Content uploaded by Maria Fonte
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Fonte on Feb 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
264
14. The political economy of alternative
agriculture in Italy
Maria Fonte and Ivan Cucco
INTRODUCTION*
Modernization of the economy and agriculture in Italy occurred in
a rapid but also unique manner following World War II. As in other
Mediterranean countries, agriculture was long considered a backward
sector afflicted by delays in its development. Notwithstanding the persis-
tence of wide regional differences, farms across the country were generally
small and were managed in accordance with a family farm logic, which
was closer to the peasant model than to the economic rationality of the
“American farmer.” Well into the 1980s the small scale of the farms was
still regarded as an insurmountable obstacle to modernization of the
sector and organization of a modern agro- food and distribution system.
In the post- modernization era of the 1990s, when in Europe a new
paradigm became the benchmark for agricultural and rural development,
the gap in the industrialization of agriculture and food was transformed
into an asset by many actors in the food system. Intended as a marker for
variety in regional agriculture and food, “Made in Italy” was constructed
as a quality brand and the basis for the “quality turn consensus” around
which many conventional and alternative interests eventually coalesced
(Brunori, Malandrin and Rossi 2013).
Within the same timespan, at the global level, a succession of changes
shifted the dominant food regimes out of the era of Fordism and into the
era of globalization (Friedman and McMichael 1989). In the agro- food
system the globalization of supply chains brought about new forms of
governance based on quality standards and certification systems. Broader
struggles over the regulation of global markets framed the renegotiation of
power and resources in global trade as a matter for private actors, eroding
the role of public institutions (Marsden, Flynn and Harrison 2000).
In this new context social movements also changed their nature and
shifted their strategies. In the Fordist period they were organized mainly
as labor movements or in alliance with labor movements and were fight-
ing to change relations of production in opposition to the State and the
capitalist economy. Since the 1970s and the 1980s, with neoliberalism and
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 264 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 265
global markets asserting themselves as the dominant organizing forces of
the economy and politics, the new social movements have shifted their
attention away from the State and towards global corporations and the
market, determining a “merging of frontiers between markets and social
forces” (Raynolds and Wilkinson 2007:43). Market- and consumption-
based, rather than labor- or class- based movements (Eder 1993) sought
to capture consumers’ interest and to challenge conventional globaliza-
tion and its negative repercussions. The proliferation of initiatives, such
as campaigns for fair trade, consumer boycotts, community- supported
agriculture, the promotion of alternative food networks, all indicate a
shifting of attention away from production to consumption (Murray and
Raynolds 2007:7).
Novel conceptual tools have been proposed as a necessary step towards
grasping the complexities of this changing landscape. New social actors
and new objects have been enrolled in the food economy of the post-
Fordist era: not only farmers, workers and farms, but also the countryside
and rural areas have become part of the new networks under construc-
tion. Biodiversity, the environment, natural resources, multifunctionality,
supply chains, quality food, health, standards and certifications, (urban)
consumers and urban areas have all become relevant subjects and key
actors. Busch and Juska (1997) proposed using actor- network theory
(ANT) for the purpose of overcoming the limitations of political economy
(the reification of actors and the determinism of material structure) and
improving our understanding of the globalization process. ANT would
also open new “avenues for action” (p. 690) by analyzing how the “rela-
tionships among people, things, institutions and ideas are created, main-
tained and changed through time” (p. 701). A fruitful integration between
ANT and political economy was also envisioned by Friedman (2009).
Writing from a socio- technical regime transitions perspective (Geels
2004 and 2010; Geels and Schot 2007 and 2010), other authors highlighted
the relations between the “alternative” and “conventional” domains. As
shown by Smith (2006) in the case of organic food in the United Kingdom
(UK), such relations are not necessarily confrontational. Niche move-
ments originally seeking radical transformation of mainstream regimes
in the direction of sustainability can undergo a process of fragmentation
whereby their more incremental elements are selectively appropriated
and re- interpreted by actors with different interests and values. The most
radical elements re- organize their “alternativeness” and the way they
relate to the dominant regime, in a trajectory that evolves from “opposi-
tional” to “incompatible.” The objective is not necessarily to oppose the
system in order to change it. It may be to construct a new one, starting
from bottom- up autonomous economic initiatives based on a synergy of
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 265 06/02/2015 16:36
266 International political economy of agriculture and food
production practices and social resources and centered on such values as
food democracy and social justice (Hinrichs and Lyson 2008; Hinrichs
2014; Furman et al. 2014).
In this complex and evolving scenario, defining what is alternative
agriculture in Italy is a challenge. Actually, nobody seems to be defending
an industrialized model of agricultural development, homogenization of
products, standardization of agricultural practices and globalization of
sourcing and tastes. Everybody would instead agree with the new rural
development paradigm, which advocates the valorization of regional
agro- ecological diversity in food and agriculture. As a result of this evo-
lution, “alternative” and “conventional” social forces to a large extent
intersect and overlap.
In this chapter we choose as point of entry into the blurred margins
of Italian alternative agriculture the histories and strategies of the most
prominent advocates of the “quality turn” and trace their evolving—and at
times ambiguous—relations with the conventional agro- food system. We
focus on a set of actors that represent a range of experiences and organi-
zational forms which emerged at different stages between the 1970s and
the 1990s: the organic movement, the “Campagna Amica” Foundation
promoted by Coldiretti (the largest farmers’ union in the country), Slow
Food and the loose but growing network of Solidarity Purchasing Groups
(Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale, GAS). Following Levidow (2014), the
“alternative” character of these actors can be identified with their rejection
of the “life sciences” and “decomposability” paradigms that characterize
the dominant agro- food system. All the organizations examined proved
to be supporters, albeit to differing extents and via differing means, of an
“agro- ecological” approach and an “integral product identity” paradigm
that “seeks to valorize distinctive comprehensive qualities” (Levidow
2014:4) of food and agriculture—pertaining either to production pro-
cesses, product characteristics and territorial specificities or alternative
models of producer/consumer relations. Of course, it remains a point of
controversy as to how the new model might be sustained and which strate-
gies might be best suited for sustaining it.
In order to elucidate the actual or potential implications of the different
strategies for the political economy of Italian alternative agriculture, we
have opted to take an eclectic stance and combine insights from different
approaches. The political economy of food regimes, socio- technical tran-
sition paradigms, ANT and the theory of social practice all present some
useful variables and suggest dimensions with a potential for guiding our
investigation of the history and strategies of the selected organizations.
The reference here is to the socio- technical transition (STT) literature
and to the multilevel perspective (MLP) for interpreting the evolving
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 266 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 267
relations between niche movements and elements of the dominant regime.
The degree of structuration of niches and regimes is not necessarily stable:
a regime can be more or less structured and, in time, the degree of struc-
turation of a niche can increase to the point where it becomes a compet-
ing alternative to the dominant regime. Fuenfschilling and Truffer (2014)
suggest that the level of structuration of a socio- technical configuration
can be assessed by its “degree of institutionalization,” which is in turn
linked to its duration, its scale and scope of diffusion, its resilience to inno-
vations and controversies, its embeddedness in an institutional framework
and its coherence with surrounding structures (p. 774–775). Throughout
this chapter we propose to regard the institutional stability and network
structure of the organizations under examination as indicators of their
level of structuration.
Given that all the movements under examination operate in the post-
Fordist environment, the different architectures of producer– distributor–
consumer relations proposed by each actor will be seen not simply as
attempts to reshape circuits of accumulation in the agro- food system, but
also as bearers of different bundlings of private demands, public norms
and new social practices of consumption. The transition to a new social
practice requires the reconfiguration of motivation and agency, through
the construction of new collective subjectivities, but also a new cultural
and value structure and a new material infrastructure (Reckwitz 2002;
Shove, Pantzar and Watson 2012; Crivits and Paredis 2013).
In our analysis of the labeling schemes implemented by different actors
we draw on the typology and critique of voluntary food labels proposed
by Guthman (2007) to distinguish between the mechanisms employed
for appropriation and distribution of the value associated with “integral
product identity.” Guthman detects an “important theoretical tension”
(p. 457) in the relationship between voluntary food labeling schemes and
neoliberalism. Labeling schemes may “protect”—in a Polanyian sense—
land, labor and natural resources from the disruptions of self- regulating
markets. On the other hand, voluntary food labels can themselves be seen
as an expression of neoliberal modes of governance, given that they choose
the market as the locus of regulation and actually create new markets (and
property rights) for place- or labor- based values, capacities and ethical
behaviors which are in this way fictitiously commodified.
Before presenting the actors involved with the “quality turn” of Italian
agriculture, in the following section we introduce the reader to the pecu-
liarities of the Italian agricultural modernization process. We will then
present our analysis of the Italian movements and organizations men-
tioned above: Campagna Amica, the organic movement, Slow Food, the
GAS movement. The main findings in the concluding section will highlight
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 267 06/02/2015 16:36
268 International political economy of agriculture and food
how the different dimensions taken into consideration are shaping alterna-
tive agriculture in Italy.
FROM INCOMPLETE MODERNIZATION TO A NEW
AGRICULTURE: THE CASE OF ITALY
In the 1960s, while the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
was pushing in the direction of modernization, Italian agriculture was
still being represented as afflicted by a structural dualism between small
peasant and big capitalist farms1 (Fabiani 1978; Gorgoni 1978; Pugliese
and Rossi 1978). One of the most lively debates counterposed the Leninist
thesis of “differentiation and proletarianization” of peasant farms to the
Kautskian thesis of their persistence and adaptation (through part- time
work and pluriactivity) to the context of a capitalist economy (Bolaffi and
Varotti 1978; Calza Bini 1978). According to Mottura and Pugliese (1975),
“peasantization” and “modernization” policies were both functional to
the industrial development of the Italian economy: the agricultural labor
force functioned as a “reserve army” for industry and people underem-
ployed in rural areas were available to be released as the demand for
industrial labor increased.
In the 1980s this debate no longer reflected the reality of the agricultural
sector: the idiosyncratic modernization process of Italian agriculture had
already been accomplished through territorial concentration, specializa-
tion of production and adoption of mechanical and chemical innovation.
