Collective purchase: moving local and organic foods

beyond the niche market

Ruth Little*, Damian Maye and Brian Ilbery

Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire,

Dunholme Villa, Park Campus, Cheltenham, GL50 2RH, UK (rlittle@glos.ac.uk;
dmaye@glos.ac.uk; bilbery@glos.ac.uk).

* Corresponding author

Paper submitted for Goodman, M, Maye, D and Holloway, L (2010) Ethical

Foodscapes?: Premises, Promises and Possibilities, Environment and Planning A

1
Collective purchase: moving local and organic foods beyond the niche market

Abstract. This paper draws attention to the creative possibilities offered by collective purchase as a
mechanism to move local and organic foods beyond the niche market. The food buying group and co-
operative style of food purchasing has received only scant reference in the alternative food and ethical
consumption literatures, but it offers much in terms of historical context and future lessons for growth in
the sector. “We can do it better” is an experimental ethic of the1960s and 1970s counterculture, but it
resonates strongly with the present-day ‘alternatives’ associated with the local and organic food movement.
The paper uses Gibson-Graham’s (2005) notion of ‘diverse economies’ to examine selected buying groups
and food co-operatives in North America, mainland Europe and Japan. The results reveal a highly pixilated
and evolving mix of motivations and ethics. The ideology first, practicalities later approach appears to be a
powerful influence, symbolising the ‘becomingness’ of ethical purchasing in these contexts.

Introduction

Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) have been constructed as a constituent part of an ever-

evolving ethical food-scape that enables consumers to partake in an expression of personal belief

through their choice of food products and their means of production. AFNs are often represented

as organised flows of food products that connect those who wish to consume ‘ethically’ with

those who want a better price for their food, or who want to produce food in ways counter to the

current market logic (Watts et al, 2005; Whatmore and Clark, 2006; Clarke et al, 2008). Through

such networks consumers are encouraged to make moral judgements about what they buy based

upon ‘additional criteria’; criteria that project the act of consumption beyond the immediate

biological satisfaction that food brings (Barnett et al, 2004). The growth of AFNs and ‘values-

based’ purchasing is well documented within agri-food studies (Maye et al, 2007; Kneafsey et al,

2008; Harris, 2009). Fair trade has attracted notable attention (Raynolds et al, 2007), with

significant focus also afforded to organic and locally-based modes of provision (Allen et al, 2003;

Wilk, 2006; Guthman, 2007a; Feagan, 2007), including the growth of short food supply chains

and direct marketing (Ilbery and Maye, 2005; Kirwan, 2006; Holloway et al, 2007).

Direct food sales are based on the premise of encouraging greater ‘contact’ and ‘context’ within

food transactions. There is an assumption that the social interactions between producers and

consumers, coupled with a stronger attachment of products to their place of origin, will have

2
beneficial outcomes for the food system as a whole, which includes reinvigorating consumer

confidence in what they buy (see Pollan, 2006). Critiques of such networks suggest they rely

upon romanticised visions of the countryside, defensive forms of localism and/or positional acts

of consumption (Guthman, 2007b). This applies especially to high value goods (e.g. local quality

foods, organic foods) that cater for niche-orientated retail markets. These contrasting viewpoints

have culminated in a complex mix of motivations that have worked together to fuel the growth of

AFNs. Crucially, the attachment of additional criteria is fundamental to the creation of purposive

acts of consumption that go beyond purely price-based choices.

Taking into account the processes that surround food in relation to environmental, social and

political consequences is one of the fundamental tenets behind AFNs and the rise of ethical

consumption (Barnett et al, 2004/2005). As Harrison et al (2005) note, the understandings of the

‘ethical consumer’ as a category are not straightforward. There is commonality, however, in the

concern for “the effects that a purchasing choice has, not only on [consumers] themselves, but

also on the external world around them” (ibid, 2). The oppositional characteristics of a local food

system, which is deemed to be embedded within more direct and accountable socio-spatial

associations, is a phenomenon that has fed the rise of a binary ethic that essentialises the position

of the global as ‘bad’ and the local as inherently ‘good’ (Born and Purcell, 2006). The ‘local’ is

transformed into an incubator for sustainable rural development, enhanced consumer confidence

and the cultivator of a more positive socio-ecological agenda for agriculture. This forms an

approach of ‘sustainability through proximity’ and forms a moral landscape predicated upon the

creation of an ethic of ‘positive localism’ (Friedmann, 2007).

Johnston et al (2009) dissect this binary construction of global/local, good/evil by drawing upon

Hinrichs’ call to create a more ‘reflexive’ account of localism, which seeks to “complicate the

spatial” (Hinrichs, 2003: 36) and debunk the essentialised link between localism and progressive

3
change. The local is viewed instead as a heterogeneous entity that contains a multitude of

interactions, politics and ethics. Hiding diversity beneath a veil of positive stereotypes obfuscates

the process of how these interactions, politics and ethics are enacted and created. This paper

contributes to these debates through an explorative analysis of collective purchase. Despite an

abundance of research on local and organic foods, there has been relatively little recognition of

the diverse range of initiatives that are seeking to encourage the proliferation of AFNs beyond

their niche market status (although there are exceptions - e.g. Kneafsey et al, 2008). In particular,

contributions from ‘grassroots innovations’ (Seyfang and Smith, 2007), such as collective food

buying groups and food co-operatives, have been bypassed within this research agenda.

The ethical consumption literature does recognise the cumulative, political influence of individual

ethical purchasing (Barnett et al, 2004/ 2005), but here also little attention has been paid to

cooperative and collective action. Food co-operatives are not a new phenomenon (Bell and

Valentine, 1997; Belasco, 2007), but their utilisation in the context of creating greater access to

local and organic foods has been afforded only cursory reference within either the AFNs or

ethical consumption literatures. This paper suggests that collective purchasing groups may

represent an important form of agri-food network and, crucially, may also offer greater room for

consumer voice and action, capable of animating ethical consumption practice. The paper sets out

a framework to examine these groups and provides an analysis of local and organic buying

groups from North America, Europe and Japan, selected to illustrate different modes of collective

purchase, including informal buying clubs and more commercially-orientated food co-operatives.

Diverse food economies and ethical consumption

Friedmann (2007) argues that the scope for ‘scaling-up’ local and organic foods has reached its

limits within the retailing sector and suggests that new ‘mechanisms’ need to be investigated.

