Seite 198 [198]
OCR
196 DOROTTYA MENDLY — MELINDA MIHÁLY Occasional and pragmatic alternatives In light of the above, it comes as no surprise that sustainability has become one of the key concepts in thinking about global challenges since the 1980s and 90s. According to the definition by the FAO, in agriculture, the term means “the management and protection of the natural resource base, and the channelling of technological and institutional changes, so that the needs of current and future generations could be satisfied. This sustainable development preserves the soil, the waters, the plant and animal genetic resources, is not harmful for the environment, is technologically adequate, economically viable and socially acceptable” (FAO 1991). This definition also makes it clear that the frameworks designated by the concept of sustainability are rather broad — arguably too broad -, allowing for a wide spectrum of alternatives that promise sustainability in agriculture. Apart from specific questions on production technology, there are solutions that offer workable alternatives through the reforms of diverse points in the food systems without radically transforming the socio-economic conditions. One of the most frequently discussed and seemingly most promising tendencies is an attempt to achieve the desired change by modifying the geographical relations of the food systems. We have seen above that the food system is organized on a global scale. This means that the worldwide system is connected in several forms and at several points to smaller spatial units, including macroregions, microregions, and even individuals’ actual microenvironment. Thus, “global” means the linkage, interlacing, and spatial stratification of diverse forms of localities. It is an important feature of global space that the connections between individual loci are imbued by the hierarchy of the current power relations, which obviously have impacts beyond abstract spatiality. These spatial power relations are at work when local farmers are in the position of dependent suppliers to multinational companies or the consumer only has access to Brazilian chicken and Chinese garlic. It might therefore seem to be a logical proposition that by consuming locally produced food — and thereby creating and strengthening the conditions which support it — may be the remedy to the problems caused by the global system. This effort may take several forms: “eat local” campaigns, the concept of “short food supply chains”, local and farmers’ markets and the various kinds of shopping collectives are all local by essence. However, one needs to realize that these alternatives do not alter the system dominated by market relations — or the presence of food as commodities within this system — and that therefore their effects remain limited. In addition to the solutions stressing the spatial proximity of consumed goods, another significant trend of the reformation of the dominant food system is the modification of cultivation technologies to render them more environmentally friendly (and healthier). The “bio” label is perhaps the best-known, most widespread and most elaborately developed example. In line with consumer expectations, today the shelves of large food chains also offer many qualified bio food products. However, these goods’ cost makes them a viable alternative solely for social groups above the middle class. This also applies to the products of small and local farmers, which leaves several unsettled questions for the movements committed to this trend (see in more detail Fordulat 2021). In addition to the “bio” trend, vegan and vegetarian ways of living have gained traction in public discourse. They argue that switching to a vegetable-based diet will reduce the environmental load of
