54  international journal of sociology

International Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, no. 1, Spring 2014, pp. 54–74.
© 2014 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 0020–7659 (print)/ISSN 1557–9336 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/IJS0020-7659440104

Ryan Gunderson and Diana Stuart

Industrial Animal Agribusiness and

Environmental Sociological Theory
Applications and Areas for Development

Abstract: Studying the consequences of industrial animal agribusiness provides

an ideal entry point for environmental sociologists to begin incorporating animals
into their analyses. To explore the contributions that environmental sociology can
make toward understanding the effects of industrial animal agribusiness, we (1)
review selected applicable environmental sociological perspectives, and (2) examine
how they have been applied and/or could be applied to understand and interpret
the changes in, consequences of, and possible alternatives to industrial animal
agribusiness. Our primary purpose is to demonstrate how the interconnected cat-
egorizations and propositions of environmental sociological theories can help us
better conceptualize, describe, and explain the environmental, public-health, and
animal-welfare consequences of industrial animal agribusiness.
Keywords: agribusiness, environmental sociology
While the industrialization of agriculture has dramatically increased food pro-
duction, it has simultaneously raised serious environmental, public-health, and
animal-welfare concerns. Transformations in animal agriculture in particular have
led to immense greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and depletion, increased
intensive land use, and significant biodiversity loss (e.g., Food and Agricultural Or-
ganization of the United Nations [FAO], 2006). Despite these environmental effects,
only a limited number of studies apply environmental sociological perspectives to

Ryan Gunderson is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at Michigan State

University. Diana Stuart is an assistant professor of sociology at Michigan State University.
The authors thank Linda Kalof, Thomas Dietz, and Kyle Whyte for helpful comments on
and criticisms of an earlier draft of this article, as well as two anonymous reviewers. Address
correspondence to Ryan Gunderson, Michigan State University, Department of Sociology,
316 Berkey Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824; e-mail: rgunder@msu.edu.

54
 spring 2014  55

examine these consequences. In this article, we explore how environmental socio-

logical theory can be, and has been, applied to better understand the consequences
of industrial animal agribusiness and how to address persistent environmental,
public-health, and animal-welfare issues.
The structure of animal agriculture has changed significantly since the 1950s
through the interrelated processes of industrialization and mechanization, the
consolidation of industries, the concentration of animals into feedlots, and the
intensification of both the cropland used for farm animal feed and the production
of farm animals themselves. We refer to the totality of these changes and processes
as “industrial animal agribusiness” throughout this article. The creation and spread
of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are perhaps the most notori-
ous outcome of animal agriculture’s various structural transformations. Popularly
referred to as “factory farming” or “industrial animal agriculture,” CAFOs are used
in “a production process that features confined feeding of large herds or flocks”
(MacDonald and McBride 2009: 4). The proliferation of factory farming started in
the egg and broiler industries, followed by swine, beef, and dairy industries (Mar-
cus 2005). Although most meat, eggs, and dairy now come from large production
operations, millions of small livestock operations still persist throughout the United
States. These operations are often locked into contractual agreements with large
corporations. As consolidation continues, small producers account for a smaller
and smaller proportion of total production output (MacDonald and McBride 2009;
Mason and Finelli 2007). Today, the majority of animal-derived commodities in the
United States are produced in large-scale, mechanized, and specialized operations.
We focus mostly on the United States, where animal agriculture is notoriously
industrialized, but applications also extend to Europe and other regions where
industrialized animal agribusiness continues to emerge and expand.
A number of significant environmental effects have followed these structural
transformations. To date, the most systematic and comprehensive report of the
environmental consequences of industrial animal agribusiness is the FAO’s
Livestock’s Long Shadow (2006). At a global, biospheric level, the statistics are
alarming: global animal agriculture is estimated to emit 18 percent of total anthro-
pogenic greenhouse gasses (FAO 2006: 112) and is the leading source of nitrogen
(Vitousek et al. 1997) and phosphorus pollution in the United States (FAO 2006:
156; Hooda et al. 2000). The feed demands of intensive livestock operations also
increase intensive cropland production, thereby escalating land and soil degradation
(FAO 2006: 25-48). Furthermore, large-scale livestock operations result in large
quantities of concentrated excrement, with enormous costs to the environment and
public and animal health. Animal living conditions in these operations, a result of
economically efficient production decisions, continue to impair environmental
quality, animal welfare, and food safety.
During the time that industrial transformations in animal agriculture were taking
place, environmental sociology emerged as a formal subfield of sociology, follow-
ing growing concerns surrounding environmental degradation, international and
56  international journal of sociology