The “entrepreneurial farm” had by then become the backbone of Italian
agriculture, replacing the “peasant farm,” an institution now conceptu-
ally linked with a backward system of production. Farmers acquired full
legitimation as “entrepreneurs” and, however relatively small the average
farm area (less than 5 hectares), displayed behavior analogous to that of
the capitalist industrial firm (Cosentino and DeBenedictis 1978). This led
to increasing intensification and specialization but also, progressively, to
the restructuring of the food system and loss of autonomy of the farm (van
der Ploeg 2008; Fonte and Salvioni 2013).
The integration of agriculture into the food system took place initially
(in the 1970s and 1980s) through the labor market and the stabilization of
part- time work and of pluri- active farms, and later (in the 1980s and 1990s)
through intensification of commercial relations with the food processing
industry and the distribution system. The modernization of the process-
ing industry and the distribution system had in fact proceeded in parallel
with the developments in agriculture, with consolidation accelerating in
the first decades of the new century (Brasili, Fanfani and Meccarini 2001;
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 268 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 269
Viviano 2012). Squeezed between an oligopolistic input industry and an
increasingly concentrated processing and retailing industry, the farm lost
its managerial and financial autonomy: only a small percentage of the final
added value of food was flowing back into farmers’ incomes (Sereni [1947]
1971; vanderPloeg 2008).
The process was neither thorough nor homogeneous. In a recent
volume, Ortiz- Miranda, Moragues- Faus and Arnalte- Alegre (2013) stress
how “the apparent common Mediterranean portrait” (p. 2) conceals mani-
fold expressions of rural and agrarian pathways and paradigms, based
on different mixes of traditional and productivist practices. The Italian
case closely conforms to this view, given that agricultural modernization
was incomplete or at least selective with regard to types of farms and geo-
graphical areas. Still, there is no agreement today as to how many “farms”
there are in Italy and how many of them are “entrepreneurial” (Sotte 2006;
Sotte and Arzeni 2013). This is a long- standing debate that seems difficult
to resolve.2
Italian agriculture remains tightly linked to the agro- ecological features
of the territories in which it is practiced, with differences in cultural spe-
cialization also implying differences in farm management. The majority
of “professional” or entrepreneurial farms are engaged in stockbreeding
and dairying (activities concentrated in the north of Italy). Such farms
can employ stable labor forces. Small farms with mixed and perennial
cultures are by contrast scattered over central and southern Italy, and
their markedly seasonal working calendar encourages pluri- activity and
diversification.
In the late 1970s, when the debate on the structure of Italian agricul-
ture was in full swing, Barberis (1978) was quite an isolated voice when
he pointed out that the specificity of the Italian agricultural sector and
its “artisanal” form of production constituted the basis of the quality
of Italian food. His views proved to be far- sighted when, in the 1990s, a
different paradigm based on the so- called quality turn (Goodman 2003)
started to characterize agricultural development. The turn was anticipated
in Europe in the 1980s by the debates about the future of the CAP. The
emergence of environmental discourse was accelerated by a series of scan-
dals over industrial intensive agriculture (Fonte 2002). In Italy the most
serious episode was the “methanol wine scandal” in 1986, which resulted
in 23 deaths and left dozens of people poisoned and injured (Barbera and
Audifreddi 2012), with devastating consequences for the wine market in
Italy. In the same year a major problem of atrazine pollution of the aqui-
fers emerged in the Po Valley. At the international level the Chernobyl
disaster was followed a few years later by the explosion into prominence
of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy scandal, both of these scandals
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 269 06/02/2015 16:36
270 International political economy of agriculture and food
being of vast extension and having deep implications for the food system
(Ansell and Vogel 2006). This noteworthy series of scandals, along with
the public debate on the diffusion of the new genetically modified organ-
isms (GMO), triggered a reflexive behavior (Beck, Giddens and Lash
1994) among European consumers on the subject of food safety and health
(Jaillette 2001; Fonte 2002 and 2004; Petrini and Padovani 2005).
GMOs met with a poor reception from consumers all over Europe but,
apart from the shared fears of toxicity, allergies and modifications to
people’s immune systems, each country seemed to have its own additional
rationales for contesting and refusing the new technology. Denmark, for
example, stressed the risk of groundwater contamination; Austria was
concerned to defend its organic agriculture; in Italy GMOs were perceived
primarily as posing a threat to its most traditional products (Camera
dei Deputati 1997; Fonte 2004) and to the quality of “Made in Italy”
(Brunori, Malandrin and Rossi 2013).
It was above all around the threat to the safety and quality of Italian
food that a coalition of “conventional” and “alternative” forces in the
agro- food system was formed in the late 1990s. In their opposition to
GMOs, “alternative” movements such as Slow Food, Legambiente (the
national association for the protection of the environment), Greenpeace
and AIAB (the Italian Association for Organic Agriculture—one of
the associations for the promotion of organic agriculture) allied them-
selves with more “conventional” actors such as Coldiretti (the union
of small farmers in Italy and incidentally the largest union of farmers),
Confartigianato (the union of small artisan firms), a number of consum-
ers’ associations and most of the key supermarket chains (including Coop-
Italia, Auchan- SMA and Carrefour).3 Given that safety had begun to be
linked conceptually to national production,4 a “Made in Italy” consensus
developed, uniting a wide coalition of interests in the agriculture and food
sector. National production came to be seen not only as a guarantee of
quality but also as a good marketing strategy with the potential to respond
to consumer anxiety on food (Brunori, Malandrin and Rossi 2013).
The changes occurring in Italy were taking place within the wider context
of reform of the CAP. In the frame of modernization, the European Union
(EU) interpreted the “quality turn” as the need for further rationalization
and control of industrial production through new and better management
of safety rules. The reorganization of the EU’s regulatory role in the food
economy (Majone 1996; Marsden, Flynn and Harrison 2000) had to,
however, take into account international pressures, given that the World
Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations were pushing towards a policy of
reduced agricultural subsidies and liberalization of market access.
It is in the context of the CAP reform (1992) and re- orientation away
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 270 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 271
from the CAP’s exclusive focus on productivity towards liberalization,
on the one hand, and improvement of safety standards, food quality and
environmental protection, on the other, that the European Union (hence-
forth EU) biosafety regulation on GMOs (based on the adoption of the
Precautionary Principle), laws on hygiene (1991–1993) and regulation on
the “traceability” of food (2002) were elaborated. The CAP reform also
involved movement away from the sectorial emphasis towards a multidi-
mensional concept of rural development. Together with cuts in the levels
of price support and a re- focusing of subsidies on income support for
farmers, the MacSharry reform of 1992 brought about a “quality turn”
through its agro- ecological measures, for example provision of support for
environmentally friendly organic practices and regulation for protection
of geographic indications. The new orientation of the CAP, and particu-
larly the establishment of its second pillar (the rural development policy),
reinforced the shift towards food quality entailed by the “quality turn,”
creating opportunities and consensus among the big players in the agro-
food system. It was during this period that the concept of a “European
model of agricultural development” emerged, taking as its basis the val-
orization of difference and quality rather than productivity, specialization
and standardization.
The “quality turn” and the way it was translated into EU policy
introduced changes that generated tension for the actors engaged with
Italian agriculture. Coldiretti, a staunch supporter of the modernization
approach underlying previous CAP interventions, detected the change in
the wind and accordingly reinvented itself, “gradually abandon[ing] the
modernization discourse and corporatist defense of CAP price support
and propos[ing] a new business model based on multifunctionality and
a new agricultural policy. Tradition, locality and family farming became
common elements of Coldiretti’s concept of quality” (Brunori, Malandrin
and Rossi 2013:23). Coldiretti also adopted an ambivalent stance towards
liberalization. It thus emerged as one of the main actors in the construc-
tion of the alliance, with at times protectionist overtones, around a defense
of products “Made in Italy.” As for Slow Food, the recognition and
protection of locally embedded quality within the EU framework was cer-
tainly a welcome development. Moreover, these organizations were able
to enlist the support of the Italian State in their battle for identification
and defense of traditional products whose survival was endangered by the
promulgation of EU hygiene laws. Under the provisions governing the
newly established Register of Traditional Products, products listed in it
may be produced and processed in accordance with traditional practices,
disregarding European hygiene regulations.5
The increased attention to the relation between food and health, safety,
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 271 06/02/2015 16:36
272 International political economy of agriculture and food
environmental protection and production practices was a contributing
factor to the profound changes, which also took place on the demand side
of the food sector. Consumers started to see alternative food economies
as a way of avoiding risk and the concomitant anxiety. This lent new
strength to alternative food networks, especially organic agriculture and
networks based on a closer relationship between consumer and produc-
ers. The greater support given to organic production within the new EU
framework was instrumental in expanding the sector, with all the ensuing
tension derived from the scaling- up of operations and closer links to the
large distribution systems.
It is within this context that the key actors of alternative agriculture in
Italy make their appearance, elaborate their strategy and operate in com-
petition or in symbiosis with the dominant food system.
CAMPAGNA AMICA AND COLDIRETTI: THE TURN
TO AN “ALL- ITALIAN FILIÈRE”
With a million and a half members Coldiretti defines itself as “the biggest
farmers’ federation at the national and European level” (Coldiretti 2014).
The organization was founded in 1944 by Paolo Bonomi, who remained
its President until 1980. Through its control over Federconsorzi6 (also
presided over by Bonomi), Coldiretti administered a considerable share of
the public funds devoted to provisioning and agricultural policies prior to
implementation of the CAP.
Coldiretti and Federconsorzi remained, until the mid- 1990s, one of the
main centers of economic and political power in the Italian countryside.
They were political arms of the Christian Democracy (at the time, the
major Italian political party) in rural areas. More than sixty Christian
Democrat Members of Parliament were elected to the national Parliament
through the influence of Coldiretti. At the local level thousands of officials
were elected with support from the federation and formed a “pervasive
web of power and social control” (Fanfani 2004:10; authors’ translation).
Under its 1944 Statutes, Coldiretti’s actions were to be inspired by “the
history and principles of the Christian social school.” Its purpose was to
defend “rural people and . . . socially and economically elevate the farming
classes through the promotion of initiatives for increase in agricultural
production and the empowerment of family farms” (quoted in Occhetta
and Primavera 2010:15; authors’ translation). The guiding principle of the
federation was that “the interests, needs and problems of small farmers are
different from those of large farmers as well as from those of the salaried
classes” (1st Coldiretti National Congress, 1946, quoted in Occhetta and
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 272 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 273
Primavera 2010:15; authors’ translation). Coldiretti thus distinguished
itself ideologically and politically from workers’ organizations and from
Confagricoltura, the association representing big landowners.
