Obesity, Agency, and the Consequences of Substitutionism

- Brittany Taylor, MSc NSEP

In Excess Consumption or Over-Production?: US Farm Policy, Global Warming, and the Bizarre Attribution of Obesity, Julie Guthman situates her critically biased historical analysis of US food and agricultural policy within the burgeoning argument that human obesity contributes to global warming.  The argument is rooted in evidence that overweight individuals consume more food and thus have a larger “carbon footprint” due to polluting outputs associated with food production.  Furthermore, obese people, it is argued, are more likely to drive rather than walk, and release higher levels of CO2 at the time of death. 

Guthman quickly rejects this argument and launches into a historically-based tirade which claims that it is national policy choices and international food commodity chains, rather than increased individual consumption, that exacerbate agriculturally-rooted climate change.  Furthering this, she suggests that it is actually policy-fueled overproduction that causes overconsumption, interestingly reversing the order of obesity causation. 

During our in-class discussion the obesity framework was characterized as a ‘red herring’ within the text, included by Guthman as an anecdotal introduction to an otherwise factual policy overview.  However, I believe what Guthman is getting at is the way in which policy has removed individual agency.  Sure, we all have command over what we put into our bodies on a daily basis, but the level of this command differs greatly between communities in different US locations and with different geographic locations.

Guthman outlines the way in which substitutionism – replacing imports with nationally produced goods and replacing agricultural products with cheaper, synthetic goods – has led to additives in a startling majority of foods.  She cites the example of fruit juice being replaced by “fruit drink,” and notes “generic processing additives… cheaply (and hence profitably) add all sorts of qualities: from mouthfeel to sweetness to sometimes orgiastic flavor” (Guthman, 63).  This, she correctly claims, is what makes it near impossible to eat small portions of any given additive-riddled foods.

This is where the policy-obesity issue comes into play, and where, I argue, obesity becomes less a consequence of individual action and more a manifestation of the amalgamation of socioeconomic disparity and agricultural policy.  Many in class suggested that there is a growing awareness of additives and a social aversion to synthetic foods.  This may indeed be true within a small group of well-educated Oxford graduate students, but is not, I feel, indicative of the whole.  Furthere, I believe that synthetic food substitutionism actually removes agency in two fundamental ways – first, in terms of “knowledge” and awareness, as consumers may not be fully aware of they are eating, and second in terms of choice, as artificially lowered prices mean that even if consumers are aware of synthetic additives and their side-effects, some may be fiscally unable to choose otherwise. 

In The Politics of Certification: Consumer Knowledge, Power, and Global Governance in Ecolabeling, Sally Eden characterizes proper consumer understanding of certification systems as impinged upon by knowledge and power.  Social and geographic “distancing” of consumers from production hinders awareness of inputs and production mechanisms and, in reference to obesity, consumers may not know how to comprehend increasingly scientific food labels, if they even know to check labels in the first place.  As Eden puts it, the problem with knowledge is that, “First, there is not enough of it amongst consumers, second, even where is enough information, consumers may not believe it or act on it when purchasing” (Eden, 174).   For food substitutionism, ‘distancing’ means that many consumers do not know to check labels or ingredients, and even if they do they increasingly scientific and difficult to comprehend names and values of synthetic inputs would overwhelm even the most dedicated of readers.

On a similar strain, Eden characterizes “power” in ecolabeling as residing in the hands of the consumer, with “consumption as an active socicultutal process by which status is defined, relationships are made and broken and meanings conveyed” (Eden, 175).  To this end, “consumer fetishism” may be morphed towards an environmental end, with ‘eco-ethical’ products becoming socially covetable.  However, in the instance of synthetic food substitutionism, the opposite is true.  Substitutionism lowers input costs, and though the motivating rationale is heightened profit margins, price points for synthetic foods are still lower than their fresh counterparts, particularly if extended self-life is taken into account. 

In this sense, policy alters agency by skewing the equilibrium of choice towards fattening, unhealthy food options and, in cases of extreme fiscal hardship, arguably removes agency completely.  Obesity rates are much higher in US low-income areas, where substitutionism and subsidies to crops like corn (which have led to proliferation of cheaply produced yet nutritionally defunct products such as high fructose corn syrup permeating an overwhelming range of products) mean that the most affordable foods are those which are devoid of nutrients or, often, detrimental to health.  In Killing for Proft: Global Livestock Industries and their Socio-ecological Implications, Emel and Neo provide an overview of the US farming industry and its history of intensification and export increases.  Though the environmental and health effects cited are shocking and wide-ranging, what seems most apropos to my current discussion is the way in which intensification fuelled demand, and not vice versa. 

This, for me, illustrates the interplay between politics, environment and individual agency.  Much like last week, this is shaping and progressing the way I think about global political ecology; it is becoming increasingly apparent that I must approach and analyze situations from a multifaceted standpoint.  The stance that individual agency (via obesity) leads to environmental degradation is reversed causation, and ignores the impact of economics (which, in my argument, hinders or even removes agency).  It may be assumed from the outset that heightened demand would spur increased production, yet in the instances cited it becomes apparent that increased production – through mechanisms such as intensification, government subsidies and policies, and substitutionism – creates demand nationally and globally to create an ‘ends’ to justify the ‘means’ of production increase. Much like last week, a political ecology multiscala approach is vital to proper comprehension of the situation.

Eden S. 2011. Chapter 8 in Peet et al. The Politics of Certification: Consumer Knowledge, Power and Global Governance in Ecolabelling

Emel J and Neo H. 2011. Chapter 3 in Peet et al. Killing for Profit: Global Livestock Industries and their Socio-Ecological Implications

Guthman J. 2011. Chapter 2 in Peet et al. Excess Consumption or Over-production: US Farm Policy, Global Warming, and the Bizarre Attribution of Obesity