governmental attention to environmental problems, and public support for envi-

ronmentalism (Dunlap and Rosa 2000). Catton and Dunlap (1978: 44) called for
environmental sociology to study “the study of interaction between the environment
and society,” a shift that would require a New Ecological Paradigm (Catton and
Dunlap 1980). Since Riley Dunlap and William Catton’s work, many theoretical
frameworks have been developed to better understand societal-environmental inter-
actions (for good overviews, see Barbosa 2009; Buttel and Humphrey 2002; Buttel
et al. 2002). These frameworks include treadmill of production (e.g., Schnaiberg
1980), the metabolic rift (e.g., Foster 1999), the second contradiction of capitalism
(e.g., O’Connor 1998), ecological modernization (e.g., Mol 2001), and reflexive
modernization (e.g., Beck 1995). Each of these frameworks (reviewed later in
this article) has uniquely contributed to a deeper understanding of relationships
between society and the environment and has furthered the intellectual develop-
ment of environmental sociology.
Although environmental sociology has made significant intellectual progress,
Hillary Tovey (2003) has argued that environmental sociologists have not suffi-
ciently incorporated animals into their analyses, rendering them “invisible,” or as
abstracted components of ecological systems (for parallel criticism of sociology
at large, see Nibert 2003; York and Mancus 2013). Studying the consequences of
animal agribusiness provides an ideal entry point for environmental sociologists
to begin to directly incorporate animals into their analyses. However, a limited
number of studies on industrial animal agribusiness engage with environmental
sociological perspectives, save the exceptions reviewed in this article. In addition
to reviewing these applications, we show how other theoretical perspectives in
environmental sociology, including treadmill of production theory and the second
contradiction of capitalism thesis, can advance our understanding of industrial
animal agribusiness.
To explore the contributions that environmental sociology can make toward
understanding the effects of animal agribusiness, we (1) review selected envi-
ronmental sociological perspectives applicable to these transformations,1 and (2)
explore how they have been applied and/or could be applied to understand and
interpret the changes in, consequences of, and possible alternatives to industrial
animal agribusiness. Our focus on studies framed by environmental sociological
theories excludes other important work by sociologists and other social scientists
on animal agribusiness.2 Our primary purpose is to demonstrate how the intercon-
nected categorizations and propositions of environmental sociological theories can
help us better conceptualize, describe, and explain the environmental, public health,
and animal welfare consequences of industrial animal agribusiness. Drawing from
environmental sociological theories originating from both the United States (Marxist
perspectives) and Europe (modernization theories), we highlight insights applicable
to animal agriculture as well as points of convergence between these literatures
that are often discussed in isolation. We focus on how these theories reveal unique
and convincing “stories” about industrial animal agribusiness that otherwise might
 spring 2014  57

not be told. We conclude that industrial animal agribusiness and its consequences
deserve more attention from environmental sociologists and that further studies
could secure a solid place for animals in environmental sociology.

Metabolic Rifts in Industrial Animal Agribusiness

In the wake of the Marx–nature debates, John B. Foster (1999; 2000) retraced a
rather interesting development in Marx’s interest in the relationship between capital-
ism and agriculture. The results of the study have proved relevant enough to inspire
a fair amount of research rooted in the notion of “metabolic rift” (e.g., Clark and
Foster 2009, 2010; Clark and York 2005; Clausen and Clark 2005; Foster 2002;
Foster, Clark, and York 2010; Foster and Magdoff 2000; Moore 2000). Following
the analysis of the agricultural revolution of the nineteenth century put forth by the
chemist Justus von Liebig, Marx became increasingly concerned with the social
causes of soil fertility loss. Marx (1977: 638n) incorporated Liebig’s exposition of
the “destructive side of modern agriculture” into his critique of political economy,
especially in his analysis of the town–country divide. Because large portions of
rural populations were forced to move into cities following privatization and land
enclosures, Marx argued that this movement (leading to a lack of human waste for
fertilizer and long-distance trade of food and fiber to these cities) combined with
the early intensification of agricultural methods, “disturbs the metabolic interaction
between man and the earth, i.e. it prevents the return to the soil of its constitu-
ent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing” and, thus, “all
progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the
worker, but of robbing the soil” (Marx 1977: 637, 638). Marx (1981: 949) argued
that the organization of capitalist societies created this “irreparable rift” in energy
and material flows, which ultimately undermined soil fertility in the long term.
Marx’s (1977: 283, 290) use of the term “metabolism” denoted both the “complex,
dynamic interchange between human beings and nature” of energy and material,
namely, through labor, as well as material and energy flows relations “within” nature
(Foster 2000: 158). Although Marx wrote about a 150-year-old crisis in soil fertility,
contemporary environmental sociologists, including Foster, Clark, and York, have
utilized metabolic rift theory (MRT) to explain current environmental problems
resulting from alterations in natural (e.g., biogeochemical) cycles. One example is
Foster and Magdoff’s (2000) analysis of the soil fertility problems associated with
industrial animal agribusiness.
The movement of livestock from agricultural lands to CAFOs has resulted in
similar outcomes when compared to the early urbanization that disturbed Marx:
the environmental consequences of concentrating large organisms off the land that
produces subsistence (e.g., waste concentration), the role of capitalist processes
in this overall restructuring, and, most glaringly, the new “rupture” in nutrient cy-
cling. Foster and Magdoff (2000: 51–57) have shown similar negative results for
soil fertility when food animals are removed from the land, leading to two general
58  international journal of sociology