In reality things were far more nuanced than such ideological distancing
would suggest. The interests of the “rural classes” were in fact mobilized
by Coldiretti as part of a “green front” ruralist strategy aimed at shield-
ing the whole agricultural sector (including landlords) from the nega-
tive effects of market- oriented capitalist development (Mottura 1987).
Because of this corporatist approach, Coldiretti failed to propose an
agricultural development model really oriented towards the defense of
small and medium farmers. When the CAP came into effect, Coldiretti
swiftly embraced a productivist logic based on agricultural modernization
and the adoption of technical innovations. The new approach was in line
with the economic interests of Federconsorzi, which had in the meantime
asserted itself as the national leader in commercialization of agricultural
machinery and intermediate goods.
At the beginning of the 1990s the organization faced a major crisis
of legitimacy. The conflict of interests between Coldiretti’s political and
economic roles came under public scrutiny when Federconsorzi went into
liquidation in 1991, starting what was to become one of Italy’s biggest
ever bankruptcy cases. The ensuing investigation highlighted the lack of
transparency in the use of (largely public) funds. At about the same time,
the Italian post- war party system was being shaken to its roots by the
judiciary’s anti- corruption “Clean Hands” campaign. Coldiretti’s politi-
cal patron, the Christian Democracy, was severely hit by the scandals and
the party was disbanded in 1994. Calls for a radical reform of the CAP,
which was regarded as being at the origin of endemic excess production,
had meanwhile been intensifying since the early 1980s. The close associa-
tion between Coldiretti and the CAP in Italy further contributed to the
organization’s crisis.
This confluence of events set in motion a deep renovation process.
Coldiretti reinvented itself as an advocate of the quality turn: its “Covenant
with Consumers” (2000),7 launched a manifesto for an “all- Italian agricul-
tural filière” and the federation became a promoter of genuinely “Made
in Italy” products. Closer scrutiny of the new policy platform reveals
some degree of continuity with the rural ideology of the previous phase.
It remained, for example, unclear as to how the potentially conflicting
interests of small and big farmers would be reconciled through the promo-
tion of an all- Italian filière. However, the new Statute adopted in 2011
marks a clear discursive break from the previous productivist approach.
In lieu of technical progress, Coldiretti elects as its new core themes the
multifunctionality of agricultural enterprises, quality as an expression of
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 273 06/02/2015 16:36
274 International political economy of agriculture and food
local diversity, rural tourism, environmental services, the protection of
territory and landscape and the promotion of public awareness campaigns
(Coldiretti 2011).
The most innovative areas of the new policy agenda are assigned to
the Campagna Amica Foundation (Friendly Countryside, hereafter CA),
established in 2008. CA was in charge of a communication campaign
aimed at increasing public awareness of agriculture’s multifunctional role,
promoting sustainable development and establishing linkages between
producers and consumers as well as between rural and urban areas. Before
even a year had passed, CA had turned into a national- level effort to
nurture and co- ordinate the direct selling initiatives that were spontane-
ously spreading in response to growing consumer demand for trusted
produce.
The core element in the CA campaign is the certification of producers’
adherence to a code of conduct through a voluntary labeling scheme. The
logo is owned by the foundation, which delegates the certification process
to an external organization.8 The labeling mechanisms implement and
transmit the guidelines spelled out in the “Manifesto for an all- Italian agri-
cultural filière.” CA certification in fact guarantees that farmers sell only
their own products and that these products are “Italian, agricultural and
produced locally”; that farmers abide by a code of conduct based on rules
for direct selling; and that prices are (in the case of the farmers’ markets)
lower than in local supermarkets.9
The novelty of the CA experience can be seen from the concur-
rent mobilization of Coldiretti’s formidable organizational machine to
promote the labeling scheme through the creation of a large distribution
network directly managed by the CA Foundation. Certified producers in
fact have access to reliable marketing channels, with the foundation pro-
viding services including the design of selling points, the scheduling of col-
lective activities and the promotion of the logo and the values embedded in
the certification. At the heart of the model are the CA Farmers’ Markets,
where CA- certified farmers sell their own products directly to urban con-
sumers. Requirements concerning the origin of products offered for sale
in CA farmers’ markets are quite strict. In most cases CA farmers’ market
regulations state that farmers are only allowed to sell their own produc-
tion and that all agricultural inputs that are not self- produced must come
from the same region in which they are sold.10 The network includes other
distribution channels such as on- farm sales; farmhouses (agri- touristic
farms); shops and so- called Italian shops that only sell CA products of
fully traceable Italian origin; restaurants that only use CA products and
CA urban orchards. CA also helps organize a procurement network for
collective purchasing groups, including some GAS.
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 274 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 275
The CA network therefore involves both professional farmers and non-
professional growers, restaurateurs, and citizens’ and buyers’ groups. The
customer base is similarly varied. Unlike other alternative food networks,
the CA has adopted a model aimed at catering for all consumer groups,
not just to a specialized niche (organic, biodynamic, highbrow). By April
2014 the CA network had become the biggest direct sales organization
in Europe with more than 7,000 selling points (Di Iacovo, Fonte and
Galasso 2014:32–33). Besides engaging in sales activities, CA selling points
have also begun to play host to a variety of sustainable development ini-
tiatives that leverage the connections between producers and consumers.
CA selling points are often well embedded in their social environment:
farmers’ markets or CA shops have often become centers of renewal and
revitalization in otherwise marginalized urban or suburban areas.
Apart from the development of its direct sales network, Campagna
Amica seeks to protect and promote all- Italian products via traditional
distribution channels through collective sales to supermarket chains.
To this end it has established a second labeling scheme called Firmato
Agricoltori Italiani (“Signed by Italian Farmers,” hereafter FAI), which
targets medium- and large- scale producers associated with Coldiretti and
the CA Foundation. FAI certification covers oil, meat, salami, fruit, veg-
etables, rice and pasta; its core requirements are the strictly Italian origin
of products, the agricultural character of all ingredients and a distribution
of margins within the chain that is fair to agricultural producers.11 FAI-
labeled products are distributed throughout the country by major super-
market chains such as Carrefour, Coop, Conad, Despar and Iper. Beyond
promoting FAI products, CA also collaborates with the large distribution
networks, Iper and Coop, to develop all- Italian product lines sold under
the distributors’ own brand.12
Although the CA Foundation was officially founded only in 2008, its
record to date in the six years of its existence must be seen as a success,
attributable to the breadth and stability of the social and economic net-
works centered on Coldiretti, the longest- established of the organizations
analyzed. Coldiretti’s resilience has enabled the organization to survive
a major legitimacy crisis and to re- emerge as one of the main actors in
Italy’s turn to quality. Its relations with the surrounding institutional
environment have always been strong, exerting a strong gravitational pull.
Some tokens of its success are its involvement in national- and EU- level
policy, not to mention a history of often- preferential agreements with
major corporate actors in the mainstream agro- food system. In terms
of its networking features and degree of institutionalization, the CA
Foundation represents a highly structured socio- technical configuration.
In Guthman’s taxonomy, the CA model rests on a private place- based
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 275 06/02/2015 16:36
276 International political economy of agriculture and food
labeling system whose specific focus of protection is the generic localism of
products: their regional origin in the case of farmers’ markets, or even their
national origin in the FAI scheme. There are also redistributive elements
in the CA system: the certification scheme seeks to appropriate value for
producers not by setting higher price (which, on the contrary, have to be
more favorably priced than standard products sold in local supermarkets),
but by eliminating intermediaries and creating a protected market space
alongside conventional distribution channels. Through the guarantee of
lower retail prices at farmers’ markets, some of the redistributive benefits
accrue not only to producers but also to consumers.
THE ORGANIC MOVEMENT IN ITALY: THE
POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SOIL AND STANDARDS
The literature on the birth and evolution of the organic movement in Italy
is very sparse and fragmented. There is no main character in this story—
no equivalent of Petrini for Slow Food; the development of organic agri-
culture is associated with many lesser- known regional and local actors.
From a socio- technical transition perspective (Smith 2006), the story of
Italian organic agriculture can be told as the evolution of an innovation
niche: the 1970s and early 1980s are the years of the pioneers; a process
of “institutionalization” starts in the 1980s, when local operators formu-
late alternative rules for production, distribution and consumption; the
1990s are the years of stabilization through institutionalization backed by
national- and EU- level regulations (Fonte and Salvioni 2013).
The pioneers of the organic movement came from different back-
grounds: the radical left, the ecologist movement and the anti- conformist
or alternative movements. The first group emerged from the experience of
“agricultural communes” inspired by hippy counterculture. The second
was more explicitly focused on environmental issues. The last called atten-
tion to the stresses and inconveniences of modernity and, following the
precepts of Rudolf Steiner, proposed the recovery of traditional values
and a lifestyle more in tune with nature. The heterogeneity of these roots
hindered progress towards unitary national representation, even as its
capacity to attract new farmers and consumers was steadily growing.
The pioneering phase was characterized by a multiplicity of regional-
level and often unconnected initiatives. The first Italian organic associa-
tion was Suolo e Salute (Soil and Health), founded in 1969 in Turin by
a group of medical doctors, agronomists and farmers who opposed the
use of synthetic chemicals in farming. Their objective was to reconcile the
health of the consumer with the health of the soil. The first President of
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 276 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 277
the association was a medical doctor, Francesco Garofalo, pioneer of a
scientific approach to organic agriculture. Many similar initiatives were
launched in the same period in different regions of Italy,13 but the degree
of cross- regional co- ordination remained low throughout the 1970s.
At the beginning of the 1980s there were still no official regulations on
organic agriculture; such rules as there were were set only at the regional
level (Cà Verde 2014). It was in this period that the process of “institu-
tionalization” of the organic movement was set in motion. In 1982 the
consumers’ association “AAM Terra Nuova”14 succeeded in amalgamat-
ing a number of regional initiatives to form a national committee Cos’è
biologico (“What is Organic”), in which representatives of consumers
and regional associations debated harmonization of rules for organic
production.