Collective purchasing, associated with food buying groups and food co-operatives, is an example

4
of one of these neglected mechanisms for growth. A focus on collective purchasing in turn

requires a re-conceptualisation of the agri-food system, which shifts the focus away from the

primacy of producer-led approaches, and opens up conversations about how to create growth

within the sector that goes beyond purely market-led initiatives. This resonates strongly with

Seyfang and Smith’s (2007) work on the latent potential of ‘grassroots innovation’. Through the

process of creative experimentation, grassroots action, such as households and communities

purchasing food together, can generate “novel, bottom-up solutions” which culminate in the

creation of ‘new “systems of provision”’ (Seyfang and Smith 2007: 594). It is in this context that

other productive units such as households and community spaces can help to galvanise the growth

of AFNs. These sites of action have been highlighted in work on Community Supported

Agriculture (CSA) and community-led initiatives (see, for e.g., Hendrickson and Heffernan,

2002; Allen et al, 2003; DeLind, 2003; Holloway et al, 2007; Kneafsey et al, 2008), but they

remain relatively small interventions in the efforts to scale-up local and organic food

consumption.

In order to investigate the possibilities for other strategies of broadening the reach of local and

organic foods, it is instructive to draw on Gibson-Graham’s (2005) ‘diverse economies’ work and

emerging ideas on food and citizenship. Gibson-Graham undermine the predominantly neo-

liberal, market-led and monetary depictions of the ‘economy’ and argue that attention should be

given to the full diversity of interactions, transactions and productive processes that are frequently

invisible to conventional development practitioners. These include all the neglected sites, capitals

and relationships that are taken to be the poor cousins of the waged market economy. Using the

metaphor of an iceberg, they suggest that what is conceived of as the ‘economy’ in more

traditional political economic terms is merely the ‘tip’ of a deeper set of processes and relations

that often remain hidden within developmental agendas. Instead of privileging growth through

market forces, this advocates a turn towards multiple, diverse ‘ecologies of productivity’,

5
recognising the worth and value of non-capitalist practices and non-monetary transactions within

the economy (see also Graham et al, 2002; Gibson-Graham, 2003).

‘Currencies’ such as payment-in-kind and neglected economic units such as household and

community spaces are examples of these ‘other’ spheres of productivity. This paper argues that

these neglected elements of the economic process are crucially important in terms of

understanding how food buying groups and food co-operatives function. It also opens out the

debate beyond the prescriptive associations between market-led initiatives and socio-economic

development as an instructive step forward for research into the possibilities for AFNs. As

Holloway et al (2007: 4-5) state “there should be other ways of thinking about food networks that

retain a sense of their diversity”. Through widening the conception of where the potential drivers

lie behind the growth of AFNs, interesting conversations can be created about how to go about

expanding these food networks in the context of a diverse food economy. From the perspective of

‘grassroots innovation’, AFNs can be driven forward by producer and/or consumer input, with

influence from both the social and market economy. Through modes of experimentation in

distributing local and organic foods, new routes of access and affordability can be investigated.

This provides an opportunity to move beyond the negative critiques of ‘exclusivity’ that are

levelled at some AFNs (Slocum, 2006; Guthman, 2007a/b) and look towards the more positive

project of finding mechanisms to tackle the barriers that prohibit greater consumer participation

and inclusion. Using Gibson-Graham’s more “hopeful geographies” (Lawson, 2005: 36), which

Harris (2009: 60) refers to as a “politics of the possible”, it becomes productive to seek out

creative interventions and “experiments of alterity” (Amin, 2005: 628) that may have the

potential to broaden the niche and create more inclusive alternatives.

In starting to uncover these multiple possibilities, it is also instructive to draw upon a growing

body of work that seeks to reconceptualise consumers as active, innovative and effective agents

6
of change (Clarke et al, 2007). In particular, papers drawn from the geographies of consumption

literature have moved beyond the portrayal of the consumer as a passive agent; instead, they

suggest the consumer is an active participant in the shaping of a deeply value-laden consumptive

landscape (Friedmann, 2007). Consumers are not united in their motivations; they demonstrate a

multiple set of influences driven by necessity and choice. However, everyday routines of life such

as shopping can become sites of civic participation, whereby consumers can express an opinion

based upon “the politics of the everyday” (Mayo, 2005: xvii). In terms of ethical consumption,

therefore, the personal becomes political based upon a negotiation of doing the ‘right thing’

within the wider confines of the “practicalities of everyday life” (Clarke et al, 2007: 240).

In the case of ‘food citizens’, it is argued that consumers utilise farmers’ market, direct sales and

the like as a mechanism for expressing values-based choices (Wilkins, 2005; Clarke et al, 2007).

Food becomes a vector for change in professing a wider consumptive ethic of demanding

traceable, transparent and trustworthy consumer products. This change in consumer demand is

not guided by a single, conscious ethic of transforming the food chain ‘for the better’. It may stem

from changes in shopping habits based upon income, fashion and positional status. By

association, however, the cumulative influence of this change in consumer choices galvanises

critiques of the global food system and transforms food into a rallying point around which to

enact a more sustainable way of living. Food is more than a material component in the food chain

(Dixon, 2002); it is a key mechanism in the expression of a cumulative moral sentiment. In the

same vein, the ‘pixelated politics’ (Latour, 2007) of consumers involved in collective purchase

may coalesce into a general ethics of creating an ‘alternative’ mode of local/organic food supply.

Bringing collective purchase back into the frame: history and methodology

7
The history of consumer action within the cooperative movement shows that food purchasing has

been used as an organising component around which such actions have been hinged for

generations. Looking to the prominent example of the counter-cultural movements within

1960s/early 1970s America, food cooperatives were frequently constructed as a means of creating

change through the everyday acts of food purchasing and distribution; food was a powerful

“edible dynamic” (Belasco 2007: 9). As Cox (1994) explains, the motivations behind individual

members’ decisions to join the cooperative movement were multiple; however, the guiding binary

ethic of “we can do it better” remained. Food co-ops and buying groups were thus part of the

experimental alternatives to ‘mainstream foodways’ (Belasco 2007: 2), offering access to goods

associated with the ‘countercuisine’, such as wholefoods, herbal teas and soy products.