“rifts”: one between feed production and food animal production (cf. Naylor et al.
2005) and another between food animal production and human consumers. These
breaks in nutrient cycling have caused a number of direct and indirect environmen-
tal consequences, including: (1) use of nonrenewable resources to create and ship
the increased amount of nitrogen fertilizer for feedstuffs; (2) water contamination
problems associated with soluble nitrogen application; (3) environmental prob-
lems associated with treatment disposal of manure; (4) specialization of cropland
used to feed factory farmed animals, increasing soil degradation, (5) inhumane
conditions increasing the use of antibiotics, and (6) phosphate mining to replace
natural fertilization, causing environmental destruction in various regions (Foster
and Magdoff 2000: 54–57). Like Marx, Foster and Magdoff concentrated on how
ecological ruptures negatively affect soil fertility and related outcomes.
Ryan Gunderson (2011) expanded Foster and Magdoff’s study, focusing on
global ruptures in carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles related to industrial animal
agribusiness. Gunderson argued that the two geographical–spatial “rifts” identified
by Foster and Magdoff are directly related to the concentration and centralization
of capital. That is, it is not by coincidence that the concentration of livestock is
mirrored by the concentration of capital. Like other capitalist industries, livestock
production units must compete, resulting in fewer and larger units at large. The
resulting concentration of farm animals, coupled with the industries and processes
needed to support farm animal production, was argued to cause the disruptions
in the global cycling of carbon (through increased sources and decreased sinks),
nitrogen (through massive synthetic inputs and waste storage and application), and
water (via its depletion). In short, Foster and Magdoff (2000) and Gunderson (2011)
have shown that Marx’s notion of metabolic rift proves to be a useful framework
for comprehending the environmental harms of industrial animal agribusiness.
While metabolic rift theory has made significant contributions toward under-
standing environmental issues, including industrial animal agribusiness, some
argue it does not go far enough to include the ecological dimensions of these
issues. Richard York and Philip Mancus (2009) contend that many applications
of Marx overlook the biophysical world. To increase attention toward ecological
factors, they suggest applying insights from human ecology to create an approach
they call “critical human ecology.” This approach includes “both an ecological
and historical focus, which can aid in the construction of a rational understanding
of the various ways human cultures meet the biophysical needs of their popula-
tions” (York and Mancus 2009: 123). Jason Moore (2011a: 2) also argues that
the metabolic rift theory remains “grounded in a Cartesian paradigm that locates
biophysical crises in one box, and accumulation crises in another.” Further ap-
plications of metabolic rift theory to study industrial animal agribusiness may be
able to address some of these critiques by focusing more attention on ecological
effects and specific thresholds related to water pollution, air pollution, and global
climate change.
 spring 2014  59

