Wege zur Ernährungsdemokratie. Rückblick auf den 2. Vernetzungskongress der Ernährungsräte in Frankfurt.

Article for general public (2019)

Face à la mondialisation et l’intégration verticale des maillons de la chaîne alimentaire aux mains des géants multinationaux de l’industrie agroalimentaire, des initiatives alternatives se développent ... [more ▼]

Face à la mondialisation et l’intégration verticale des maillons de la chaîne alimentaire aux mains des géants multinationaux de l’industrie agroalimentaire, des initiatives alternatives se développent pour relocaliser et transformer la gouvernance de nos systèmes alimentaires. Au cœur de ce mouvement, on retrouve l’émergence de Conseils de Politique Alimentaire (en anglais : Food Policy Council). Il s’agit d’organes et de plateformes multi-acteurs qui ont pour objectif d’identifier et de proposer des solutions innovantes et transdisciplinaires en vue d’améliorer les systèmes alimentaires à l’échelle territoriale, en s’assurant qu’ils soient plus durables du point de vue environnemental et plus justes du point de vue social. Le Conseil alimentaire intègre des représentants des différents secteurs tout au long de la chaîne alimentaire (production, transformation, distribution, consommation et recyclage), mais également des acteurs de la gouvernance du système alimentaire (politique, administration, éducation, société civile, recherche). En Allemagne, ces initiatives foisonnent depuis que le premier Cpnseil de politique alimentaire ait été créé en 2016 à Cologne. Le 2ème congrès des initiatives germanophones, à Frankfort fin novembre 2018, a permis une meilleure compréhension de cet instrument participatif de promotion de la souveraineté alimentaire et du droit à l’alimentation et à la nutrition. Si vous voulez en savoir plus, merci de nous contacter : norry@cell.lu et rachel.reckinger@uni.lu [less ▲]

Social Change for Sustainable Localized Food Sovereignty. Convergence between Prosumers and Ethical Entrepreneurs.

in Sociologia del Lavoro (2018), 152(4), 174-192

Some resourceful community-driven initiatives for local food production and retail have recently appeared in Luxembourg, where low organic agricultural rates are paradoxically paired with high consumer ... [more ▼]

Some resourceful community-driven initiatives for local food production and retail have recently appeared in Luxembourg, where low organic agricultural rates are paradoxically paired with high consumer demands. This niche of social innovators combines agroecology with circular economy practices. Four cases of alternative food networks are presented here – studied with qualitative interviews and participant observation. One was established in the 1980s and has about 200 employees, partly linked to social assistance. The more recent and smaller initiatives are characterised by cooperative governance, a community-supported agricultural outlook, hands-on workshops and time banks, all enabled by social media. These initiatives are more radical in their agro-ecological or permaculture practices, focusing on regenerative land use without relying on imports and fostering the integration of consumers with varying degrees of prosumer involvement. This politicised step goes further than mere (and possibly industrialised) organic production. It represents a cultural shift in the food system by attracting media and policy interest, diverting attention away from individuals and focusing instead on the collective efforts that are necessary to build a more resilient food system. [less ▲]

Alternative Food Networks in Luxembourg

Speeches/Talks (2018)

Dr. Rachel Reckinger is a food sociologist and anthropologist at the University of Luxembourg. She is the principal investigator of Sustainable Food Practices, spanning Luxembourg’s foodscape from ... [more ▼]

Dr. Rachel Reckinger is a food sociologist and anthropologist at the University of Luxembourg. She is the principal investigator of Sustainable Food Practices, spanning Luxembourg’s foodscape from production, governance, distribution to consumption. Her research focuses on policy gaps and changes of everyday practices within the transition towards a more circular economy (https://food.uni.lu). During this lunch debate, she will critically discuss a few emerging alternative food networks in Luxembourg: currently still a heterodox minority, they contribute to a cultural shift with the creation of resourcefulness for biodiversity, environmental and social justice. [less ▲]

Foodscapes in Transition: Policies and Politics Advancing Sustainable Development and Social Justice

Scientific Conference (2018, June 07)

In this session, we would like to discuss the impact, risks and motivations of producers and consumers altering foodscapes. Of particular interest are enabling types of governance that improve ecological ... [more ▼]