In 1986 the committee approved the first national- level rules (“Norme
italiane di agricoltura biologica”). The so- called Libretto Rosso–Codice di
Condotta Commerciale (Red Booklet—Commercial Code of Conduct),
produced by AAM Terra Nuova, spelled out the standards and funda-
mental ethical values that commercially oriented organic producers were
supposed to abide by (LaPrimaveraCoop 2014). In 1988 AMM Terra
Nuova and many of the local consumers’ and producers’ groups scaled
up the experience of the committee by forming the AIAB, a federation
of regional groups which soon became the most representative body at
national level. From a public relations perspective, the events that favored
the institutionalization of the movement were the organization in 1989 of
the first Natural Food Fair (Salone dell’Alimentazione Naturale, SANA)
and the publication of the first national magazine entirely dedicated to
organic agriculture (BioAgricoltura, started by AIAB in 1990), which
became an important instrument for publicity and communication for
extensionists, researchers and producers (Fonte and Salvioni 2013).
The institutional embedding of organic agriculture was fully achieved
in the 1990s with the publication of European regulations, which trans-
formed organic agriculture from an innovation niche to a market segment
in the dominant socio- technical regime. In 1991 Regulation CEE 2092/91
established rules at the EU level for organic production and certification.
The following year, implementing this regulation, the Italian Ministry
of Agriculture recognized the first six national control agencies (AIAB,
CCPB, Demeter, Suolo and Salute, AMAB, BioAgriCoop), followed
by AgriEcoBio in 1993. In the same year the most important Italian
organic agriculture organizations set up the Italian Organic Agriculture
Federation (FIAO, later renamed FEDERBIO), which became the unitary
representative body of Italian organic agriculture. Production protocols
established the necessary conditions for differentiation of the organic
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 277 06/02/2015 16:36
278 International political economy of agriculture and food
niche. After that, and thanks to the financial incentives made available in
accordance with the new CAP’s agro- environmental measures, there was a
rapid proliferation of organic farms and expansion of organic agriculture
in all regions of Italy (Salvioni 1999; Fonte and Salvioni 2013). In 2010
there were more than 45,000 organic farms, with 9.7 percent of the total
utilized agricultural area (about 1.25 million hectares) being cultivated
with organic methods (Rete Rurale Nazionale 2013).
A further stimulus to the sector came from the many food scandals of
the 1980s and 1990s, which led to greatly increased demand for organic
products. The first larger- scale production and distribution initiatives
started in this period (Santucci 2009): 1986 saw the establishment of the
Fattoria Scaldasole, which specialized in dairy production; in 1987 a con-
sumer co- operative upgraded itself into Gea, a company specializing in the
distribution of organic products, which later, in 1998, became Ecor and
in 2009 EcorNaturaSì, the most important national supermarket chain
promoting the commercialization of organic products.15
But expansion had its costs. The ever- tighter integration of organic
farming into the mainstream agro- food system, the growth in the size of
firms and farms and the spread of organic products into the mainstream
distribution system (especially in large- scale supermarkets) has resulted in
a “conventionalization” of the sector. Organic agriculture has acquired
a symbiotic relationship with the conventional socio- technical regime,
involving a progressive erosion of the values and ideals that were at the
origin of the organic movement.
In terms of political economy, this renewal of the agro- food regime is
arguably predicated on a new relation between the farmer (and consumer)
and nature, and especially the soil. The health of the soil and the health of
consumers are at the core of the new techniques promoted by the organic
movement. At the socio- technical level, a new class of technicians medi-
ates the relation between farmers and nature and consumers, contributing
to the diffusion of a new form of knowledge different from the “industrial-
based” knowledge of private and public extensionists. The ambition of
organic agriculture is to reaffirm the principles of traditional agriculture
and traditional knowledge, to anchor them in scientific knowledge and
to codify them in standards as an aid to communication with consumers.
The organic movement differs from other experiences such as Coldiretti
and Slow Food specifically because of its approach to certification of the
“integral” quality of organic products. The organic certification system is
embedded in national and supra- national laws: the accreditation of certi-
fication bodies is legally sanctioned by the State. This approach is in stark
contrast to the private and voluntary nature of the labeling schemes imple-
mented by Coldiretti and Slow Food, which, according to Guthman, can
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 278 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 279
be seen as the expression of a neoliberal mode of governance (Guthman
2007). It is significant that the definition of standards has become the bat-
tleground for the conflicts emerging around the identity of organic agri-
culture as part of a more conventional or more “alternative” food regime.
But the most acute conflicts in the European organic movement have
to do with reconfiguration of relations with the mainstream food system,
particularly the scaling- up of the sector through the retailing of organic
food by supermarkets. Some adherents think that supermarkets are nec-
essary allies in the up- scaling of organic agriculture; others think that
they are incompatible with the principles of organic movements: health,
ecology, fairness and care.
SLOW FOOD AND THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF
PLEASURE
Slow Food is a complex organization and a social movement with great
influence in Italian food politics. One indication of its success is the rich
international literature that is flourishing around it (Leitch 2003 and
2005; Fonte 2006; Andrews 2008; Walter 2009; Sassatelli and Davolio
2010). But our interest in Slow Food here is not related to its character as
an organization or the charges of elitism that are leveled against it: these
have been thoroughly analyzed by, among others, Sassatelli and Davolio
(2010). We will instead focus on Slow Food’s role in the “quality turn” of
Italian agriculture in the 1990s.
The origins of Slow Food cannot be understood without some knowl-
edge of the movement’s provenance in the traditional food and wine
culture of the Langhe, one of the regions of Italian food excellence: Barolo
wine and the Alba truffle are merely the internationally best known of the
plethora of food products linked to this regional identity. The beginnings
of the movement have also to be situated in the context of the broader
transformations taking place in the global economy and in Italian political
and cultural life between the 1970s and 1980s (Andrews 2008).
Globalization and liberalization have transformed the capitalism of late
modernity. According to post- structuralist theory, in the process leading
to the emergence of a post- materialist society, class has lost its centrality as
an explicative concept of social organization and as an organizing frame-
work for political struggle. In the transition from the “worlds of produc-
tion” to the “worlds of consumption,” culture and consumers (rather than
production and the working class) are seen as the agents of social trans-
formation (Baudrillard 1981; Miller 1995; 1997; and 2012; Miele 2001;
Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010). In a new global economy conceptualized as
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 279 06/02/2015 16:36
280 International political economy of agriculture and food
an “economy of signs” (Lash and Urry 1994), culture becomes the basis
for understanding new forms of collective action (Eder 1993) as well as an
asset to be valorized and commodified (Ray 1998): “The growth of con-
sumerist forms of identity- production in liberal democratic societies thus
coincides with the development of new possibilities for consumer politics
in which culture has become a favored idiom of political mobilization”
(Leitch 2003:443).
As these changes were taking place, Italy was experiencing a significant
decline in the cultural influence of institutions traditionally recognized
as the political representatives of collective interests: political parties,
labor unions and the Catholic Church. Their gradual waning opened up
new spaces for civic engagement; new forms of collective action emerged,
including new social movements and an independent non- profit sector.
Trends towards the commodification of culture and the affirmation
of post- industrial capitalism were also transforming the Italian left.
Communist Party traditions of austerity were undermined; many intellec-
tuals were redefining aspects of popular culture such as music, cinema and
sports as forms of transformative cultural politics (Leitch 2003:451).16 It
is in this period that Il Manifesto—a radical left- wing newspaper—began
publishing an eight- page monthly lifestyle supplement entitled Gambero
Rosso, dealing with gastronomy, of which Carlo Petrini was one of the
founders.
It is therefore important to stress that Slow Food was not born in a
vacuum. When in 1986 McDonald’s was opening a restaurant in Piazza
di Spagna in Rome, Slow Food had not yet been born, but many intel-
lectuals were giving expression to their disenchantment; they ranged from
famous architects such as Portoghesi and Costantino Dardi, to urbanists
and city planners like Bruno Zevi, to sociologists (Ferrarotti), journalists
and politicians (Antonello Trombadori) (Petrini and Padovani 2005:91).
Petrini recognizes as one of the most important influences in his educa-
tion as a gastronome the famous journalist and writer Luigi Veronelli. As
early as 1964 Veronelli had written a book entitled In Search of Lost Food
(Veronelli 1964). He fought to save small vineyards from extinction and to
protect local wines from the homogenization of techniques and tastes. In
alliance with the radical movements of the young occupants of two Centri
Sociali17 (“La Chimica” in Verona and “Il Magazzino 47” in Brescia), in
2003 Veronelli founded an association called “Critical Wine” and inspired
the creation of “terra/Terra” farmers markets for local self- certified prod-
ucts (Terra e Libertà/Critical Wine 2004; Veronelli and Echaurren 2005).
In 1998, in reaction to the blind application of EU hygiene laws in Italy,
he was writing: “The European Community in which we placed our hopes
has established subtle and falsely hygienist rules for the purpose of putting
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 280 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 281
out of action, in favor of industry, preserves, sauces, cheeses and meats
produced in a traditional way without any real long- term risk” (Rota and
Stefi 2012:19–20, authors’ translation). These views were to exert a great
influence on the future platform of Slow Food.
Slow Food’s Paris Manifesto was launched in 1989; the first Salone del
Gusto (Taste Fair) was held in 1996: these are exactly the years of the great
scandals in the European food system. Slow Food interpreted the many
European food controversies of the 1980s and 1990s as the expression of
crisis of the modernization model of the food system, based on industrial
standardization, homogenization and globalization. It proposed to react
to the crisis through “the political appropriation of food as symbol of col-
lective or contested national identity,” implying “the protection of threat-
ened food and the diversity of cultural landscapes” (Leitch 2003:441).
At its birth Slow Food clearly identified itself as a new social movement.
Its politics of pleasure implemented through the convivia, the group of
territorial associates who promote dinners, food and wine tasting events
and promotional campaigns, situates it firmly in the realm of critical con-
sumerism. But the originality of the movement lies in the development of
a new, post- hedonist, as it were, politics of pleasure, in which slowness
“becomes a metaphor for a politics of place, concerned with local cul-
tural heritage, regional landscapes and idiosyncratic material cultures of
production, as well as international biodiversity and cosmopolitanism”
(Leitch 2003:453).