Treadmill of Industrial Animal Agribusiness

As Marx (1977; 1981) showed, capitalism is a mode of production that reproduces

itself through competition, the centralization and concentration of capital, the
expansion of production and markets, and the expropriation of surplus value. It
must get bigger (expand capital and production) to carry on or it will inevitably
suffer sometimes severe, though certainly recurring, economic crises. Despite
the radical structural transformations that have taken place in capitalism since
Marx’s time, a strong case could be made that his “general formula” for capital
(money–commodities–more money) still holds true as much as it did in 1867 (Marx
1977: 247–57). This equation must continuously repeat on an ever-increasing and
ever-expanding scale if capitalism is to persist. Many scholars have argued that
the inherent expansionary mechanisms of capitalism make hopes for a “sustain-
able capitalism” unlikely. This general view is epitomized by Allan Schnaiberg’s
(1980: ch. 5; Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2004) “treadmill of production” (ToP)
theory. ToP argues that capitalist economies must increase and expand production,
creating a production cycle (“treadmill”) that necessarily increases “withdraw-
als” from the environment (natural resource extraction) and “additions” into the
environment (pollution). Businesses must reinvest surplus profits in production
to expand and further maximize profits, which also meets the already determined
interests of the state and organized labor (the economic growth coalition). This
treadmill is the underpinning structure at the core of environmental destruction and
degradation and, thus, ToP attempts to account for (or transcend) other common
explanations for environmental destruction, such as technological, consumptive,
or neo-Malthusian explanations.
It is surprising that ToP has not been explicitly utilized to examine industrial
animal agribusiness and its consequences, though its assumptions do seem implicit
in Foster and Magdoff’s (2000) piece. If one presupposes that most decisions in
industrial animal agribusiness today are made to maximize profits or that this is
industrial animal agribusiness’s primary interest, a ToP perspective could shine a
unique light on the environmental, public health, and animal welfare effects. Here
we will only briefly identify some possibilities for applying ToP to animal agricul-
ture. Withdrawals include the production of inputs (e.g., corn and soy animal feed,
fertilizer for feedstuffs) and additions include the growing amount of pollution
in the form of water (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) and air (e.g., methane and
nitrous oxide) pollution. These withdrawals and additions increase as the profits
created through this process are reinvested to expand production, marketing, and
distribution. Measures to cut costs and increase economic efficiency (to stay on the
treadmill) result in the consolidation, concentration, and intensification of animal
production operations, thus increasing the scale of environmental effects, the extent
of product contamination and food-borne illness (from large-scale processing), as
well as the magnitude of animal suffering. In addition, agricultural producers are
60  international journal of sociology

locked into a system where investments in capital (e.g., machinery and facilities)
drive the expansion of operation size and animal concentration. This pattern can be
clearly seen in the dairy industry. These examples illustrate how animal agribusi-
ness is just as growth-dependent as any other business. Applying ToP to animal
agribusiness can also illustrate the presence of an “economic growth coalition”:
regulatory measures put forth by the state to protect the environment, food safety,
and animal welfare remain weak, as the state continues to work closely with animal
agribusiness to maintain and expand production. Drives to increase production
continue despite increasing bodies of evidence that the increased consumption of
animal products is unsustainable in terms of the environment and feeding a growing
world population (e.g., United Nations Environment Programme 2010). ToP theory
could also be applied to counter other common explanations of animal agribusiness
in other disciplines (e.g., the spread of factory farming is a response to population
pressures; it is a technological problem that requires technological fixes; etc.). At a
prescriptive level, ToP theory would likely offer new solutions not common in the
literature, which often focuses on consumptive or reformist answers, overlooking
deep-seated structural problems. In addition, drawing from world-systems theory
(Moore 2011b; Wallerstein 1974, 1980, 1989), a ToP analysis could be extended
to better understand the global drivers and consequences of these problems. As
consolidation and globalization continue in the food sector (Bonanno et al. 1994),
capitalist influences come from farther away—shaping and constraining farm
animal production from a distance.

The Second Contradiction of Industrial Animal Agribusiness

The second contradiction of capitalism thesis, as described by James O’Connor,

offers additional insights applicable to industrial animal agribusiness, especially
issues of animal welfare and public health. O’Connor (1998) explains that the first
contradiction of capitalism described by Marx focuses on demand crises related to
the decreased ability for low-wage laborers to purchase goods produced. In contrast,
the second contradiction of capitalism refers to cost-side crises. As O’Connor ex-
plains, “[c]ost-side crises originate in two ways. The first is when individual capitals
defend or restore profits by strategies that degrade or fail to maintain over time the
material conditions of their own production. . . . The second is when social move-
ments demand that capital better provides for the maintenance and restoration for
these conditions of life” (1998: 162). Drawing from Marx and Polanyi, O’Connor
(1998) discusses how labor, natural resources, and space represent false commodi-
ties, and are thus given false prices. In reality they are conditions of production
that can change, resulting in higher costs and constrained production. Conditions
can change when an industry undermines its own resource base or when social
movements challenge current production systems. O’Connor (1998) argues that
it is the role of the state to maintain the conditions of production and reorganize
production to address emerging problems. However, many barriers exist that prevent
 spring 2014  61

restructuring to address degraded conditions of production: with systemic reorgani-

