Urgent food system challenges such as worsening global climate change, accelerating biodiversity loss, rising hunger, and the many negative social and environmental impacts of intensive animal farming are complex issues that demand interdisciplinary problem-solving.
The interdisciplinary field of political ecology offers a valuable lens through which to view the complex relationships between politics, society, and the environment. Political ecology emerged in the 1970s and 1980s as a response to the inadequacy of contemporary environmental and resource-focused scholarship.[1] The existing perspectives dominant at the time often lacked a deeper understanding of the political, economic, and social factors influencing environmental outcomes, hampering their ability to develop effective solutions.[2] Political ecology offered a way for environmental scholars to better understand the complex relationships among the political, social, and economic forces shaping human-environment interactions.[3]
Political ecology—and analytical approaches informed by it—can contribute to strengthening the movements for farmed animal advocacy and food systems transformation. The sections that follow will present the history and central components of political ecology, apply the political ecology toolkit to animal agriculture to generate fresh insights and perspectives and use those insights and perspectives to make strategic recommendations for strengthening the overall farmed animal advocacy movement.
Origins, Development, and Contributions of Political Ecology
The early development of political ecology was profoundly influenced by the work of E.P. Thompson, whose seminal work, “The Making of the English Working Class,” underscored the need to examine the historical and social roots of environmental problems to fully understand them.[4] This emphasis on engaging with historical and social dimensions laid the foundation for a new generation of scholars to explore the broader context of environmental issues.
One such influential scholar, Piers Blaikie, furthered the development of political ecology by focusing on the politics of resource access and environmental degradation, particularly in the Global South.[5]
In the years that followed, political ecology continued to evolve by integrating theories and methodologies from various disciplines, such as anthropology, geography, and environmental studies.[6] This interdisciplinarity has become a hallmark of political ecology and contributes to its unique ability to address complex environmental issues.
Political Ecology’s Unique Contributions
Central to political ecology is the examination of power dynamics and their influence on environmental outcomes.[7] By highlighting these power differentials, political ecologists have adopted a critical stance toward mainstream environmental management practices that prioritize technical solutions, often neglecting the historical root causes and complex social impacts of environmental degradation.[8]
Another distinctive aspect of political ecology is its emphasis on prioritizing local knowledge and perspectives as a critical basis for effective environmental problem-solving.[9] Advancing the view that approaches to environmental problems are strongest when they are rooted in the realities and experiences of local communities closest to the problems and the implementation of any proposed solutions, political ecologists have advocated for a more just and inclusive approach to policy-making and intervention design.[10]
Political Ecology as an Analytical Framework
Political ecology interweaves political, economic, and social themes that shape environmental issues from deforestation to pollution.[11] This framework comprises several key components:
- Interdisciplinarity: Political ecology draws from a wide range of disciplines, integrating various theories and methodologies from fields such as political science, sociology, economics, and ecology.
- Power dynamics: Political ecologists focus on how different actors—including governments, corporations, and local communities—wield power and influence, offering critical insights into the underlying structures and processes that drive environmental degradation and resource conflicts.[12]
- Historical and social context: By exploring the historical roots and social dimensions of environmental problems, political ecologists can uncover the often-hidden power dynamics and political struggles that underpin environmental issues. This deeper analysis can lead to more effective and sustainable solutions by addressing the root causes of environmental problems and critical failure points in existing solutions.[13]
- Scale and multi-level analysis: Political ecology recognizes that environmental issues operate at multiple, interconnected spatial and institutional scales.[14] Multi-level analysis of interactions and connections allows political ecology to explore how global processes and structures, such as capitalism or climate change, intersect with local realities and experiences.
- Local knowledge and agency: Political ecology places significant emphasis on the importance of local knowledge and perspectives in understanding environmental issues.[15] This emphasis on local agency fosters a more inclusive and democratic approach to environmental management, ensuring that the voices and concerns of marginalized communities are heard and taken into account in decision-making processes.