Experiments in this “new wave” (Cox 1994: 46) of collective purchase ranged from a few

neighbours purchasing wholefoods in bulk through to storefront cooperatives. As Ronco (1974:

34) explained, variations on the collective theme were ‘endless’. The source of this diversity

was that generally the ideology came first and the experiments in distributing and retailing came

afterwards. As the membership of these groups increased, they faced continual ‘dilemmas’

between continued growth and the retention of their founding principles. In trying to balance

‘economics vs. idealism’, ‘price vs. ideology’ groups undertook different growth trajectories

based upon a negotiation between their ideals and what they could achieve in practice.

This consumer-based collective activism resonates into the present day, propelled by the renewed

interest in creating ‘alternative visions’ of how society should function. As Lang and Gabriel

(2005: 43) document, whilst the 1970s alternative visions were based around the wholefood co-

op, the 1990s saw the emergence of CSA and direct sales as focus points of activism. These

visions also come together in the form of collective purchase. The rest of the paper will focus on

this mode of purchasing in its contemporary context and examines the role that buying groups

8
and food co-operatives are playing in the development of AFNs. It is based on a purposive

sample of 30 buying groups from mainland Europe, North America and Japan. The schemes

provide illustrative examples of the various types of collective buying groups functioning in

different geographical contexts that procure local and organic foods. Numerous buying groups

function without any additional concerns for provenance and production process. These groups

fall beyond the remit of this paper. The sample of 30 groups thus represents a small proportion of

the groups found in the initial data search and in operation more generally. They reflect a

diversity of schemes that fall under the ‘collective purchase’ label which procure organic and/or

local foods as part of their product listing. This includes examples of groups that function on a

national scale down to small, embryonic buying groups within a small neighbourhood setting.

The material is therefore illustrative, using the sample to open up conversations about the

possible practical benefits of buying groups and the types of ideological and ethical motivations

that lie behind their formation, especially schemes that actively source local and organic foods.

Information for the sample was compiled using Internet searches, contacts established through

intermediary organisations and personal recommendations of ‘successful’ groups gained from

taking part in practitioner conferences held in the UK and mainland Europe. A more focused

strategy was used to identify examples from the USA, which involved searching through local

and organic food databases, directories such as localharvest.org and the “FoodRoutes” catalogues.

The buying groups were identified based upon the definition of collectively purchasing food at

wholesale prices, with the inclusion of local and/or organic foods within their purchasing agenda.

Through secondary data analyses of websites and newspaper articles, and telephone interviews

with 18 of the 30 buying groups, information was accumulated on their practical day-to-day-

functioning and their more ideological stances, including the values and motivations behind their

formation. Interviews were conducted with key informants from the schemes. Interviewees

tended to be the scheme organisers rather than consumers connected to individual schemes,

9
although, in the main, these individuals were also purchasing goods. The majority of interviews

were carried out with respondents from US-based buying groups because of language and

translation constraints. Three of the nine European schemes were interviewed, with additional

material provided by the other groups via email communication.

Interview transcripts and secondary data sources were accumulated into fact sheets which were

designed to provide insight into the motivations and pre-requisites for growth and continued

sustainability of the groups. The next section of the paper introduces the 30 schemes, reviewing

the reasons why they became established, their length of time in operation and their legal

structure. The analysis then considers, more explicitly, the relationship between collective

purchase and food ethics, paying particular reference to the diversity of politics that underpins the

formation and priorities of these groups. Two schemes are afforded more detailed comment as

contrasting ways of running a buying group and different trajectories that can be taken in efforts

to ‘scale up’ their operations. This will highlight some of the barriers and enabling factors which

influence this kind of ‘experimental innovation’ and the practicalities that ultimately influence the

extent to which their ideological aspirations can be achieved.

Local and organic food buying groups in the US, Europe and Japan

The phrase ‘buying group’ is an umbrella term coined to include enterprises and initiatives that

range from the small-scale, informal example of a number of friends purchasing together, through

to the large-scale, formalised structure of a store-front co-operative or a community buying

scheme. Ronco (1974: 35) notes that: “The only ingredients necessary to start a food co-op are: a

group of people, some space to put them in, some of their money to buy food, someone to sell

them the food, and some way for them to distribute the food back among the group. The specifics

are open to much discussion among the groups themselves”. The analysis of groups here suggests

that the specifics depend on who starts the group, what spaces are available to them for

10
distribution and the amount of volunteer labour within the group (particularly important in the

initial stages) to fulfil the practical needs of the group.

The flexibility of this form of purchasing and distribution is such that schemes may be set up by a

producer looking to sell in bulk as a further outlet for their produce, a store-owner as an adjunct

to their existing business or (more frequently in this case) by groups of consumers wishing to gain

greater access to local and/or organic goods. Buying groups can thus be viewed as a microcosm

of the ‘diverse economy’ outlined by Graham et al (2002) and Gibson-Graham (2005),

encompassing both corporate and not-for-profit, waged labour and payment-in-kind, and personal

and communitarian gain. Through making use of volunteer labour and community or household

buildings, the initial low capital outlay allows small groups to form in order to begin collectively

buying food in bulk quantities. Once ordered, the food is delivered to a convenient location and

members of the group come together to divide it into individual orders. The use of such spaces

and labour practices helps to reduce the overall cost of the products and to increase access to

goods because delivery locations can be selected by the groups themselves. Examples surveyed in

this paper indicate that the buying group is a potential mechanism for addressing issues of both

access and affordability through providing an alternative source of distribution that is both low

cost and more convenient for members. The collective distribution of goods to a central location

also encourages a social function by bringing together people from within a certain community or

neighbourhood. The embedding of food within this directly socialised mode of purchasing is

fundamental to both the function and increasing appeal of this kind of alternative distribution.

The social ethic of creating positive communitarian capitals is also a distinctive outcome that

ranks as highly as attempts to overcome the issues of access and affordability. Figure 1 reflects

the diversity of groups which function under the ‘collective purchase’ banner, ranging from

‘Whole Foods of Panama City’ in the US, with only ten members, through to Seikatsu Club in

11
Japan, which has over 250,000 members. The inclusion of such a wide range of groups reflects

the flexibility of collective purchase in adapting to different circumstances and scales. Proceeding

from these diverse positions, each of these groups was founded upon different principles, but the

guiding catalyst for their inception was the perceived failings associated with conventional,

mainstream food supply systems. This may have been a structural critique of the agri-food

system, as was the case for Seikatsu Club, or the lack of access to affordable organic foods, as in

the case of Whole Foods of Panama City. The positional ethics of these groups (new and old) thus

agree with the precedent of “we can do it better”.