zation “long-term productivity would be enhanced, but at the expense of short-term
profits” (O’Connor 1998: 167). Similar to ToP theory, structural change is inhibited
by a strong “economic growth coalition.” O’Connor (1998) argues that technologi-
cal fixes to address problems will ultimately fail and result in additional problems,
as they are unable to address systemic issues. While empirical applications of this
work remain scarce, we contend that this thesis will become increasingly relevant
for sociological analysis as continued human industrialization brings us closer to
ecological thresholds and tipping points (e.g., those related to world fisheries and
global climate change).
The second contradiction of capitalism thesis can be specifically applied to
industrial animal agribusiness to illustrate how structural changes to maximize
economic efficiency may undermine the resource base (farm animals and land for
feed) and long-term production. For example, CAFOs have resulted in increased
incidents of infection and new types of animal and human pathogens (Horrigan,
Lawrence, and Walker 2002). CAFOs degrade animal health through crowding
and exposure to waste and pollutants. While antibiotics have been applied liber-
ally to address increasing incidents of disease, more pathogens have become
resistant to treatment and new forms of disease have emerged that are more
deadly to farm animals and humans (Bonfoh et al. 2010). News stories continue
to highlight public health concerns related to the consumption of contaminated
animal products (e.g., E. coli, Salmonella, and mad cow disease). Mad cow dis-
ease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) presents a clear case where decisions
to maximize economic efficiency (by feeding cattle other dead cattle) resulted
in a new disease and the culling of millions of farm animals at substantial losses
to the cattle industry, especially in the United Kingdom. Considering the extent
to which CAFOs threaten the long-term viability of the animal agribusiness, it is
surprising that we see few steps to address systemic issues. Government subsidies
continue to support current production systems while environmental, animal
welfare, and food safety regulations remain weak. Reorganizing production to
address current issues would be extremely costly in the short term. It remains
to be seen whether technological fixes (e.g., new vaccines and food irradiation)
will continue to sustain CAFOs or if they will undermine their own conditions
of production in the long term. As depicted by O’Connor, social movements may
also play a role in changing the conditions of production. Regarding industrial
animal agribusiness, social movements to protect animal welfare and consumer
health continue to expand and attempt to pressure industries to address con-
cerns. While industry responses remain superficial, stronger social movements
with combined goals (food safety, environment, and animal welfare) may prove
more effective. As additional issues emerge that may threaten the sustainability
of CAFOs, scholars may wish to apply the second contradiction of capitalism to
examine inherent contradictions in production systems, alternative arrangements,
and the role of social movements in structural transformation.
62  international journal of sociology

Farm Animal Alienation

Although alienation is a general sociological concept, Peter Dickens (1992; 1996)

has made it central to environmental sociology and has extended the concept to
animals. Dickens (1996) argues that the division of labor in capitalist society
causes both the alienation of people from nature (and related ecological degrada-
tion) as well as the alienation of other species. He contends that environmental
politics is really about social relations (oppression) and that these relations extend
to both humans and other animals. While metabolic rift theory, ToP, and the sec-
ond contradiction of capitalism thesis are all rooted in Marx’s later, macro-level
insights, Dickens has argued that Marx’s younger, more philosophically oriented
theories, though imperfect, should form the foundations of environmental sociol-
ogy, especially due to the fact that “Marx’s understanding of people’s alienation
from nature represents a distinct improvement on that adopted by the great mass of
contemporary environmental and ecological literature” (Dickens 1992: 81). In his
1844 Manuscripts, Marx claimed that capitalism estranges human beings from the
rest of nature and from their full set of potentialities, or, what Marx termed, their
“species-being.” Instead of actualizing their capacities and becoming fully human
through free, reflective, and productive activity (a possibility that necessitates
interaction with the natural world), Marx claimed that human beings in societies
with a developed division of labor are stunted through their own activities. Labor,
especially in capitalist societies, turns “[m]an’s species being, both nature and his
spiritual species property into a being alien to him” (Marx 1978: 77). Marx also
argued that workers are alienated from their product, productive activity, and other
humans. Through commodity production, workers were said to create products that
enslaved them rather than nourished them. Further, because workers do not own the
means by which products are created, labor is forced and dehumanizing instead of
fulfilling and creative. Social relations become estranged because workers are forced
to compete with one another and labor and capital are fundamentally antagonistic.
In short, Marx’s theory of alienation argues that the same world humans create
through an activity that should be life-affirming paradoxically dominates them,
smothers freedom, and prevents them from being truly human.
Along with cultural anthropologist Barbara Noske (1997: 18–21) (see endnote
2), environmental sociologists (Benton 1993; Dickens 1996; Gunderson 2013;
Stuart, Schewe, and Gunderson 2013) have extended Marx’s theory of alienation
across species lines in order to better understand the lives of farm animals reared
in intensive operations. Although critical of Marx’s conceptualization of animals
in the Manuscripts, Ted Benton argued “a good deal of the content of Marx’s con-
trast between a fulfilled or emancipated human life, and a dehumanised, estranged
existence can also be applied in an analysis of the conditions imposed by intensive
rearing regimes in the case of nonhuman animals” (Benton 1993: 59). For Benton,
factory farms inhibit the farm animal’s ability to actualize their social capacities
and species-specific needs. They live in order to sustain a system that stunts and
 spring 2014  63

