socio-economic orientation:
• FBGs working as social enteprises (by self-
definition) have non-political attitudes to
transform the existing food regime. That is not
extrapolated to FBG-Social Enterprises by default
• FBGs as Social Movement (self-defined) have a
political goal in their food-related activities,
although it cannot be extrapolated to all FBG-
Social Enterprises by default

23. Next steps
• What kind of Food Policy Beliefs are
associated to political and non-political
attitudes of transformative FBGs working in
niches?
• Factors to explain the different correlations
between the Gloobal and Belgian case study