----- Insert Figure 1 about here -----

Motivated to make provisions for purchasing and distribution outside of conventional food

networks indicates both a will to enact creative interventions and underlines the role of collective

purchasing as a mechanism for proactively professing a level of dissatisfaction with the existing

system. The survey also indicates that this form of purchasing has been charged with fulfilling

different objectives. For instance, in the case of some of the smaller groups in the US, the buying

group has been used by a small number of parents (in this case mothers) to gain access to fresh,

affordable organic food for their children. Using their own labour and community/household

buildings, they have created their own access to these goods based upon pragmatic and creative

interventions. Receiving a delivery at a convenient location (usually a member’s home or nearby

community building), along with the saving associated with bulk purchasing, has tackled some of

the key financial and locational barriers encountered by the respondents. NGOs such as

FoodShare in Canada have also used a derivation of the buying group model (the “Good Food

Box” programme) as a means of tackling food poverty by setting up an infrastructure which

sources from producers in the Ontario area. Working on the premise of ‘food sovereignty’ as

opposed to food access, efforts have been made to create a more localised response to food

inequalities. The mechanism of collective and bulk purchasing, with the inclusion of volunteer

12
labour, has thus been used as a malleable form in trying to negotiate the barrier issues of access

and affordability.

The history of the “new wave” of food co-ops has been rooted in the practice of experimenting

and innovating to meet specific needs, not met by the mainstream (Belasco, 2007). This

experimental basis has resulted in different growth trajectories, a point which is well exemplified

by some of the longest running groups within this sample. Biocoop (France) is a good example of

the growth of collective purchasing over time. It began as a series of small buying groups in the

1970s and, in response to a growing membership base, evolved into a larger, formalised

cooperative. Whilst retaining the availability of bulk purchasing for members and a commitment

to local, regional and fair trade sourcing, the consumer cooperative has grown to a scale where

the increased level of membership and food distribution has necessitated a more permanent

retailing environment. It is now a national federation of independent stores, where paid

employees have replaced volunteer labour and direct interactions with producers are minimal.

Seikatsu Club, on the other hand, represents a national-scale network that has retained its small-

scale status. Members are still involved in purchasing and the distribution of produce and retain

direct links with producers. Operating through the Han system (a group of 8–10 households),

group members place bulk orders for both fresh and staple items (such as rice, miso, soy sauce,

cooking oil, etc.) and divide the goods between themselves at a pre-designated drop-off point. In

contrast to the conventional, storefront location of Biocoop, Seikatsu Club has retained the active

participation of members and the informal household and community drop-off locations. From a

similar ideological basis of wishing to gain access to goods outside of ‘mainstream foodways’,

the two examples have evolved into very different organisations relying on different systems of

provision. Historical context plays a significant part here. The Seikatsu Club, for instance, owes

much to the Housewives Movement during and after World War Two, and a longer tradition of

13
pressure on housewives to develop buying habits that favour collective purposes (Maclachlan and

Trentmann, 2004).

In each of the examples, regardless of scale, the positioning of food within a wider societal

context is fundamental. The act of creating alternative distribution mechanisms that respond to

perceived deficiencies within the current system is an intervention by schemes that contribute to

the creation of a moral landscape of food. Responding creatively to inadequacies in the areas of

access, affordability and responsibility towards the sustainability of local and organic production

is therefore an active critique in itself. Figure 1 shows that there is diversity in the form, scale and

function of buying groups, but there are also some prominent characteristics that help to

exemplify the reasons for their formation and growth. These characteristics are: firstly, the key

drivers behind their formation; secondly, the length of time they have been in operation; and

thirdly, the evolving legal status of the groups. Each of these points is now elaborated below.

Key drivers behind buying groups

There is a key dynamic that differentiates the buying groups in this sample from more traditional

attempts to distribute organic and local foods; this is the role of the consumer, not just as the

purchaser of the goods but also as an active catalyst in the creation and functioning of these

groups. Figure 1 indicates that there are multiple drivers behind the initiation of buying groups.

Some of the buying groups studied are also producer initiated and led. Nevertheless, the actions

of consumers appear to be a particularly powerful driving force behind their development. The

proactive nature of consumers is apparent across the sample. Looking at the European examples,

seven of the nine groups were established by active consumers. In the US, 15 of the 18 groups

surveyed were established by consumers, and in Canada one of the two groups was consumer-led.

The sample suggests consumers have the ability to make creative interventions by forming new

mechanisms to access local and organic foods. For example, Arbore in Spain began when 20

14
consumers came together to start purchasing from surrounding producers to overcome the

prohibitive issues of expense and the lack of variety through the conventional retailing outlets in

the local area. Another example is the Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (G.A.S) in Italy, a network of

consumer buying groups purchasing from producer co-operatives within their respective areas. In

the US, groups such as the Oklahoma Food Cooperative and the Nebraska Food Cooperative

were also formed by active groups of consumers wishing to gain access to specific goods based

upon their own locally-guided ethical sourcing policies.

The motivations behind these groups are multiple, but the message, particularly during the

telephone interviews, was one of taking back some control over their own food supply system.

During an interview with a member of the Green Seed Cooperative (USA), it was explained, for

example, that ‘we wanted more of a variety of fresh, organic products at a lower cost, but there

was a limited supply in the local area. So, we ended up having to go out and find it ourselves’.

This group, over time, negotiated a sourcing policy which fits with their criteria of local where

available and in season, with supplementary organic products from wholesalers at other times.

This is not to suggest that the creation of these groups is entirely inclusive or devoid of the

tendencies to exclude, as has been associated with other community-led schemes (see DeLind,

2003). However, it is a mechanism that is attempting to address issues of access and affordability

that preclude a proportion of the population from accessing these goods.

Length of time in operation

As Figure 1 suggests, the majority of these (mainly consumer-led) groups are relatively new, with

over three quarters being initiated after 1990 and the greatest share having been created post-

2000. Whilst the majority of groups are clearly new, others are well established (e.g. Seikatsu

Club, Biocoop). A dominant ethic that is associated with the rise of buying groups in this sample,

especially in the North American context, is the ethic of ‘concerned consumerism’. This is borne

15
out by the association that groups made between their own actions of purchasing and the

consequences on the wider consumption context. For instance, when talking to scheme organisers

reference was made to ‘supporting local farmers and promoting more sustainable farming

methods’. Other frequently cited concerns included the ‘recycling’ of money back into the local

economy and the support of farming methods that the groups deemed to be more ecologically

acceptable. This aligns with Lang and Gabriel’s (2005: 50) estimation that ethical consumption

really started to come into its own in the 2000s with a reaffirmation of ‘the moral dimension of

consumer choice’. In this manner, consumers have sought out new mechanisms and ‘enablers’

(Clarke et al, 2008) for expressing their own feelings of moral obligation to the wider

consequences of their consumptive choices. The buying group may thus be seen as one

manifestation of the drive to find alternative ways of accessing local and organic foods,

facilitating the expression of consumer choices based upon additional criteria. This is an

observation that requires more detailed analysis, to triangulate the views expressed here by

scheme organisers and drawn also from scheme literature and website sources.