Slow Food promotes the idea of cultural diversity and at the same times
develops marketing strategies for encouraging consumers to buy local
endangered foods. Its strategy is not oppositional to the food industry
or food capital; it aims at educating consumer tastes, trusting that an
educated consumer will be able to recognize quality and will support it
with coherent market behavior. Individual behavioral change in response
to information brought to consumers will thus bring about change in the
whole food system.
As Slow Food sees it, the quality of a food product is first of all a narra-
tive that starts from its place of origin (Slow Food 2014). Enogastronomy
is transmuted into eco- gastronomy and the trajectory of the movement
is from consumption towards the world of production. The defense of
endangered food and biodiversity (through the Presidia) is systematically
integrated into the politics of pleasure (Fonte 2006).
According to Leitch (2003), Slow Food is neither explicitly anti-
capitalist nor anti- corporate; its mission is to promote a form of benign
globalization in which members of minority cultures, including niche- food
producers, are encouraged to network and thrive and in which industry
is brought into conformity with Slow Food strategy: “We need to make
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 281 06/02/2015 16:36
282 International political economy of agriculture and food
industry understand that artisan food production must be supported
and not boycotted. The quality of the latter has a positive return on the
former” (Sassatelli and Davolio 2010:221). The practical realization of this
strategy can be seen in Eataly, a chain of supermarkets developed with the
support of Slow Food (Venturini 2008), and now with an international dif-
fusion. In its department stores Eataly promotes the “endangered foods”
listed by the Slow Food Presidia. It seeks to show that the asymmetry of
power between the distribution firm and the small artisan farmers does not
have to be an obstacle to defending good food and biodiversity.
Indeed, Sassatelli and Davolio (2010) detect a dualism of visions
between the “centrally promoted endeavour to shift the varied and mul-
tiform set of SF [Slow Food] convivia on the Italian territory towards
a more explicitly ethical and political outlook” and the outlook of local
adherents to the movement who remain closer to traditional views of aes-
thetic appreciation and market orientation.
Centered on the Slow Food Presidia, the Slow Food certification
system is furthermore clearly private in nature. In the typology proposed
by Guthman (2007), Slow Food Presidia can be defined as promoters of
a place- based labeling system aimed at protecting traditional tastes and
traditional production methods through verification of the labor process.
The Slow Food voluntary labeling system, and above all the “narrative
labels” including additional information on the characteristics18 of the
food and how it is produced, provides a market- based mechanism for
extracting the added value from “integral product quality,” embedding the
qualities of products in the producers’ work and competences.
As in the case of Coldiretti, the labeling scheme goes hand in hand with
the creation of a very effective marketing mechanism. However, apart
from its reliance on the redistributive effects of cultural shifts taking place
on the consumer side, no mechanism is in place, to ensure that the value
extracted remains with producers.
THE POST- ORGANIC MOVEMENT AND THE CIVIC
FOOD NETWORK: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF
NEW ETHICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN PRODUCERS
AND CONSUMERS
The disappointment with the institutionalization and (according to many)
conventionalization of organic agriculture led to the emergence of several
grass- roots initiatives whose aim was to promote holistic sustainability in
the food economy. Although ideologically rooted in the left, on one side,
and in Catholic spirituality, on the other, these initiatives were novel. They
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 282 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 283
were part of the wave of initiatives that have given rise to the new social
movements, having rejected any links with traditional political parties or
the Catholic Church.
In the international literature, the new grass- roots initiatives were ini-
tially perceived as being “local food networks” because they laid a great
deal of emphasis on re- localizing the food economy. Following a sustained
critical debate (Hinrichs 2000 and 2003; Allen et al. 2003; Ilbery and
Maye 2005; Kirwan 2004; Allen and Guthman 2006; Kloppenburg and
Hassanein 2006; Holloway et al. 2007; Fonte and Papadopoulos 2010;
Goodman, DuPuis and Goodman 2012), the general feeling is now that
they might better be designated “civic food networks” (Renting, Schermer
and Rossi 2012; Furman et al. 2014). The core concern of “civic food
networks” is not so much the quality of the product (local, traditional,
typical, endangered, or simply good, food) as the social relations embod-
ied in the product, which should become an expression of food citizenship,
food democracy and food sovereignty. The main forms of “civic food
networks” that have emerged in Italy include farmers markets, urban
gardens, the so- called social (or welfare) agriculture, and GAS. Among
these, GAS certainly represent the most innovative experience.
Typically GAS are groups of households (between 30 and 80 in
number) that co- ordinate their purchases in order to buy food and other
goods on the basis of ethical principles, including solidarity. Food pro-
visioning is organized through voluntary “co- ordinators” and orders are
usually managed via the Internet. Building and maintaining personal
relationships between all members of the group is considered important
in most GAS. When a GAS grows too large, another group is often
organized; sometimes the new group is placed under the supervision of
the older one.
Since the first group was formed in Fidenza (Parma) in 1994, GAS have
multiplied rapidly. As of March 2014, almost 1,000 GAS had registered
with the national GAS network and 14 regional networks are currently
active (www.retegas.org). Although it is hard to gauge the economic
relevance of the GAS movement, data collected in an in- depth study of
the GAS network in Rome can provide some indications (Fonte 2013).
According to the budgets of 13 GAS in Rome, each member household
spends about 700 Euros yearly. If the same were to hold for all GAS
members in the Rome province, the total purchases in the province would
be estimated at roughly 8 million Euros in 2010. Clearly this is still a
“niche” in the food system.
GAS aim at establishing a new “economy of relations and places”
and at implementing a different mode of food provisioning (and goods
provisioning in general), through direct contact with producers. Their
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 283 06/02/2015 16:36
284 International political economy of agriculture and food
objectives include not only the promotion of environmentally friendly
agricultural practices but also the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in
food logistics, the revaluation of local and seasonal food, the revitalization
of the local food economy, the promotion of workers’ rights and their fair
compensation, the reconstruction of democracy in the food chain and the
promotion of food sovereignty for producers and consumers.
The GAS movement emerged from the World Social Forum and anti-
or alter- globalization movement milieu. Antecedents in Italy include the
Catholic “Budgets of Justice” movement (Bilanci di Giustizia),19 which
saw hundreds of families questioning the prevailing model of consump-
tion and re- orienting their expenditures towards more sustainable prod-
ucts, manufactured in an environment of justice. The variety of objectives
and organizational forms in Italian GAS to some extent reflects the co-
existence of different legacies: Centri Sociali, Fair Trade shops, Catholic
spirituality groups, the Scout movement, leftist parties.
Perhaps it is from this heterogeneity of origins that the GAS’s distinc-
tive character is derived: they are the most decentralized of the several
new alternative food networks to have emerged in Italy. They lack a
central organization, but co- ordinate their activities at a number of differ-
ent levels through a national network and several regional networks, the
connections between which are horizontal rather than vertical. GAS are
promoted by civil society, without any financial incentives from the State
or from private firms. Most GAS emphasize the active participation of
members as a contributing factor to democracy and political awareness.
The relationships between producers and consumers are crucial.
Information on producers is collected through personal contacts, local
investigations or exchange of information with other members of the
GAS network. GAS prefer to buy from local small- scale organic produc-
ers. Organic production is often certified, although this is not necessarily
required. Sourcing from local producers promotes ecologically sound
production and distribution methods. At the same time it serves the even
more fundamental objective of establishing direct, frequent contacts with
producers, in this way sustaining local economies, local products and
biodiversity. By establishing direct ties to producers (local farmers), each
group creates a network of “consumer- citizens” and “producer- citizens”
that co- produce not only food, but meanings and relations at each point
in the food chain. Agriculture and food take on a social and political value
that goes well beyond the production of commodities. Exchange relations
are re- embedded in social relationships that combine the co- production
of food with social values such as trust, respect for the environment and
solidarity (Di Iacovo, Fonte and Galasso 2014). In keeping with this
approach, standards and certification of food is not an important element
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 284 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 285
in the movement strategy and it is not the main mechanism for distributing
value in the food chain.
Solidarity is a key component of sustainability as articulated in the GAS
discourse. Solidarity is practiced among GAS members, but also between
GAS members, producers and agricultural workers. There are a number
of instances of GAS having helped producers overcome difficulties, for
example by committing themselves to advance purchases and in this way
facilitating credit access.
The solidarity between consumer- citizens and producer- citizens finds
economic expression in the notion of “just price.” The aim of GAS is not
to pay the minimum price, but rather a “just price” that can adequately
cover all production costs—including environmental costs and the costs of
paying fair wages to laborers. But prices must also be “just” for consum-
ers, because it is only if socially, environmental and ecologically sustain-
able products can become affordable to the majority that the transition to
a sustainable agro- food system will be achievable. In the vision projected
by GAS, access to sustainable food is the key concept for transition to a
more sustainable and just food system.20 Restrictions on access to sustain-
able food, whether for physical (as in the case of food shortages) or eco-
nomic reasons (organic food being too expensive) comprise very serious
obstacles to sustainability. The energies of GAS are therefore channeled
into constructing an alternative system of food provision and alternative
practices of food consumption with the potential to ensure both physical
and economic access to sustainable food (Fonte 2013).
A short food chain and a reconnection between producers and consum-
ers are both essential to this endeavor. A short food chain is not only an
organizational expedient serving economic purposes. It is also a means by
which self- sustainable local economies can be created and sustained and
the civic values of food democracy and food sovereignty affirmed.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We have presented and analyzed the strategies of what we think are the
most important actors in Italian alternative agriculture. As the wealth of
international literature on alternative food networks demonstrates, it is
difficult to define what “alternative” agriculture is. Alternative may be
intended to denote something different from the mainstream model for the
agro- food sector, based on specialization, concentration of production,
standardization and globalization. Sometimes “alternative” is applied to
single agricultural practices, such as no- till agriculture (Goulet 2013). We
have excluded this from our definition, taking into account only strategies
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 285 06/02/2015 16:36
286 International political economy of agriculture and food
and conceptions that, albeit with contradictions at times, entail transfor-
mation of the entire model for agro- food development, in accordance with
an agro- ecological approach and supporting the “integral product iden-
tity” paradigm (Levidow 2014).