In this session, we would like to discuss the impact, risks and motivations of producers and consumers altering foodscapes. Of particular interest are enabling types of governance that improve ecological balance and social justice in policies of governmental regulation and institutions but also in the politics of for example alternative food movements. The main impact that heterodox actors can have seems to be, on one hand, the creation of resourcefulness from innovative niches, not designed to be upscaled but spread by ubiquitous networking and, on the other hand, the exemplification of heterodox economic practices that reduce the current deskilling of producers and consumers and the depletion of natural resources. The risk associated with heterodox initiatives is, besides basic economic viability, territorial competition over land and resources, as well as – more insidiously – the potential of co-option by neoliberal corporate agendas. The motivations of actors involved in such social movements, albeit diverse, tend to stem from a stance of care and ethical (self)government, often using community self-organisation-tools. Such an analysis of food value chain practices focuses on negotiations and struggles among actors in a multifaceted foodscape, where some block and some enhance transitions. Viewing the relationships, interconnectedness and agency of niche innovations and regime hegemonies opens up the perspective of contested knowledge claims. Additionally, the ways in which actors in the regulatory field advance transitions by policy measures and initiatives need to be considered, and in particular the processes of politicization as interdependencies between movement actors and the public sphere. Yet, the daily practices stay embedded in social, cultural and economic constraints and in routines, which are built on tacit knowledge, collective learning and engrained practices; even though repetitive, they can account for both reproduction and innovation. Which types of governance at all levels have shown themselves to be effective in supporting and empowering such bottom-up changes in “knowing and growing food in a contested arena” (Goodman, DuPuis, Goodman, 2014)? [less ▲]

Bei Innovationen geht es nicht um Wachstum oder Upscaling, sondern um Ubiquität und Exemplarität

Article for general public (2017)

Die Bedeutung des Tieres in Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Podiumsdiskussion mit Sarah Wiener, Fernand Etgen, Martin von Mackensen, Camille Müller und Rachel Reckinger)

Speeches/Talks (2017)

Diet and Public Health Campaigns: Implementation and Appropriation of Nutritional Recommendations in France and Luxembourg

Scientific Conference (2017, August 30)

Based on two surveys – a French and a Luxembourgish one – with in-depth-interviews, this paper examines the implementation of nutritional recommendations in two European countries. Each of them has ... [more ▼]

Based on two surveys – a French and a Luxembourgish one – with in-depth-interviews, this paper examines the implementation of nutritional recommendations in two European countries. Each of them has promoted at governmental level a public health campaign regarding food consumption and daily diet. In which way – and by which social categories – are the recommendations taken in and put into practice, and if so, which appropriation processes and interpretations occur? Do the social, societal and cultural differences between Luxembourg and France, in terms of standard of living and dissemination of norms account for differentiated appropriations of dietary incentives? We will first compare the overarching goals as well as the dietary norms these two programs promote, in terms of similarities versus particularities both of the recommendations’ content and of the way they are communicated. We will then examine the perception of these norms. The comparison France / Luxembourg shows that socio-cultural logics override national ones: the way in which individuals perceive the recommendations and appropriate them reflect more the social affiliation than the national one; gender and the events of the life cycle, particularly parentality, are also relevant to the reception of dietary recommendations. Transversal to all social milieus and in both national contexts, interviewees operate a selective internalisation of the perceived recommendations in a proactive yet pragmatic posture of personal responsibility. Ultimately, public dietary recommendations are only appropriated if they match people’s daily priorities and constraints, as well as the general cultural values of their social milieu. This allows us to conclude to transnational, transversal, plural and distinctive everyday-cultural models of food consumption and differing notions of a “proper” diet. [less ▲]

Do Public Health Campaigns Have an Impact on Diet? Institutional Set-Up and Everyday Appropriations of Nutritional Recommendations in France and Luxembourg

Scientific Conference (2017, June 22)

Since the early 2000s nutrition has increasingly established itself in various European countries as a major element of public health policies. The launching at governmental level of the Programme ... [more ▼]