Evolving legal structure

The legal mechanisms used to allow the groups to exist and grow are also significant. Excluding

the Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (G.A.S) (a network of small, informal groups across Italy), each

of the largest buying groups has a formal legal structure governing its activities. Efforts to

formalise the structure go hand in glove with moves to increase the capacity of these groups to

incorporate a greater number of members. In order to circumvent the more mainstream spaces

associated with food retailing, such as larger supermarkets, the instigators of these groups

frequently construct interim and makeshift infrastructures to facilitate their own access to local

and organic foods. This may involve the use of collective buying by groups of mothers wishing to

gain access to affordable organic foods for their children, or the scaling-up of an initially small-

scale group in order to facilitate the inclusion of more members. This latter situation has been the

16
case for one of the buying groups in Canada, the Neighbours Organic Weekly Club, which started

out as a small-scale venture but became a formal worker cooperative when the level of consumer

participation reached a level whereby it became necessary to formalise the group.

Whilst the buying group structure is flexible in its appeal to both small-scale and large-scale

buying strategies, the need for a formal level of organisational structure is clearly apparent. These

evolving structures, incorporating both formal and informal legal arrangements, and profit and

non-profit making elements, typically take two forms: a co-operative model, managed on a

collective basis through communal decision making; or a co-ordinator model, where decisions are

made on behalf of the group by a central co-ordinator. Not all of the buying groups fall neatly

into this structure, but they represent the majority of cases. The process of carving out access to

goods using makeshift infrastructures and evolving legal arrangements could be construed as an

act of negotiation in creating an alternative outside of the mainstream. As the history of the new

wave of co-ops showed, this can be a messy process. Many groups at that time faced ‘dilemmas’

between achieving organisational stability on the one hand and emulating the businesses they

were trying to reject on the other (Belasco 2007: 93). This resulted in the differential trajectories

that led to groups which were ‘entrepreneurial’ and those which remained more ‘community-

based’ (Cox, 1994: 36). The survey of groups for this paper suggests that efforts to construct

workable systems of collective purchase and exchange continue to be faced with difficult ‘ethical

dilemmas’. These issues are examined more fully in the next section of the paper.

Collective purchase and ethical food-scapes

The ethics of collective purchase

Not only has there been a neglect of collective purchase as a potential catalyst for new growth in

AFNs, but there has also been a lack of attention paid to the ‘ethics of care’ associated with the

17
food product and the process by which it is conveyed to, and amongst, consumers. Interviews

with scheme organisers indicate, for instance, that buying groups produce and profit from a range

of capitals which broadens the purchase beyond the simple exchange of goods. The act of

purchasing is a catalyst for the promotion and creation of social, political and cultural capitals,

but the extent to which these factors are manifested differs between individual buying groups. For

the most part, there are stated aims and principles which guide the ideological and practical

aspects of the buying groups. Whilst there is still a certain importance placed upon the financial

incentives of joining a buying group, these incentives are tempered and exceeded by the

ideological weight attached to the ‘other’ capitals. The buying groups surveyed in this paper are

not simply about the purchase of food; they are also about the process of transferring food

between producers and consumers, and between consumers. What is made and created outside of

the monetary margins of the exchange is a multi-layered transaction of ideologies, motivations

and principles. In essence, the food is transformed into a vector which carries with it additional

signals of beliefs, motives and ethics that are conveyed through the purchase of the goods.

As Lang and Gabriel (2005) point out, food co-operatives face a different consumer retail

environment today as mass consumption has manifested itself in far cheaper consumer goods.

Price is not a criterion upon which the cooperative can now depend as a source of comparative

advantage. The buying group, as a form of cooperative, must therefore offer something additional

and different. The analysis of groups surveyed here, especially the interviews with scheme

organisers, suggest they do this in two main ways. Firstly, they act as an enabler in the

distribution of local and organic foods. The nature of buying groups means that produce is

delivered in bulk to a group of friends or into a specific neighbourhood that may not have access

to a farmers’ market or farm shop. Through delivering it in bulk and using predominantly

volunteer labour to split the goods, the costs can be lowered to enable increased affordability.

Secondly, social and communitarian capitals are derived and generated through the process of

18
collective action. The act of purchasing food together is universally acknowledged amongst the

surveyed groups as being a vehicle for both maintaining and cultivating a sense of community;

this includes increased notions of citizenship, the retaining and recycling of capital within the

community and, in the case of the Dublin Food Co-op, enhancing social networks and turning

shopping into a ‘community experience’. Groups thus appear to use the collective nature of this

purchasing and distribution as a basis for other social activities, with ‘pot luck’ dinners being a

particular favourite amongst the groups in the US. The surveyed buying groups are, therefore, not

only a mechanism for providing goods; they also provide services which fulfil more than the

individual and corporeal objectives of food purchasing and consumption. This translates into a

trait of attaching social connotations to the purchase of food which, regardless of their

geographical location, becomes an intrinsic part of the majority of the buying groups.

The collective binary critique inherent in the ‘we can do it better’ attitude clearly belies the

individual politics of the groups which are multiple, encompassing a wide range of positions

moving from the overtly structural critiques of mass consumption (notably in the cases of

Seikatsu Club in Japan and the Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale in Italy) through to the more benign

access-based position of groups such as the Organic Buying Club of South Florida in the US and

Quet’ethic in France. The social construction of the ethic of ‘good food’ is, therefore, rooted in a

complex and diverse micro-politics exemplified by the motivations of the groups within the

sample. As many of the groups explained, motivations are by no means static, evolving as

relations within the buying group and wider food system develop and change.