Applying Political Ecology to Animal Agriculture
The US animal agriculture industry involves significant flows of resources and capital with far-reaching environmental, social, and ethical implications. To understand complex issues within industrial animal agriculture and design interventions for effective change, it is essential to explore the historical social and political dimensions of the system. This section will apply the principles of political ecology to various aspects of animal agriculture, exploring how this framework can inform and empower food systems advocacy.
The Political Economy of Animal Agriculture
A key component of political ecology is examining the political economy of environmental issues, focusing on power relationships and the relationships between politics, economics, and resource use. In the context of animal agriculture, this entails considering how the structures and dynamics of the global food system shape the industry’s environmental and social impacts.
For example, the consolidation of the agribusiness sector that controls US animal farming has led to a concentration of power in the hands of a few multinational corporations,[16] with significant implications for the welfare of US farmed animals, agricultural workers, and the environment.[17] An approach informed by political ecology highlights how concentration and consolidation have contributed to the intensification of US animal agriculture, an accumulation of power enabled by the standardization of farming practices and the increasing use of monocultures and genetically modified organisms in food production.[18] These trends have reshaped the provision of food within the US and worldwide, creating a variety of adverse environmental consequences, such as land degradation, deforestation, and biodiversity loss.[19]
The Intersection of Environmental Justice and Animal Agriculture
Political ecology focuses on power relationships and the unequal distribution of environmental risks and benefits among different social groups, bringing an awareness of environmental justice to the analysis of environmental problems related to animal agriculture.[20] In the context of animal agriculture, this means examining how the negative environmental impacts of the industry create benefits for agribusiness while disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, both in the US and globally.
For example, US concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are often located in low-income, rural areas, placing an additional burden on local residents through air and water pollution related to industrial animal agriculture.[21] Moreover, migrant workers and people of color are frequently employed in the most dangerous and exploitative positions within the industry, facing hazardous working conditions and low wages enabled by the exercise of power held by agribusiness and food processing companies.[22] Examining the social forces that govern CAFO siting and monitoring and the lack of alternative employment options for the workers of CAFOs, slaughterhouses, and meat processing facilities clarifies the underlying power relationships that support conventional animal farming. Political ecology reveals intersections between environmental injustice and animal exploitation, empowering advocacy for equitable and just solutions that benefit both farmed animals and rural communities.
Scale and Multi-Level Analysis in Animal Agriculture
Political ecology emphasizes the importance of scale and multi-level analysis in understanding environmental issues.[23] In the context of animal agriculture, this means exploring how local, national, and global processes intersect and influence the industry’s environmental and social impacts.
For instance, international trade policies, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have played a significant role in shaping the landscape of US animal agriculture, promoting the expansion of factory farming and the increase of animal product consumption across borders.[24] At the same time, global consumer demand for cheap animal products has driven the intensification of animal agriculture, with significant implications for the environment, animal welfare, and public health.[25]
Local Knowledge, Agency, and the Politics of Resistance in Animal Agriculture
A critical aspect of political ecology is its recognition of the importance of incorporating into environmental decision-making processes the perspectives and experiences of those closest to the problem and its impacts.[26] Similarly, political ecology emphasizes the role of grassroots activism and social movements in challenging the structures and dynamics of power that shape environmental issues.
In the context of animal agriculture, this means engaging with the voices and experiences of workers, communities, consumers, and activists who are directly affected by the animal agriculture industry and the industrial food system that supports it. Many urban communities of color in the US face food access difficulties related to economic and social exclusion. In these communities, the food that is most advertised and most readily accessible often overemphasizes industrial animal products and fails to provide adequate nutrition.[27] Scholars have used a political ecology approach to trace food access and food justice concerns back to the industrial commoditization of food.[28]
Grassroots advocacy in the industrial food system includes the efforts of farmed animal advocates, environmental justice advocates, and agroecology and food sovereignty movements that challenge the dominant narrative of animal commodification and meat normalization and advocate for systemic change in food production.[29] By raising public awareness[30] and pushing for policy reforms, these movements contribute to the growing momentum for a more sustainable and just food system.