Because of their peculiarly Mediterranean characteristics, Italian agri-
culture and the agro- food system have struggled to adapt to an industrial
development. The 1990s “turn to quality” fell on fertile ground precisely
because of the persistence of a differentiated, diversified system of produc-
tion and a rich diversity of food traditions. Furthermore, in the 1990s,
the radical transformation of the political, social and economic context
in Italy paved the way for the emergence of new social food movements,
on the one hand, and a remodeling of the strategies of older organizations
such as Coldiretti, on the other.
We see Coldiretti as a “borderline” organization situated halfway
between the “incumbent” and the “alternative” food regimes. A traditional
agricultural organization established after the World War II to represent
the interests of smallholders, Coldiretti reinvented its strategy after the
deep crisis that the political party system in Italy, and indeed Coldiretti’s
own organization, underwent in the 1990s. Its agro- food strategy now
centers on the demand for an “all- Italian Filière,” for a fight against agro-
piracy and for a labeling system that would certify the national origin of
all food ingredients. We see in this strategy a continuation of the ruralist
policy of the past, which failed to discriminate among contrasting interests
in the same agro- food sector (for example, big and small farms, or the big
retailing industry and direct selling). But the new Coldiretti food politics
also contains very innovative elements, which it has however delegated to
a separate foundation, Campagna Amica (Friendly Countryside). Support
is extended to a multifunctional model of agricultural development based
on direct selling and a new alliance between producers and consumers with
the capacity to ensure a fair income to producers and quality and transpar-
ency to consumers. There is unfortunately no emphasis at all, however, on
environmental sustainability in agricultural practices.
Slow Food could also be considered a “borderline” organization: its
innovative politics of pleasure with a view to valorizing a diversified agri-
culture and an agro- food culture and its reformulation of “gastronomy”
as an instrument for the defense of biocultural diversity—both these char-
acteristics qualify it for inclusion among the “alternative” movements.
But it also includes neoliberal features: it entrusts promotion of the new
model of a place- based agro- food system to a change in the behavior of
individual consumers and to the goodwill of the dominant actors, the mul-
tinational food corporations.
The contradictions of the organic movement, as an alternative
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 286 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 287
movement, are well known, and its conventionalization has been widely
acknowledged and debated. Its alternative character is historically
grounded in the vision of promoting sustainable agricultural practices
and thus respect for the natural resource base of agriculture in contrast
to the chemical agriculture of the era of modernization. It is also evident
in the valorization of local and traditional knowledge in contrast to the
dominant, public and private, extension service. It is still preeminent in
the fight to promote public, and hence more democratic—as opposed to
private—standards, at national and EU level, and it is still enmeshed in the
contradictions that characterize the movement, part of which is mobilized
in support of civic food networks and food sovereignty in Italy and inter-
nationally. The limits to “alterity” can be seen in the standardization of
practices codified in European regulations, and above all in the determina-
tion of the mass market and big retailing industry to promote the organic
food. The conventionalization of the organic movement is in a way an
index of its success, its institutionalization and the willingness of its less
radical elements (Smith 2006) to be co- opted, resulting in a re- orientation
of the mainstream model.
Unlike other alternative initiatives, the GAS in Italy do not focus on any
specific quality of a product (Italian, endangered, organic), or on new cul-
tural values of food or a new technique. They focus on the social relation-
ships around food. This is what qualifies them to be identified as part of
the civic food networks flourishing all over Europe. The GAS seek to build
a new “practice of food consumption,” involving a transformation of sub-
jectivities and agency, social- cultural values and norms and the material
system of provision. If the attention of each of the other alternative actors
mentioned here is primarily concentrated on one aspect of the overall
equation—Campagna Amica on the local origins of food, Slow Food on
the cultural value of food, the organic movement on the sustainability of
agricultural practice—the GAS movement acts upon the food system as a
whole, including all its numerous components. The GAS’s challenge to the
dominant regime is based on the establishment of a new practice in food
production and consumption, implying empowerment of consumers and
producers, transformation of the socio- cultural norms around food and
transformation of the functional structure of food production and distri-
bution. Producers and consumers are empowered through mutual recon-
nection and emancipation from the dominant regime. Transformation of
socio- cultural values entails, for example, redefining “good food” or “a
just price.” Transformation of food production and distribution implies
co- production of food and new values centered on sustainability and soli-
darity, a new division of labor and new competences.
The GAS movement might be seen as the latest dialectical response of
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 287 06/02/2015 16:36
288 International political economy of agriculture and food
the social movements to the conventionalization of other initiatives, in
particular the organic food movement. Actually, while it is arguable that,
in conformity with the multilevel transition theory, Campagna Amica,
Slow Food and the organic movement have become well- structured
institutionalized niches, the GAS movement is in its institutional infancy,
with a very low level of structuration. It may well be that, in its trajectory
towards a stronger structuration of the network, the less radical elements
(i.e., a short food chain) will be appropriated by the dominant system,
but it is notable that since its infancy it has prefigured a different organi-
zational model for the food system as a whole, based on horizontal sub-
sidiarity, solidarity between producers and consumers and co- production
of goods and values, that is quite incompatible with the dominant food
regime and the way it is organized.
NOTES
* We wish to thank Marta Romeo, Gabriella Zampieri e Francesca Alfano for providing
some bibliographic references and other materials on alternative agriculture in Italy.
We thank also Wayne Hall for doing the language editing. The work has been financed
by the University of Naples Federico II research funds.
1. Farms with more than 50 hectares were generally considered capitalist.
2. According to Eurostat, in 2010 Italy had 1,603,710 “agricultural holdings” of an
average size of about 7 hectares (in Sotte and Arzeni 2013). Of these holdings, according
to Istat statistics, only 64 percent sell goods on the market. Just to have some terms of
reference, the UK, with a population and a total area quite similar to that of Italy, has
186,800 “agricultural holdings”; for France (with a comparable population to that of
the UK and Italy, but about twice the total area) the figure is 516,000. To find compa-
rable data we must turn to the Mediterranean (Spain, Greece, Portugal) or some of the
Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania).
3. See the coalition “Liberi da OGM” (Free from GMO), at the website http://www.
liberidaogm.org/liberi/chisiamo.php. The enrolment of the distribution firms in the
alliance against GMOs food is something peculiar to Europe; nothing similar had hap-
pened in the United States.
4. The association between national production and safety is not unique to Italy; see, for
example, Nygård and Storstad (1998).
5. In the 14th revision of the register (June 2014) 4,813 products are listed (http://www.
politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/3276).
6. Federconsorzi is the National Federation of Consorzi Agrari, a second- degree co-
operative linking the Consorzi Agrari (Agrarian Consorzia). Founded in 1892 in
response to the agricultural crisis of the end of the 19th Century, it was conceived as
a collective buying group for fertilizers and agricultural machinery, but its functions
soon expanded to cover the collective marketing of agricultural produce and provi-
sion of extension services and technical assistance to farmers. In the Fascist period
Federconsorzi became the implementer of the regime’s stocking policy and the main
provider of agricultural credit. The range of activities performed by the Consorzi
Agrari remained vast throughout the post- World War II period.
7. See the website: http://www.edizionitellus.it/patto.html.
8. The certification of CA producers is delegated to CSQA, a private certification and
inspection company with specific expertise in the farm and food sector. It was the first
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 288 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 289
authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture for monitoring of products with Registered
Designation of Origin (Campagna Amica 2014b; CSQA 2014).
9. Under CA regulations, non- organic fresh produce sold in CA farmers’ markets must
be priced at least 30 percent lower than the local reference price. The local reference
price is the lowest of a number of contending prices: (a) the price charged by local
supermarkets, monitored at a minimum of three selling points and (b) the reference
price provided by the SMS Consumatori service, jointly operated by the Ministry of
Agriculture, ISMEA and several consumers’ associations. SMS Consumatori monitors
the daily average price (both wholesale and detail) for 84 agricultural products in three
macro- areas: in the North, the Centre and the South. At the time of writing the SMS
Consumatori service appears to have been suspended; we assume that the CA local
reference price is now based only on local supermarket prices.
10. This is, for example, the case with CA farmers’ markets in Trento province, in the
North- East, where special exemptions had explicitly to be made from the regional
origin rule for nomadic apiculture and for flours used in traditional baking and bread-
making, since the local production of traditional wheat varieties was not large enough
to cover the demand (Campagna Amica Trento 2013). Very similar rules apply at all
CA farmers’ markets, for which the official regulation is available online.
11. The “fairness” of margin distribution is mostly predicated on the reduction in the number
of intermediate steps between farmers and distributors, and on the fact that CA and FAI
aggregate large volumes and can therefore negotiate better terms for their associates.
12. The all- Italian product lines created with the involvement of CA are VOI—Valore
Origine Italiana— for the Iper network, and 100% Italia for Italian- produced pasta sold
in Coop supermarkets (Campagna Amica 2014a).
13. In the Marche region of central Italy, for example, farmers who refused to convert to
chemical agriculture decided in the 1980s to establish the Associazione Marchigiana per
l’Agricoltura Biologica (AMAB, Association for Organic Agriculture in the Marche).
The AMAB gradually spread all over Italy, and was eventually, in 1996, renamed the
Mediterranean Association for Organic Agriculture (AMAB 2013). Several organic and
biodynamic cooperatives emerged at around the same time in Veneto, in the North- East
of the country, founded by groups of agricultural producers, technicians and students.
14. “AAM Terra Nuova” was founded in Bologna in 1977. The association edits a journal
by the same name, dealing with themes related to organic food and agriculture.
15. See the website http://www.ecornaturasi.it/it/chi- siamo/storia.
16. The renewed attention of the Italian left towards culture in general and popular culture
in particular was symbolically expressed in the “Roman Summers” organized between
1976 and 1985 by Renato Nicolini, an architect and city council member in left- wing
administrations.
17. The self- managed Centri Sociali spread throughout Italy in the 1980s, in the wake of
the crisis of the political movements in the 1960s and 1970s. Young people occupied
abandoned buildings, often in the suburbs of big cities, and turned them into social
youth centers engaged in cultural, recreational and political activities.