The level of emphasis placed upon additional social and communitarian agendas does appear to

alter between certain types of buying group. This is more marked amongst those groups which are

aiming to source products as locally as possible. The act of consuming locally-sourced products is

almost taken as a proxy for the advancement of rural sustainability, and as a source of community

19
building. These motivations of preserving local agriculture, promoting rural sustainability and

enhancing community networks seem to go hand in hand. For instance, the Neighbours Organic

Weekly Club in Canada marries the objectives of supporting socially conscious and sustainable

farmers with ‘work[ing] with our neighbours to strengthen our community’ whilst ‘support[ing]

our local economy and community members’. Food, as the scheme organiser explained, is

therefore recast as an active agent in the cohesion of wider society; an element of ‘concerned

consumerism’ that attends to the social and communitarian implications, as well as the material

consequences, of the purchase for the producers and individual consumers involved.

Schemes that were identified as ‘organic’ in the US were not automatically associated with local-

organic agriculture. The primary motivation behind these buying groups, including recent small-

scale schemes such as High Country Organics and Whole Foods of Panama City, was an attempt

to overcome issues of access and affordability. These groups were disappointed with the

availability, quality and costliness of buying organic food through conventional outlets such as

supermarkets. Getting ‘better’ food nearer to wholesale prices was, therefore, a primary

motivation. As the interviewed scheme organizers stressed, this does not mean the social element

was unimportant, but the emphasis was placed more firmly on the product. In order to reflect on

these processes of negotiation and the implications they hold for the ethical foundations of these

groups, it is instructive to draw on the experiences of specific examples. The Oklahoma Food Co-

operative and the Purple Dragon Co-op are buying groups which exemplify the evolving

infrastructural workings of the groups and the negotiated ethics upon which they rest. They

encapsulate the different trajectories of collective purchase, with the first representing a

‘community-based’ approach, reinvesting profit back into the group, and the second epitomising a

more ‘entrepreneurial’ venture. Crucially, they also highlight the diverse ‘economic’ practices

inherent in collective purchase, with a reliance on a variety of modes of transactions and labour to

enable them to function.

20
Oklahoma Food Cooperative

The Oklahoma Food Cooperative (OFC) was officially established as a consumer cooperative in

November 2003. Bob Waldrop (now president and general manager of the coop) began by trying

to source his own food from the surrounding local farms. Having grown up in rural Oklahoma, he

wanted to create an enterprise that was sustainable, economically viable and would recycle

money back into the local economy. The idea of setting up a food coop was circulated on the

internet through establishing a discussion group on yahoo.groups.com and creating a small

website. The original idea was to open a cooperative store, but conversations with other interested

consumers indicated that there were not sufficient numbers to justify the start-up costs. It was

decided that a buying club would be preferable because there was more scope to ‘work from the

ground up’. The buying club could also establish a workable infrastructure for distributing local

foods without the need for a costly initial outlay of capital. Volunteer labour has been the primary

vehicle for reducing costs, as has the use of private homes, parking lots, churches and other

community spaces for delivery locations. The goods arrive from producers once a month and are

broken down into individual orders by volunteers who in turn receive $7 per hour in food credits

which they can put towards their order. The running costs of the group are covered by a one-off

membership fee of $50 (people on low-income are exempt from this charge) and a 5% levy on

goods sold which is charged to both the producer and consumer members.

The OFC has established a system whereby it acts as an agent for members of the cooperative,

facilitating links between producers and consumers. Currently, 60 producers within the State of

Oklahoma contribute to a list of over 1500 items, including meat, seasonal fruit and vegetables,

and dairy products. Producers have their own piece of web space and consumers are able to

access full biographies of the products that they intend to buy, incorporating information on the

production process, the size of the farm and the motivation of the producer. An interesting

outcome of this transparent consumption context is that members of the OFC have influenced

21
some of the growing strategies of the producers. Consumers have thus made their purchasing

priorities clear through choosing, for example, to buy predominantly grass-fed beef. Seeing the

shift in consumer demand in favour of these products, other producers within the cooperative

have altered their production practices in line with the consumptive ethics and priorities of the

consumer members of the group. The consumers are, therefore, not merely responding to an

ethical proposition laid down by the producers, but are actively involved in the formulation of the

ethical specifics of what they believe ‘local’ and/or ecologically sustainable agriculture should be.

Further feedback is facilitated through the interaction of producers and consumers on the day of

distribution and through tri-monthly social events, which are seen to be integral to the success and

maintenance of the cooperative.

Prioritising the social and communitarian aspects of the group, the OFC sets itself apart from the

mainstream shopping experience. The cooperative is an enabler for increasing access to local and

organic foods, but it is also a means of encouraging connections between members of a

community. The OFC has seen positive communitarian outcomes in terms of bringing together

disparate sectors of the community, including the representation of Unitarian ministers,

fundamentalist Southern Baptists and secular environmentalists on the cooperative board and

within the membership. Whilst the purchasing of local and organic food was deemed, particularly

by the board members, as being a political act, the partisan politics and differences in religious

opinion are marginalised in favour of expressing a binding and consensus-based food ethic. This

is a potent example of how food and its mode of purchasing are linked to the social context and

the creation of a moral landscape. This moral landscape refers not only to the ethical propositions

attached to the food itself, but extends to the cohesive connotations attached to the act of

purchasing specific foods through a specific mode of distribution. Collective purchase, therefore,

facilitates the expression of a complex mix of ecological, environmental, corporal and

communitarian ethics. This complex mix is guided under the uniting philosophy of building what

22
is deemed to be a ‘better’ system in pragmatic opposition to the perceived inadequacies of the

mainstream system.

Purple Dragon Co-op

Purple Dragon was founded on an informal basis by Janit London and a friend in New Jersey in

1987. They were motivated by what was perceived to be a dearth of good quality, affordable

organic food. Starting from 15 households purchasing food in bulk together, the buying group

transformed into a large-scale, profit-making operation providing over 900 households with

organic and increasingly local/organic produce. London describes the present organisational

structure of the group as a ‘benign autocracy’, where the decisions are made by the coordinator,

allowing, in her words, for ‘decisions to be made quickly and efficiently’. These decisions are

made according to overriding ethical principles (regarding the use of organic, mainly seasonal

and preferably locally-sourced goods) and so there is a level of consensus decision-making, based

upon members’ beliefs in the positive outcomes associated with local, seasonal and organic

foods. There is also a requirement that members commit to one hour’s labour to the co-op every

three months in order to reduce the overall price of the goods for the collective membership.

