Food that Matters: Boundary Work and the Case for Vegan Food Practices

Abstract

Meat and, less so, dairy are contested for their significant ethical and social‐ecological impacts. Abjuring animal products, veganism is conventionally treated as a dietary ideology related to consumer identities. Drawing upon practice and materialist turns, this article explores variations in the performance of veganism and how its boundaries are drawn. Yet, rather than an eating practice, I suggest to look at veganism more broadly and conceptualised as a food practice which also involves provisioning. By example of stockfree organic agriculture (SOA), a production‐based, processual understanding is outlined by which plant foods are ‘vegan’ if animal by‐products are not used as fertilisers in crop cultivation. Thereof, a conceptual case is made to shift the focus away from veganism as a consumer identity and towards performative vegan food practices (VFP) as a global responsibility to reduce the ‘long shadow’ of livestock and maintain Earth as a relatively safe operating space.

Discourses of sustainability and imperial modes of food provision: agri-food-businesses and consumers in Germany

“…There is a need for reconciliation by locating consumption within the wider context of political economy and elucidating practices within their systemic and material conditions for existence (Warde 2014 ; Evans 2020 ; see Welch et al 2020 for an overview). This resonates with recent empirical work combining practice and materialist turns to conceptualise veganism not only as a dietary identity but more broadly as a food practice that includes production (Hirth 2021 ). In acknowledgment of Evans, who calls for “new conceptual vocabulary” ( 2020 , p. 4) to think across the production-consumption dualism, this study combines consumers’ everyday food practices with food sustainability discourses and, by emphasising the imperial character of food provision, elucidates both against the background of the wider political economy.…”

“…Traditionally relying heavily on beef (which, compared to other meats, has the highest environmental footprint; de Ruiter et al 2017 ), McDonald’s has reacted to the popularisation of ‘plant-based’ diets by expanding its product range by adding meatless options. Whilst in its sustainability report McDonald’s does address meat’s problematic feed efficiency ratio, on the one hand, and the fact that more people become vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian, on the other, it does not connect these topics semantically, treating the latter one as a mere question of lifestyle and identity without putting it in the context of (ecological) sustainability (see also Hirth 2021 ). This resonates with Ehgartner’s observation “that rather than the problem of meat consumption being discussed, it is the opportunity of protein diversity , which is mobilised” ( 2020 , p. 480).…”

Veganic farming in the United States: farmer perceptions, motivations, and experiences

“…Clear communication between farmers, retailers, consumers, and other actors will be an important component of market expansion. For instance, as illustrated by the UK media inaccurately describing what “vegan organic” means and why farmers grow this way (Hirth 2020 ), accurate messaging will be critical for cultivating public understanding and acceptance of veganic agriculture.…”

“…One case study of a veganic farm in the United States indicates that the owner-operators chose to practice veganic agriculture to align their organic-certified operation with their recent personal transition to veganism (Seymour forthcoming). Another case study of a vegan organic farm in the United Kingdom suggests that the former cattle farmers transitioned to veganic agriculture out of care and concern for animal welfare, food security, and the environmental and climate impacts of cattle production (Hirth 2020 ). Schmutz and Foresi reported on a small German-language study of vegan organic growers’ motivations for excluding animal inputs, which found ethical, social, and ecological motives for this practice, suggesting that it is an “idealistic” approach ( 2017 , p. 476).…”

“…Academic and practitioner literature has favorably associated veganic approaches with various agronomic factors, including: yield, quality, nutrient cycling, soil nitrogen level, soil carbon storage, soil biology, soil organic matter, and energy inputs (Pimentel et al 2005 ; Cormack 2006 ; Hepperly et al 2006 ; Eisenbach et al 2018 ; Matsuura et al 2018 ; Eisenbach et al 2019 ; Roussis et al 2019 ; Rosato et al 2020 ; Utter and Seymour forthcoming) 3 ; sustainable agriculture or food systems (Hall and Tolhurst 2007 ; Visak 2007 ; Burnett 2014 ; Bonsall 2015 ; Hagemann and Potthast 2015 ; Hirth 2020 ; Kassam and Kassam 2021 ; Nobari 2021 ); food safety (O’Brien 1964 ; Seymour 2018a ; Alsanius et al 2019 ; Utter and Seymour forthcoming); diminished environmental impacts (Markussen et al 2014 ; Seymour 2018a ); marketing potential (Jürkenbeck et al 2019 ; Jürkenbeck and Spiller 2020 ); and “animal-friendly” (Visak 2007 ) and “post-lethal” (Mann 2020 ) agriculture. Despite the diversity of veganic methods and the ostensible benefits of veganic agriculture, there is relatively little scholarly literature on the topic , as has been noted by Hagemann and Potthast ( 2015 ), Schmutz and Foresi ( 2017 ), and Jürkenbeck et al ( 2019 ).…”