damages their livelihood (for nuanced accounts of the conceptual and analytical
issues of understanding food animals as alienated beings, see Gunderson 2013:
265–66; Stuart, Schewe, and Gunderson 2013: 206–7). Drawing on these theoretical
insights, Stuart, Schewe, and Gunderson (2013) conducted a study in the Nether-
lands and Denmark, detailing whether or not pasture-based, robotic-milking systems
(grazing-robotic systems) can minimize the alienation experienced by dairy cows
in confined, intensive operations. They argued that in confined systems, dairy cows
are indeed alienated from their product, productive activity, “species-being” (when
understood as a flourishing life free from exploitation), and fellow animals. The
creation of milk, a process for nourishing life in unalienated conditions, confronts
the dairy cow as a hostile and destructive force. In contrast, the grazing-robotic
systems studied allowed cows, with some limitations, to decide when and how
often they are milked. Although these systems are a clear improvement when
compared to intensive systems—as they allowed the cows more freedom of move-
ment, choice, increased health conditions, and improved cow–cow and cow–farmer
relations—the authors argued that cows remained alienated and fragmented beings
in grazing-robotic systems. They exist solely to produce a product that they have
no control over (i.e., milk is commodified rather than used to nourish their young),
remained estranged from their young, could not express species-specific capacities
(e.g., mating and rearing young), and were not socialized with calves and bulls.
Because these restrictions resulted from the private ownership of the animals and
the imperative to maximize profits, Stuart, Schewe, and Gunderson concluded that
“addressing animal welfare in a highly-developed capitalist system will continue to
entail incremental improvements in living conditions, but will fail to fully eliminate
suffering or fully grant freedoms to farm animals” (2013: 217).
The above studies emphasize how Marx’s theory of alienation can help us better
conceptualize farm-animal welfare. Future research could examine the linkages
between environmental degradation caused by industrial animal agribusiness and
the degradation of farm animal bodies. Here, it would be helpful to apply the early
philosophical insights of Marx, as recast by scholars such as Dickens, with his late
political economic insights, as recast by scholars such as Schnaiberg and Foster.
Future work could also explore how the consumer’s and the farm worker’s estranged
and reified relations with farm animals influence the reproduction of industrial
animal agribusiness and its associated environmental and animal-welfare issues.

The Ecological Modernization of Industrial Animal Agribusiness?

Ecological modernization theory (EMT) is a perspective in environmental sociol-

ogy primarily originating from European scholars. EMT is critical of the “apoca-
lyptic” neo-Marxist and “deindustrialization” theories that were established in the
1970s and 1980s, and has attempted to secure a more optimistic yet empirically
rooted foundation for an environmental sociological theory that “emphasize[s]
the successes of environmental reform” (Mol 2001: 47; cf. Mol and Spaargaren
64  international journal of sociology