Strategic Recommendations for the Farmed Animal Advocacy Movement
The insights and perspectives generated through the lens of political ecology offer strategic recommendations for the farmed animal advocacy movement to foster systemic change, addressing the root causes of the environmental and ethical challenges associated with animal agriculture. By integrating political ecology principles into advocacy strategies, the farmed animal advocacy movement can effectively work toward a more sustainable and just food system.
Foster Cross-Movement Learning and Collaboration
An approach informed by political ecology recognizes the interconnected nature of environmental, social, and ethical issues in the industrial food system.[31] Given these connections, it is crucial for the farmed animal advocacy movement to forge and deepen alliances with other movements working toward systemic change, such as environmental justice, food sovereignty, and workers’ rights. Collaborating across movements can help advocates to amplify their collective impact, strengthening all efforts to challenge the dominant structures and dynamics of the industrial food system.
For example, joining forces with environmental justice organizations can help animal advocates bring attention to the disproportionate impacts of industrial animal agriculture on marginalized communities.[32] Likewise, working with food sovereignty movements can provide opportunities to work for the decolonization of food production for the combined benefit of animal welfare, ecological sustainability, and social equity.[33] By authentically engaging with justice and sovereignty movements and building cross-movement solidarity, the farmed animal advocacy movement can contribute to a more just and comprehensive food system transformation.
Advocate for Policy Reforms that Address Root Causes
Political ecology emphasizes the importance of identifying and addressing the root causes of environmental problems, such as the dominant political and economic structures that shape resource use and power dynamics.[34] In the context of animal agriculture, this means advocating for policy reforms that challenge the underlying forces driving the industry’s negative environmental and social outcomes.
For instance, farmed animal advocates can push for Farm Bill reform and other policy changes that reduce subsidies for large-scale, industrial animal agriculture operations, creating the opportunity to redirect support toward more sustainable and humane farming practices. Additionally, advocating for the implementation of strong environmental regulations and labor protections can help mitigate the negative impacts of animal agriculture on ecosystems, communities, and workers.
Raise Public Awareness and Encourage Consumer Action
As political ecology has emphasized the role of grassroots activism and social movements in driving systemic change, food system advocates play a critical role in raising public awareness about the environmental and ethical challenges associated with the US animal agriculture industry and the industrial food system that enables it.[35]
Farmed animal advocates can engage in educational campaigns that highlight the environmental, social, and ethical impacts of animal agriculture, as well as the benefits of plant-based food and sustainable farming practices.[36] By promoting greater transparency and consumer awareness of the negative impacts of animal agriculture, advocates can encourage shifts in consumer behavior that contribute to a more sustainable, just, and compassionate food system.
Foster International Cooperation and Dialogue
Given the global nature of animal agriculture and its environmental and social implications, it is essential for the farmed animal advocacy movement to engage in international cooperation and dialogue.[37]
For instance, farmed animal advocates can collaborate with international organizations and policymakers to develop and implement standards that promote plant-based food, environmentally sustainable farming, and social equity in food value chains. Additionally, fostering dialogue between stakeholders from different countries can facilitate the sharing of knowledge, experiences, and best practices, helping to identify and scale innovative solutions to the challenges posed by the global growth of animal agriculture and meat consumption. By promoting international cooperation and dialogue, the farmed animal advocacy movement can contribute to a more coordinated, just, and effective global effort to address the environmental and ethical implications of animal agriculture.
Conclusion
As the global food system continues to evolve in response to climate change, rising inequality, and increasing meat consumption, the need for holistic and transformative solutions that combine social, ecological, and animal welfare benefits has never been more urgent. By embracing the insights and perspectives generated through political ecology, the farmed animal advocacy movement can play a vital role in shaping a more sustainable and ethical future for all. An approach informed by political ecology can generate fresh insights and perspectives to improve the farmed animal advocacy movement’s efforts to promote inclusive food system transformation for the benefit of people, animals, and the environment.