The pragmatic actions of a small number of consumers (in particular, Janit London as the

principal coordinator) has led to the creation of an infrastructure that allows the burgeoning group

to tackle issues of access and affordability through purchasing large amounts of seasonal produce

and distributing it using low-cost methods. Seasonal ‘gluts’ of produce make up the basis of what

is offered through the group. Whereas the Oklahoma Food Cooperative incorporates a broad level

of choice, Purple Dragon sources between 12 and 20 items of fruit and vegetables for each

delivery. The produce is picked up from farms or delivered into their warehouse, where paid part-

time staff divide the produce into bulk orders which are delivered to 59 member ‘pods’. The

‘pod’ system works by sub-dividing the collective into smaller groups of 15 members, with one

23
‘host’ taking on the responsibility for the delivery and distribution of the produce. They receive

$40 of food credits towards their order in recompense for their time and organisation of the pod.

Other members are encouraged to help with the distribution, but recognition is given to the

varying levels of capability and commitment of the individual members. The pod system cuts

down the cost of labour within the system, but it also means that a sense of the smaller-scale

collective element is retained. The social interactions between members were cited as

fundamental to the continued success and sustainability of the group and have led to additional

activities such as battery recycling, book and recipe swaps. This method of subdivision is a

strategy that has been employed by the majority of the largest buying groups within the sample

(e.g. Seikatsu Club). Akin to the observations made about the OFC, this again underlines the

‘more than’ ethical elements of collective purchasing. Not only does it reflect attempts to ‘re-

connect’ the food chain regarding producer-consumer relations, but it also indicates the

importance of facilitating links between the consumers themselves. This cultivation of social

space is integral to the analysis of collective purchasing across the sample.

Another key theme in this example and across the sample more widely is the process of

negotiation as schemes learn and develop. Purple Dragon’s ethical stance thus changed over time

to accommodate a more localised procurement agenda. As the group developed a better working

knowledge of how and where to source locally-produced organic food, the sourcing policy

changed in response to this. For instance, in the beginning produce was picked up in bulk from

the airport, but increasing awareness of the environmental implications of airfreight has

transferred the onus towards seeking out ‘local-organic’ sources. There are still dilemmas over

practicalities such as price and consistency of quality, but efforts are made to be as transparent in

their choices as possible. The ethics of the group, therefore, have not only rested upon the aims

and motivations of the group members but also upon the ability to satisfy those ethical ambitions

in practice. These negotiated ethics of building a workable system to source local organic foods

24
show the creative possibilities that exist within this type of food network, as well as the barriers

when attempting to work within and between mainstream food provisioning.

Creating constructive dialogue and opening up new possibilities for AFNs

The drive to re-establish a level of trust, transparency and traceability within the food industry has

led to the valorisation of local and organic food systems as a ‘moral antidote’ to the negative

constructions associated with conventional food supply (Maye et al, 2007). Whilst these

alternative strategies are increasingly popular, they still serve only a small percentage of the

population and remain within the niche market. This paper has argued that there needs to be an

attempt to widen the focus to recognise more inclusive and diverse food economies. One key area

for growth is through collective purchase which, as a latent form of grassroots innovation

(Seyfang and Smith, 2007), has so far been neglected as a focus in AFN studies. The project of

looking for other modes of purchasing local and organic foods points to the creativity involved in

setting up alternative distribution methods such as buying groups and food cooperatives. The

creative premise upon which they are based leads ultimately to different trajectories

encompassing both entrepreneurial and community-based interventions and scales of operation,

which range from the household through to ‘conventional’ storefront locations (echoing points

made in earlier examinations of collect purchase – see Ronco, 1974; Cox, 1994; Belasco, 2007).

Innovation, stemming from ideological motivations to create something new and something

‘better’, ultimately leads to a diversity of outcomes that have not been fully represented in the

AFN literature.

The collective belief that ‘we can do it better’ appears to be a guiding factor in these attempts to

provide proactive and creative responses to a perceived need for alternative provisioning. Part of

this need is premised upon a sense of obligation to think about the consequences of food

consumption. The way that this wider ethic is expressed appears to be a highly pixelated mix of

25
different practices, motivations and politics. The empirical survey shows, for instance, schemes

which rely on ‘conventional’ waged labour through to volunteers and payment via food credits. It

includes the locations of conventional storefronts through to household and community buildings

(the latter examples of Gibson-Graham’s (2005) alternative spheres of productivity). This picture

of ethical purchasing is complicated further by taking into account the negotiated nature of both

the ethical positions of these groups and the practicalities that guide their ability to express these

ethics. This is manifested most clearly in the two case studies, with the first example, the

Oklahoma Food Cooperative, predominantly a ‘local’ procurement strategy and the second,

Purple Dragon Food Co-op, a more ‘organic’ orientated scheme. Crucially, both groups appear to

have depended upon an experimental approach to sourcing outside ‘mainstream foodways’ and

underline the point that these efforts are still work in progress. Indeed, the politics of the groups

have evolved over time, revealing a complex and differentiated view of the motivations which

coalesce to form a cumulative but by no means static picture of ‘ethical consumption’. The

ideology first, practicalities later approach appears to be a powerful influence, symbolising the

‘becomingness’ of ethical purchasing in these contexts.

Buying groups are, therefore, a good example of how control can be regained and enacted within

the food supply system. However, this control can be hindered by constraints on practical action.

As the empirical evidence suggests, groups need physical infrastructures such as legal structures

to grow and maintain their position. They also need the ability to find suitable suppliers to satisfy

their demand for certain ‘ethical’ goods. As shown in the case studies, this process can take time

and a group’s ethical position can change based upon the implementation of necessary enablers

for growth. This negotiation, based upon what is practical, influences how people take part in

AFNs and what they can achieve. This is a key consideration when analysing dualisms that divide

consumption practices into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories. The continuum of positions demonstrated

by the buying groups within this sample indicates that the situation is far more complex. Much

26
more work is needed to examine buying group models. The evidence presented here is based on

an illustrative sample. In particular, work that speaks directly to consumers involved in buying

groups is needed to examine consumer motivations and ethics. As this paper demonstrates,

buying groups and collective purchase provide a useful and underutilised lens through which to

view both the search for practical enablers to facilitate the growth of AFNs and also the multiple

politics that provide the building blocks for understandings of ‘ethical consumption’.