2002). More substantively, EMT is an attempt to understand a believed “delinking

of material flows from economic flows” (i.e., that economic growth is no longer
necessarily coupled with environmental damage) (Mol 2001: 56) that has taken
place in the past three decades, particularly in “ecologically advanced” nation-
states. For EMT, a new “ecological rationality” has already been established that is
able to evaluate and reorganize—with the aid of economic rationality (Mol 2001:
60)—societal institutions in light of environmental concerns (Mol 2010: 67) (e.g.,
the ecological restructuring of Dutch chemical production) (Mol 1997). The basic
principle of EMT is that modern societies are increasingly and “constantly” taking
meaningful and effective measures toward the “environmental restructuring”3 of
institutions (Mol 2001: 59).
Mol (2001: 61–62; 2010: 67–69) has categorized the manifestation of environ-
mental transformations in the following “core features”: (1) science and technology
have increasingly been used as a source to cure environmental problems; (2) eco-
nomic and market dynamics are gradually reformed to meet environmental goals;
(3) the nation-state is increasingly decentralized, distributing its traditional roles to
nonstate actors (from privatized industries to nongovernmental organizations), and
influenced by international organizations (cf. Mol and Spaargaren 2002: 45–48); (4)
social movements have been more and more willing to cooperate with the state and
market; and (5) a new, nonpolarizing ideology has developed that emphasizes the
compatibility of environmental and economic goals. EMT’s normative assertions
follow their descriptive theory (Mol 1997: 140). The most definitive normative
claim was summarized well by Mol: “environmental deterioration is conceived of
as a challenge for socio-technical and economic reform, rather than the inevitable
consequence of the current institutional structure” (Mol 2001: 58, emphasis added)
That is, sustainable development can be established without radically altering the
basic systems that organize modern societies, as they can be reformed effectively
through ecological restructuring.
Although the animal agriculture sector has received little attention in light of
EMT (one case study was identified: Jay and Morad 2007), Horlings and Marsden
(2011) have argued that EMT has had little to offer and will continue to have little
to offer the reformation of agriculture at large in its “weak” form (i.e., corporatist
reforms and technological fixes). However, a “strong” or “stronger” form (which the
authors explain as synonymous with “radical” or “more radical”) could contribute
to a normative vision for the total ecological restructuring of how food is produced
(Horlings and Marsden 2011: 445–49). However, Marsden (2004) argued that EMT,
in what Horlings and Marsden termed its “weaker” form, has already been widely
applied and is positively altering rural development and agricultural production.
Noting that little research has examined the relevancy of EMT in agricultural
sectors, Jay and Morad (2007) examined the New Zealand dairy industry’s attempt
to “environmentally restructure” its practices and technologies. Although the dairy
industry has reduced the water quality of New Zealand’s rivers and streams due to
fecal contamination, it must remain globally competitive, which for New Zealand
 spring 2014  65

means taking measures to reduce prices due to their reliance on middle-income

country importers. In response, Fonterra, the largest dairy-exporting corporation in
the world, has attempted to increase productive efficiency and output while reducing
environmental effects through improved management strategies and the creation of
larger, bigger factories (note EMT’s notion of a real interplay of ecological rational-
ity and economic rationality to judge and organize modern industries). However,
(1) “it may not be possible to devise environmental policy measures that counter
the effects of cumulative growth in production,” and (2) “ignoring the long-term
externalities of environmental deterioration may be the most rational action for
individuals and industry” if they are attempting to minimize production costs (Jay
and Morad 2007: 472). In contrast to the general ecological restructuring plan of
Fonterra, the 11,000 operations that supply the company have had heterogeneous
levels of success to implement environmental practices for a variety of reasons
(and the authors imply mostly unsuccessful attempts or nonattempts). As stressed
by the authors, the economic costs associated with lessening environmental effects
often thwarts environmental measures, or “minimizing dairy production costs
often comes down to minimizing the environmental component of cost” (Jay and
Morad 2007: 475). In addition, topographical, financial, ownership, and individual
factors affect the ability of Fonterra to ecologically restructure its practices. Jay
and Morad’s (2007) study shows that dairy operations cannot be reduced to their
technologies and the attempt to ecologically restructure has come into conflict
with basic market forces.
The findings of Jay and Morad’s (2007) study are in line with general and sub-
stantial criticisms of EMT. York, Rosa, and Dietz (2010: 85) have argued that EMT’s
most definitive and general descriptive claim—“that modern, affluent, mostly capi-
talist societies can achieve sustainability and that there is indeed evidence of a broad
trend in this direction around the world”—has little empirical support (cf. York and
Rosa 2003). York, Rosa, and Dietz’s (2010: 84f.) own cross-national research using
the STIRPAT model (Dietz and Rosa 1994) has consistently shown that economic
growth is positively associated with national ecological footprints and greenhouse
gas emissions. In addition, EMT may be limited by various conceptual issues, such
as the tendency to conflate modernity-driven reforms vs. reforms in modernity,
symbolic or symptomatic-treatment institutional reforms versus effective or genuine
environmental measures, the contextual nature of national or industrial reforms
versus the interconnectedness of a global capitalist system, and ecoefficiency versus
the scale of environmental impact (York, Rosa, and Dietz 2010: 81–84). Thus far, the
limited application of EMT to study industrial animal agribusiness (Jay and Morad
2007) concurs with EMT’s critics rather than its proponents. However, there is no
reason to abandon EMT as a theoretical framework for future studies of industrial
animal agribusiness. Although technical solutions and reformism have up to this
point failed to deliver the changes needed for global sustainability, it is important
to keep technical fixes under a watchful eye, especially in a rapidly industrializing
sector like animal agribusiness. Furthermore, even if future studies also confirm
66  international journal of sociology

that environmental restructuring is not occurring in industrial animal agribusiness,

the results remain important for understanding the limitations of EMT.