18. See http://www.slowfoodfoundation.com/narrative- labels#.U- xzrVY760c.
19. The “Budgets of Justice” (Bilanci di Giustizia in Italian) were started in the North of
Italy from 1993 onwards, promoted by a number of groups and associations of Catholic
inspiration. The basic idea has been to change the structure of family consumption
in order to: (a) establish a fairer consumption model vis- à- vis the global South; (b)
improve the quality of life; and (c) orient consumption models towards energy- saving
and renewable resources (see http://www.bilancidigiustizia.it/chi- siamo/).
20. We can see here an original re- interpretation of Sen’s concept of “access to food” and
its importance for food security. In the vision of GAS, “access to sustainable food” is
considered important for transition to a sustainable and just food system, that is food
sovereignty (Crisci and Fonte 2014). This is in stark contrast to the vision of Slow Food,
according to which consumers should pay a higher price to support quality food and
endangered food.
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 289 06/02/2015 16:36
290 International political economy of agriculture and food
REFERENCES
Allen, Patricia, Margaret Fitzsimmons, Michael Goodman, Keith Warner. 2003. “Shifting
plates in the agrifood landscape: The tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in
California.” Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1): 61–75.
Allen, Patricia and Julie Guthman. 2006. “From ‘old school’ to ‘farm- to- school’:
Neoliberalization from the ground up.” Agriculture and Human Values 23 (4):
401–415.
AMAB. 2013. “Chi siamo.” Retrieved April 27, 2013 (www.amab.it/pagina.asp?Pag52).
Andrews, Geoff. 2008. The Slow Food Story. London: Pluto Press.
Ansell, Christopher K. and David Vogel. 2006. What’s the Beef? The Contested Governance
of European Food Safety. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barbera, Filippo and Stefano Audifreddi. 2012. “In pursuit of quality: The institutional
change of wine production market in Piedmont.” Sociologia Ruralis 52 (3): 311–331.
Barberis, Corrado. 1978. “Le tre realtà dell’agricoltura italiana.” Pp. 81–88 in Azienda
Contadina. Sviluppo Economico e Stratificazione Sociale, edited by Paola Bertolini and
Benedetto Meloni. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. For a Critique of the Economy of Signs. St. Louis, MO: Telos Press.
Beck, Ulrich, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash. 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics,
Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity.
Bolaffi, Guido and Adriano Varotti. 1978. “La struttura capitalistica dell’agricoltura itali-
ana e il problema dei contadini.” Pp. 137–168 in Azienda Contadina. Sviluppo Economico
e Stratificazione Sociale, edited by Paola Bertolini and Benedetto Meloni. Torino:
Rosenberg & Sellier.
Brasili, Cristina, Roberto Fanfani and Elisa Ricci Meccarini. 2001. “Un’analisi strutturale
ed economica delle industrie alimentari in Italia.” Pp. 27–55 in Il Settore Agroalimentare
Italiano e l’Integrazione Europea, edited by Roberto Fanfani, Elisa Montresor and
Francesco Pecci. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Brunori, Gianluca, Vanessa Malandrin and Adanella Rossi. 2013. “Trade- off or conver-
gence? The role of food security in the evolution of food discourse in Italy.” Journal of
Rural Studies 29: 19–29.
Busch, Lawrence and Arunas Juska. 1997. “Beyond political economy: Actor Networks
and the globalization of agriculture.” Review of International Political Economy 4 (4):
688–708.
CàVerde. 2014. “Chi siamo.” S. Ambrogio di Valpolicella (VR): Coop Agr A.R.L.
8 Marzo. Retrieved April 18, 2014 (http://caverde.com/index.php?route5information/
information&information_id54).
Calza Bini, Paolo. 1978. “Contadini proletari o basso ceto medio?” Pp. 189–204 in Azienda
Contadina. Sviluppo Economico e Stratificazione Sociale, edited by Paola Bertolini and
Benedetto Meloni. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Camera dei Deputati, XIII legislatura. 1997. “Indagine conoscitiva sulle biotecnologie.”
Retrieved July 25, 2014 (http://gnosis.aisi.gov.it/sito%5CRivista16.nsf/servnavig/10).
Campagna Amica. 2014a. “FAI.” Roma: Fondazione Campagna Amica. Retrieved August
16, 2014 (http://www.campagnamica.it/fai/Pagine/default.aspx).
Campagna Amica. 2014b. “FAQ: Cos’è la Rete Nazionale dei Punti Campagna Amica?”
Roma: Fondazione Campagna Amica. Retrieved August 13, 2014 (http://www.campag-
namica.it/pagineCA/Pagine/FAQ.aspx).
Campagna Amica Trento. 2013. “Campagna Amica Mercato Contadino, circuito per la
valorizzazione dei prodotti agricoli, Disciplinare Rev. 0.4.2 aggiornato al 30 gennaio
2013.” Retrieved July 13, 2014 (http://www.comune.ala.trento.it/attivitaEconomiche/
commercio%20su%20aree%20pubbliche/mercato_contadino/disciplinare%20campagna%
20amica.pdf).
Coldiretti. 2011. “Statuto Confederazione Nazionale Coldiretti—Approvato dall’Assemblea
della Confederazione il 15 febbraio 2011.” Roma: Coldiretti. Retrieved July 13, 2014
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 290 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 291
(http://www.coldiretti.it/organismi/coldiretti/STATUTO%20CONFEDERAZIONE%20
approvato%20Assemblea%2015_02_11.pdf).
Coldiretti. 2014. “Chi siamo.” Roma: Coldiretti. Retrieved July 13, 2014 (http://www.col-
diretti.it/chisiamo/Pagine/default.aspx).
Cosentino, Vincenzo and Michele DeBenedictis. 1978. “Forme di conduzione ed equi-
librio dell’impresa agraria.” Pp. 241–270 in Azienda Contadina. Sviluppo Economico
e Stratificazione Sociale, edited by Paola Bertolini and Benedetto Meloni. Torino:
Rosenberg & Sellier.
Crisci, Giacomo and Maria Fonte. 2014. “L’accesso al bio nella transizione verso la sosteni-
bilità dei sistemi agro- alimentari.” Agriregionieuropa 10 (37). Retrieved August 26, 2014
(http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/en/node/8863).
Crivits, Maarten and Erik Paredis. 2013. “Designing an explanatory practice framework:
Local food systems as a case.” Journal of Consumer Culture 13 (3): 306–336.
CSQA. 2014. “About CSQA.” Roma: CSQA. Retrieved August 13, 2014 (http://www.csqa.
it/CSQA/Overview/Profilo).
Di Iacovo, F., Maria Fonte and A. Galasso. 2014. “Agricoltura civica e filiera corta, Nuove
pratiche, forme di impresa e relazioni tra produttori e consumatori.” Working Paper No.
22, Gruppo 2013. Retrieved July 30, 2014 (http://www.gruppo2013.it/working- paper/
Documents/WORKING%20PAPER%2022_luglio%202014.pdf).
Eder, Klaus. 1993. The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in
Advanced Societies. London: Sage Publication.
Fabiani, Guido. 1978. “Aspetti strutturali e di tendenza nell’agricoltura italiana (1960–
1970).” Pp. 109–136 in Azienda Contadina. Sviluppo Economico e Stratificazione Sociale,
edited by Paola Bertolini and Benedetto Meloni. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Fabiani, Guido. 1986. L’Agricoltura Italiana tra Sviluppo e Crisi (1945–1995). Bologna: Il
Mulino.
Fanfani, Roberto. 2004. “Introduzione.” Pp. 5–22 in Manlio Rossi- Doria, Rapporto sulla
Federconsorzi. Napoli: L’Ancora del Mediterraneo.
Fonte, Maria. 2002. “Food systems, consumption models and risk perception in the late
modernity.” International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food 10 (1): 13–21.
Fonte, Maria. 2004. Organismi Geneticamente Modificati, Monopolio e Diritti. Milano:
Franco Angeli.
Fonte, Maria. 2006. “Slow Food’s Presidia: What do small producers do with big retail-
ers?” Pp. 203–240 in Between the Local and the Global: Confronting Complexity in the
Contemporary Agri- food Sector, vol. 12, edited by Terry Marsden and Jonathan Murdoch.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Fonte, Maria. 2013. “Food consumption as social practice: Solidarity Purchasing Groups in
Rome, Italy.” Journal of Rural Studies 32: 230–239.
Fonte, Maria and Apostolos G. Papadopoulos (eds.). 2010. Naming Food after Places: Food
Relocalisation and Knowledge Dynamics in Rural Development. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Fonte, Maria and Cristina Salvioni. 2013. “Cittadinanza ecologica e consumo sostenibile: dal
Biologico ai gruppi di Acquisto Solidale.” Pp. 81–103 in Cibo Locale. Percorsi Innovativi
nelle Pratiche di Produzione e Consumo Alimentare, edited by Alessandra Corrado and
Silvia Sivini. Napoli: Liguori.
Friedman, Harriet. 2009. “Discussion: Moving food regimes forward: Reflections on sympo-
sium essays.” Agriculture and Human Values 26 (4): 335–344.
Friedman, Harriet and Philip McMichael. 1989. “Agriculture and the state system: The rise
and demise of national agricultures, 1870 to present.” Sociologia Ruralis 19 (2): 93–117.
Fuenfschilling, Lea and Bernhard Truffer. 2014. “The structuration of socio- technical
regimes: Conceptual foundations from institutional theory.” Research Policy 43:
772–791.
Furman, Carrie, Carla Roncoli, Donald R. Nelson and Gerrit Hoogenboom. 2014.
“Growing food, growing a movement: Climate adaptation and civic agriculture in the
Southerneastern United States.” Agriculture and Human Values 31 (1): 69–82.
Geels, Frank W. 2004. “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio- technical systems:
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 291 06/02/2015 16:36
292 International political economy of agriculture and food
Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory.” Research
Policy 33: 897–920.
Geels, Frank W. 2010. “Ontologies, socio- technical transitions (to sustainability), and the
multi- level perspective.” Research Policy 39: 495–510.
Geels, Frank W. and Johan Schot. 2007. “Typology of socio- technical transition pathways.”
Research Policy 36: 399–417.