A political ecology lens supports building cross-movement collaboration for stronger advocacy, advancing policy reform that challenges the dominance of industrial animal agriculture, increasing public awareness and consumer action, and strengthening international cooperation and dialogue. By integrating these principles into their advocacy strategies, the farmed animal advocacy movement can effectively work toward a more sustainable and just food system that benefits both animals and human communities.
Disclosure: This article was written with significant assistance from AI.
[1] Paul Robbins, Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction, vol. 16 (Wiley. com, 2011).
[2] Timothy Forsyth, Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science (London: Routledge, 2003).
[3] Tom Perreault, Gavin Bridge, and James McCarthy, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology (London: Routledge, 2015).
[4] See endnote 1.
[5] See endnote 2.
[6] Tor A. Benjaminsen and Hanne Svarstad, “Political Ecology,” in Encyclopedia of Ecology (Second Edition), ed. Brian Fath (Oxford: Elsevier, 2019), 391–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10608-6.
[7] R. P. Neumann, “Political Ecology,” in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, ed. Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift (Oxford: Elsevier, 2009), 228–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00580-0.
[8] Jesse Abrams, “Power within and beyond the State: Understanding How Power Relations Shape Environmental Management,” 2019, 21–32, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788115193.00011.
[9] See endnote 3.
[10] See endnote 3.
[11] Piers Blaikie, The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries (London: Longman, 1985.
[12] María R. Felipe-Lucia et al., “Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders’ Power Relationships Matter,” PLOS ONE 10, no. 7 (July 22, 2015): e0132232, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232.
[13] Susanne Freidberg, French Beans and Food Scares: Culture and Commerce in an Anxious Age (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2004).
[14] See endnote 1.
[15] Julian Agyeman, Robert D. Bullard, and Bob Evans, eds., Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
[16] Jennifer Clapp and Doris A. Fuchs, eds., Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009).
[17] Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern, The New American Farmer: Immigration, Race, and the Struggle for Sustainability (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019.
[18] Jack Ralph Kloppenburg, First the Seed: The Political Ecology of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000, 2nd ed., Science and Technology in Society (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004).
[19] Jennifer Clapp, “Mega-Mergers on the Menu: Corporate Concentration and the Politics of Sustainability in the Global Food System,” Global Environmental Politics 18, no. 2 (May 1, 2018): 12–33, https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00454.
[20] See endnote 3.
[21] Melanie DuPuis, Nature’s Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink (New York: New York University Press, 2002).
[22] David Goodman and Michael Watts, eds., Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and Global Restructuring (London: Routledge, 1997).
[23] See endnote 3.
[24] Néstor A. Sánchez-Ortiz et al., “Changes in Apparent Consumption of Staple Food in Mexico Associated with the Gradual Implementation of the NAFTA,” PLOS Global Public Health 2, no. 11 (November 23, 2022): e0001144, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001144.
[25] See endnote 2.
[26] Michael Carolan, The Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2016).
[27] Kristen Cooksey Stowers et al., “Racial Differences in Perceived Food Swamp and Food Desert Exposure and Disparities in Self-Reported Dietary Habits,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19 (January 2020): 7143, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197143.
[28] Julian Agyeman and Jesse McEntee, “Moving the Field of Food Justice Forward Through the Lens of Urban Political Ecology,” Geography Compass 8, no. 3 (2014): 211–20, https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12122.
[29] Alison Hope Alkon, “Food Justice: An Environmental Justice Approach to Food and Agriculture,” in The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice (Routledge, 2017).
[30] Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (New York: Penguin, 2006).
[31] Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2000).
[32] Mia MacDonald and Justine Simon, “Meat, Poultry, and Climate Change: A Call to Action from the Public Health Community,” Public Health Reports 124, no. 4 (2009): 478-483.
[33] Johnny L. Jenkins and Mueni L. Rudd, “Decolonizing Animal Welfare Through a Social Justice Framework,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 8 (2022), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.787555.
[34] See endnote 3.
[35] Raj Patel, Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System (Brooklyn, NY: Melville House, 2007).
[36] Timothy Pachirat, Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011)
[37] See endnote 3.