Acknowledgments. The constructive comments and suggestions made by three anonymous

referees are acknowledged with thanks. The authors would also like to thank Mike Goodman and

Lewis Holloway for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Allen P, FitzSimmons M, Goodman M, Warner K, 2003, “Shifting plates in the agrifood

landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California” Journal of Rural

Studies 19 61 – 75

Amin A, 2005, “Local community on trial” Economy and Society 34 612 - 633

Barnett C, Clarke N, Cloke P, Malpass A, 2004, “Consuming ethics: articulating the subjects and

spaces of ethical consumption” Antipode 37 1 23 - 45

Barnett C, Clarke N, Cloke P, Malpass A, 2005, “The political ethics of consumerism” Consumer

Policy Review 15 2 – 8

Belasco W J, 2007, Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took On the Food Industry

2nd ed (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press)

Bell D, Valentine G, 1997, Consuming Geographies: We Are Where We Eat (London: Routledge)

Born B, Purcell M, 2006, “Avoiding the local trap. Scale and food systems in planning research”

Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 195 – 207

27
Clarke N, Barnett C, Cloke P, Malpass A, 2007, “Globalising the consumer: doing politics in an

ethical register” Political Geography 26 231 - 249

Clarke N, Barnett C, Cloke P, Malpass A, 2008, “The spaces and ethics of organic food” Journal

of Rural Studies 24 3 219 - 230

Cox C, 1994 Storefront Revolution: Food Co-ops and the Counterculture (Rutgers University

Press)

DeLind L, 2003, “Considerably more than vegetables, a lot less community: the dilemmas of

community supported agriculture” in Fighting for the Farm: Rural America Transformed Ed J

Adams (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia) pp 192 - 206

Dixon J, 2002 The Changing Chicken: Chooks, Cooks and Culinary Culture. (UNSW Press)

Feagan R, 2007, “The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems” Progress in

Human Geography 31 23 - 42

Friedmann H, 2007, “Scaling up: Bringing public institutions and food service corporations into

the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario” Agriculture and Human Values 24

389 - 398

Gibson-Graham J K, 2003, “An ethics of the local” Rethinking Marxism 15 49 - 74

Gibson-Graham J K, 2005, “Surplus possibilities: postdevelopment and community economies”

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 26 1 4 - 26

Graham J, Healy S, Byrne K, 2002, “Constructing the community economy: civic

professionalism and the politics of sustainable regions” Journal of Appalachian Studies 8 50 -

61

Guthman J, 2007a, “From the ground up: California organics and the making of ‘yuppie chow’”

in Alternative Food Geographies: Representation and Practice Eds. D Maye, L Holloway, M

Kneafsey (Elsevier, Oxford) pp 241 – 254

Guthman J, 2007b, “Commentary on teaching food: why I am fed up with Michael Pollan et al”

Agriculture and Human Values 24 261-264

28
Harris E, 2009, “Neoliberal subjectivities or a politics of the possible? Reading for difference in

alternative food networks” Area 41 1 55 - 63

Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D, Eds, 2005, The Ethical Consumer (Sage, London)

Hendrickson M, Heffernan W, 2002, “Opening spaces through relocalisation: locating potential

resistance in the weaknesses of the global food system” Sociologia Ruralis 42 347 - 369

Hinrichs C, 2003, “The practice and politics of food system localisation” Journal of Rural Studies

19 33 - 45

Holloway L, Kneafsey M, Venn L, Cox R, Dowler E, Tuomainen H, 2007, “Possible food

economies: a methodological framework for exploring food production-consumption

relationships” Sociologia Ruralis 47 1 - 19

Ilbery B, Maye D, 2005, “Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock

products in the Scottish-English borders” Environment and Planning A 37 823 - 844

Johnston J, Biro A, MacKendrick N, 2009, “Lost in the supermarket: the corporate-organic

foodscape and the struggle for food democracy” Antipode 41 3 509 - 532

Kirwan J, 2006, “The interpersonal world of direct marketing: examining conventions of quality

at UK farmers’ markets” Journal of Rural Studies 22 301 – 312

Kneafsey M, Holloway L, Cox R, Dowler E, Venn L, Tuomainen H, 2008, Reconnecting

Consumers, Producers and Food: Exploring Alternatives (Oxford: Berg)

Lang T, Gabriel Y, 2005, “A brief history of consumer activism” in The Ethical Consumer Eds. R

Harrison, T Newholm, D Shaw (Sage, London)

Latour B, 2007, “We are all reactionaries today” http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-

l@bbs.thing.net/msg04136.html (last accessed: 12/10/09).

Lawson V, 2005, “Hopeful geographies: imagining ethical alternatives. A commentary on J.K.

Gibson-Graham’s ‘Surplus possibilities: postdevelopment and community economies’”

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 26 36 - 38

29
Maclachlan P, Trentmann, 2004, “Civilizing markets: traditions of consumer politics in twentieth-

century Britain, Japan and the United States” in Markets in Historical Contexts: Ideas and

Politics in the Modern World Eds M Bevir, R Trentmann (Cambridge University Press)

Maye D, Holloway L, Kneafsey M, Eds, 2007, Alternative Food Geographies: Representation

and Practice (Elsevier, Oxford)

Mayo E, 2005, “Foreword” in The Ethical Consumer. R Harrison, T Newholm, D Shaw (Sage,

London) pp xvii - xviii

Pollan M, 2006, The Omnivore's Dilemma: The Search for the Perfect Meal in a Fast-food World

(Bloomsbury Publishing PLC)

Raynolds L, Murray D, Wilkinson J, Eds, 2007 Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming

Globalization (Routledge, London)

Ronco W, 1974, Food co-ops, an alternative to shopping in supermarkets (Boston: Beacon Press)

Seyfang G, Smith A, 2007, “Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new

research and policy agenda” Environmental Politics 16 4 584 - 603

Slocum R, 2006, “Whiteness, space and alternative food practice” Geoforum 38 520-533

Watts D C H, Ilbery B, Maye D, 2005, “Making reconnections in agro-food geography:

alternative systems of food provision” Progress in Human Geography 29 22 - 40

Whatmore S, Clarke N, 2006, “Good food: ethical consumption and global change” in A World in

the Making Eds N Clarke, D Massey, P Sarre (The Open University: Milton Keynes) pp 363 -

412

Wilkins J L, 2005, “Eating Right Here: Moving from Consumer to Food Citizen” Agriculture and

Human Values 22 269 – 273

Wilk R, Ed, 2006, Fast food/slow food: the cultural economy of the global food system (Lanham,

MD: Altamira Press).

30
Figure 1. Overview of 30 buying groups from mainland Europe, North America and Japan

31