Geels, Frank W. and Johan Schot. 2010. “The dynamics of transitions: A socio- technical
perspective.” Pp. 9–101 in Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the
Study of Long Term Transformative Change, edited by John Grin, Jan Rotmans and Johan
Schot. New York: Routledge.
Goodman, David. 2003. “The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: Reflexion and
agenda.” Journal of Rural Studies 19: 1–7.
Goodman, David, E. Melanie DuPuis and Michael K. Goodman. 2012. Alternative Food
Networks: Knowledge, Practice and Politics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Gorgoni, Marcello. 1978. “Sviluppo economico, progresso tecnologico e dualismo
nell’agricoltura italiana.” Pp. 205–240 in Azienda Contadina. Sviluppo Economico
e Stratificazione Sociale, edited by Paola Bertolini and Benedetto Meloni. Torino:
Rosenberg & Sellier.
Goulet, Frédéric. 2013. “Narratives of experience and production of knowledge within
farmers’ groups.” Journal of Rural Studies 32: 439–447.
Guthman, Julie. 2007. “The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal govern-
ance.” Antipode 39 (3): 456–478.
Hinrichs, C. Clare. 2000. “Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of
direct agricultural market.” Journal of Rural Studies 16: 295–303.
Hinrichs, C. Clare. 2003. “The practice and politics of food system localization.” Journal of
Rural Studies 19 (1): 33–45.
Hinrichs, C. Clare. 2014. “Transitions to sustainability: A change in thinking about food
systems change?” Agriculture and Human Values 31 (1): 143–155.
Hinrichs, C. Clare and Thomas A. Lyson (eds.). 2008. Remaking the North American
Food System: Strategies for Sustainability. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska
Press.
Holloway, Lewis, Moya Kneafsey, Laura Venn, Rosie Cox, Elizabeth Dowler and Helena
Tuomainen. 2007. “Possible food economies: A methodological framework for exploring
food production–consumption relationships.” Sociologia Ruralis 47 (1): 1–19.
Ilbery, Brian and Damian Maye. 2005. “Alternative (short) food supply chains and special-
ist livestock products in the Scottish–English borders.” Environment and Planning A 37:
823–844.
Jaillette, Jean- Claude. 2001. Il Cibo Impazzito. Il Caso Europeo della Contraffazione
Alimentare. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Kirwan, James. 2004. “Alternative strategies in the UK agro- food system: Interrogating the
alterity of farmers’ markets.” Sociologia Ruralis 44 (4): 395–415.
Kloppenburg, Jack, Jr. and Neva Hassanein. 2006. “From old school to reform school?”
Agriculture and Human Values 23 (4): 417–421.
LaPrimavera Coop. 2014. “Una storia lunga vent’anni.” Campagnola di Zevio (VR):
Cooperativa Agricola La Primavera Scarl. Retrieved July 13, 2014 (http://www.cooperati-
valaprimavera.it/pdf/Libretto%20forapan.pdf).
Lash, Scott M. and John Urry. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Leitch, Alison. (2003). “Slow Food and the politics of pork fat: Italian food and European
identity.” Ethnos 68 (4): 437–462.
Leitch, Alison. 2005. “Why food matters: New perspectives on the politics of food.” Paper
presented at TASA Conference, University of Tasmania, 6–8 December.
Levidow, Les. 2014. “Contending agro- food transition in Europe: Prospect for agro-
ecological transformation.” Paper presented at the seminar La grande transformation de
l’agriculture, 20 ans après. Montpellier, 16–17 June.
Majone, Giandomenico (ed.). 1996. Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 292 06/02/2015 16:36
The political economy of alternative agriculture in Italy 293
Marsden, Terry K., Andrew Flynn and Michelle Harrison. 2000. Consuming Interests: The
Social Provision of Foods. London: Ucc Press.
Miele, Mara. 2001. “Creating sustainability: The social construction of market for organic
products.” PhD dissertation, Circle for Rural European Studies, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Miller, Daniel. 1995. Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies. London:
Routledge.
Miller, Daniel. 1997. Capitalism: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg.
Miller, Daniel. 2012. Consumption and Its Consequences. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mottura, Giovanni. 1987. Il Conflitto Senza Avventure. Quarant’Anni di Strategia Ruralista
nelle Campagne Italiane (1944–1987). Università degli Studi di Modena. Studi e Ricerche
del Dipartimento di Economia Politica 47.
Mottura, Giovanni and Enrico Pugliese. 1975. Agricoltura, Mezzogiorno e Mercato del
Lavoro. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Murray, Douglas L. and Laura T. Raynolds. 2007. “Globalization and its antinomies:
Negotiating a Fair Trade movement.” Pp. 3–14 in Fair Trade: The Challenge of
Transforming Globalization, edited by Laura T. Raynolds, Douglas L. Murray and John
Wilkinson. Oxford: Routledge.
Nygård, Berit and Oddveig Storstad. 1998. “De- globalization of food markets? Consumer
perceptions of safe food: The case of Norway.” Sociologia Ruralis 38 (1): 35–53.
Occhetta, Francesco and Nunzio Primavera. 2010. Paolo Bonomi e il Riscatto delle
Campagne. Gorle, BG: Edizioni Velar.
Ortiz- Miranda, Dionisio, Ana Moragues- Faus and Eladio Arnalte- Alegre (eds.). 2013.
Agriculture in Mediterranean Europe between Old and New Paradigms. Research in Rural
Sociology and Development 19. Bingley, UK: Elsevier—Emerald Group Publishing.
Petrini, Carlo and Gigi Padovani. 2005. Slow Food Revolution. Milano: Rizzoli.
Pugliese, Enrico and Massimo Rossi. 1978. “Dualismo strutturale in agricoltura e
mercatodel lavoro.” Pp. 169–288 in Azienda Contadina. Sviluppo Economico e
Stratificazione Sociale, edited by Paola Bertolini and Benedetto Meloni. Torino:
Rosenberg & Sellier.
Ray, Christopher. 1998. “Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development.”
Sociologia Ruralis 39 (1): 3–20.
Raynolds, Laura T. and John Wilkinson. 2007. “Fair Trade in agriculture and the food
sector: Analytical dimensions.” Pp. 33–47 in Fair Trade: The Challenge of Transforming
Globalization, edited by Laura T. Raynolds, Douglas L. Murray and John Wilkinson.
Oxford: Routledge.
Reckwitz, Andreas. 2002. “Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist
theorizing.” European Journal of Social Theory 5: 243–263.
Renting, Henk, Marcus Schermer and Adanella Rossi. 2012. “Building food democ-
racy: Exploring civic food networks and newly emerging forms of food citizenship.”
International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 9 (3): 289–307.
Rete Rurale Nazionale. 2013. “Bioreport 2013. L’agricoltura biologica in Italia.” Roma.
Retrieved July 25, 2014 (http://www.sinab.it/sites/default/files/share/BIOREPORT_2013_
WEB%5B1%5D.pdf).
Ritzer, George and Nathan Jurgenson. 2010. “Production, consumption, prosumption: The
nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer.’” Journal of Consumer Culture 10:
13–36.
Rota, Gian Arturo and Nichi Stefi. 2012. Luigi Veronelli. La Vita è Troppo Breve per Bere
Vini Cattivi. Milano and Bra: GiuntiEditore/Slow Food Editore.
Salvioni, Cristina. 1999. “L’impatto del reg. 2078/92 sulla diffusione del biologico: il caso
dell’Abruzzo.” In L’Agricoltura Biologica tra PAC e Mercato, edited by F.M. Cantucci.
Quaderno dell’Istituto di Economia e Politica Agraria di Perugia n. 25.
Santucci, Fabio Maria. 2009. “I circuiti commerciali dei prodotti biologici.” Agriregioneeuropa
5 (17).
Sassatelli, Roberta and Federica Davolio. 2010. “Consumption, pleasure and politics: Slow
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 293 06/02/2015 16:36
294 International political economy of agriculture and food
Food and the politico- aesthetic problematization of food.” Journal of Consumer Culture
10: 202–232.
Sereni, Emilio. [1947] 1971. Il Capitalismo nelle Campagne (1860–1900). Torino: Einaudi.
Shove, Elizabeth, Mika Pantzar and Matt Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice:
Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: Sage.
Slow Food. 2014. “The Slow Food approach to food labeling.” Bra, Cuneo: Slow Food
International. Retrieved July 25, 2014 (http://www.slowfood.com/sloweurope/fileman-
ager/position_docs/INGLetichetta.pdf).
Smith, Adrian. 2006. “Green niches in sustainable development: The case of organic food in
the United Kingdom.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24: 439–458.
Sotte, Franco. 2006. “Quante sono le imprese agricole in Italia?” Agriregionieuropa 2 (5).
Sotte, Franco and Andrea Arzeni. 2013. “Imprese e non- imprese nell’agricoltura italiana.”
Agriregionieuropa 9 (32).
Terra e Libertà/Critical Wine (2004). Sensibilità Planetaria, Agricoltura Contadina e
Rivoluzione dei Consumi. Roma: Derive Approdi.
van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe. 2008. The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and
Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan.
Venturini, Tommaso. 2008. “Our daily bread: Eataly and the reinvention of supermar-
ket.” Paper presented at the First International Conference on Economic De- growth for
Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity, Paris, April 16–19.
Veronelli, Luigi. 1964. Alla Ricerca dei Cibi Perduti. Guida di Gusto e di Lettere all’Arte del
Saper Mangiare. Roma: Derive Approdi.
Veronelli, Luigi and Pablo Echaurren. 2005. Bianco Rosso e Veronelli. Manuale per
Enodissidenti e Gastroribelli. Viterbo: Stampa Alternativa.
Viviano, Eliana (ed.). 2012. “La grande distribuzione organizzata e l’industria alimentare in
Italia.” Banca d’Italia, Questioni di Economia e Finanza, Occasional Papers 119.
Walter, Lynn. 2009. “Slow Food and home cooking: Toward a relational aesthetic of
food and relational ethic of home.” Provisions: The Journal of the Center for Food in
Community and Culture (1). Retrieved July 13, 2014 (http://www.uwgb.edu/cfcc/files/pdf/
SlowFood&HomeCooking.pdf).
BONANNO 9781782548256 PRINT (M3640) (G).indd 294 06/02/2015 16:36