Since the early 2000s nutrition has increasingly established itself in various European countries as a major element of public health policies. The launching at governmental level of the Programme National Nutrition Santé in France in 2001, and of the National Action Plan “Gesond iessen, méi bewegen” in Luxembourg in 2006 has generated a number of public health campaigns and the dissemination of a series of nutritional recommendations. However, while these policies were developed concomitantly in numerous European countries, the work on their institutional implementation, but also the appropriation of nutritional recommendations by individuals, has rarely been put in European comparison, even less so in the field of social sciences and sociology. Based on a mixed-methodology combining an institutional analysis of how national models and on two field surveys with in-depth interviews, this contribution will examine the political implementation and societal appropriation of nutritional recommendations in two European countries, France and Luxembourg. Based on this comparison, the paper explores the following research question: in which way – and by which social categories – are the recommendations taken in and put into practice, and if so, which appropriation processes and interpretations occur? Do the social, societal and cultural differences between Luxembourg and France (as well as within them), in terms of standard of living, cultural values and dissemination of norms, account for differentiated appropriations of dietary incentives? Which socio-cultural factors and everyday constraints favour a frontal internalisation of dietary recommendations, as opposed to a more creative appropriation or even a critical avoidance? By means of the recommendations issued in the framework of public health, we pose the more general question of how and why dietary norms are perceived and integrated by individuals. This contribution will highlight that, in France as in Luxembourg, these two nutritional policies show striking similarities in term of contents, but marked differences in their structuring and their implementation. The dissemination of recommendations is based on policies, which are received, understood and appropriated in different ways. The comparison France / Luxembourg shows that socio-cultural logics override national ones: the way in which the individuals perceive the recommendations and appropriate them reflect more the social affiliation than the national one; gender and the events of the life cycle, particularly parentality, are also relevant. The recommendations disseminated by France's PNNS and Luxembourg's GIMB primarily reach people whose dietary habits are already orientated in the ‘desired’ direction. But even those persons sort out between the information that strikes them as being more or less pertinent – they only ever appropriate a selection of the recommendations. Ultimately, it is on the basis of their priorities and personal constraints, on the one hand, as well as of the agreement between the political recommendations with the previous societal practices and values on the other, that credit is given to this or that message. In the same way, the recommendations are only appropriated (albeit, again, in a selective and pragmatic way) if they match people’s daily priorities and constraints, as well as the general cultural values of their social milieu. No matter how much cognitive effort is put into nutritional composition in everyday experience, interviewees compensate it by a personal focus on the hedonistic communicative value and community formation through eating – which always comes first in their mind. Finally, the comparison of two European countries’ political institutionalisation on the one hand, and the appropriation and the putting into practice of nutritional recommendations on the other, allows us to comprehend more general societal evolutions: namely, a globalisation of national policies and of food cultures and a differentiation of social contrasts, cutting across national frontiers – but which take on specific forms depending on the standard of living and the social structure of the societies under review. The findings revealed by this comparison between France and Luxembourg can without doubt be further extended and point to the challenges that all European societies face in the future in a context of mounting health inequalities. [less ▲]

Von den Food Studies zur Food Literacy. Eine engagierte Reise durch die kulturanthopologische Erforschung der gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhänge des Essens

Presentation (2017, May 17)

Diet and Public Health Campaigns: Implementation and Appropriation of Nutritional Recommendations in France and Luxembourg

in Appetite (2017), 112

Based on two surveys e a French and a Luxembourgish one e with in-depth-interviews, this article examines the implementation of nutritional recommendations in two European countries. Each of them has ... [more ▼]

Based on two surveys e a French and a Luxembourgish one e with in-depth-interviews, this article examines the implementation of nutritional recommendations in two European countries. Each of them has promoted at governmental level a public health campaign regarding food consumption and daily diet. In which way e and by which social categories e are the recommendations taken in and put into practice, and if so, which appropriation processes and interpretations occur? Do the social, societal and cultural differences between Luxembourg and France (as well as within them), in terms of standard of living and dissemination of norms account for differentiated appropriations of dietary incentives? We will first compare the overarching goals as well as the dietary norms these two programs promote, in terms of similarities versus particularities both of the recommendations' content and of the way they are communicated. We will then examine the perception of these norms. The comparison France / Luxembourg shows that socio-cultural logics override national ones: the way in which individuals perceive the recommendations and appropriate them reflect more the social affiliation than the national one; gender and the events of the life cycle, particularly parentality, are also relevant to the reception of dietary recommendations. Transversal to all social milieus and in both national contexts, interviewees operate a selective internalisation of the perceived recommendations in a proactive yet pragmatic posture of personal responsibility. Ultimately, public dietary recommendations are only appropriated if they match people's daily priorities and constraints, as well as the general cultural values of their social milieu. This allows us to conclude to transnational, transversal, plural and distinctive everyday-cultural models of food consumption and differing notions of a “proper” diet. [less ▲]