Reflexive Modernization in Industrial Animal Agribusiness

Beck’s theory of the risk society and reflexive modernity represents an alternative
European perspective on modernization. Reflexive modernization theory (RMT)
is built on the claim that there is a “historical discontinuity” between a “first” or
“simple” modernity and a “reflexive second modernity” (Beck, Bonns, and Lau
2003: 3–6). The “latent side-effects” generated by social institutions has brought
them under scrutiny (ibid., 14), leading to the “reflexivity” (self-confrontation) of
a second modernity (ibid., 5). Second modernity’s reflexivity “disenchants and
then dissolves its [first modernity’s] own taken-for-granted premises” (ibid., 3).
These social, economic, and ideological changes have problematized and under-
mined the formerly naturalized assumptions holding first modernity together and
have left members of second modernity in a globalized world of uncertainty and
risk (Beck 2010: 47). Opposed to the normal, “residual risks” of first modernity
that were met with technological fixes and cost–benefit analysis, risks of second
modernity “run out of control,” transcend temporal and spatial boundaries, and
can delegitimize technology and science; the quintessential example being global
climate change (Beck 2010).
Beck (1992) states that society cannot escape the consequences of modernization
and faces a range of new environmental risks. He illustrates the inherent side effects
of modernization and how the externalities of industrialization come back to affect
society through a “boomerang effect.” Beck links industrial accidents and pollution
to capitalist production: “in the effort to increase productivity, the associated risks
have always been and still are being neglected” (Beck 1992: 60). He explains that
in second modernity the effects of modernization are no longer invisible, leading
to increased public awareness of risks (Beck 1992; Beck, Bonns, and Lau 2003).
RMT suggests that society is not only increasingly aware of risks, but (in contrast
to EMT) is substantially restructuring systems to address these risks (Beck 1992;
Beck, Bonns, and Lau 2003). This involves shifting priorities and reshaping sys-
tems as issues emerge. Reflexivity entails a reevaluation of systems, a willingness
to make substantial changes in organization, moving beyond technological fixes,
and addressing issues at new scales to affect root causes. The studies of Bos and
Grin (2008) and Stuart and Worosz (2012) represent two examples where RMT
has been applied to examine industrial animal agribusiness.
Bos and Grin (2008) argued that the Dutch used to be content addressing the
risks of swine production through technical fixes and regulation. However, after
several food-borne illness outbreaks associated with animal agriculture and increas-
ing public concern over pig welfare and environmental effects, the “Hercules”
pig project was developed with a plan to radically restructure the way pigs are
produced. The chief aim of the plan was to implement new husbandry practices
 spring 2014  67

and a new manure belt system that would allow more straw for pigs (a welfare
concern) as well as use pig manure for organic, sustainable fertilizer. Although
partially a technological fix, the authors argue that this original plan reflected, in
Bos and Grin’s (2008: 487) definition, a “reflexive project,” for two reasons: (1) if
successful, it would significantly improve pig welfare and environmental quality,
and (2) the plan’s original intent was to implement a totally new system of produc-
tion that lay outside “existing, institutionalized boundary conditions.” However,
firms could not market the system, and getting rid of manure became cheaper for
farmers, making the payoff for adopting the new system economically undesir-
able. Along with institutional constraints, the project actors attempted to “fit” new
reforms into existing intensive methods, they were unwilling to consider the pos-
sibility of increasing production costs, and there was a general lack of knowledge
transfer between project coordinators and pig farmers. Because of these barriers,
the project wound up pursuing more “feasible” routes by adopting changes that
were more consistent with EMT-like reformism. That is, reflexive modernization
can be blocked by structural barriers unless there is an active and conscious attempt
to “transcend” them (Bos and Grin 2008: 499).
Stuart and Worosz (2012) drew upon RMT to study a glaring contradiction in
food production and consumption: the risks of industrial food processing as mani-
fested in food-borne illness outbreaks are well-known, yet few reflexive actions
have taken place to systematically mitigate these risks (this review focuses on
their treatment of ground-beef processing). The authors argued that the increasing
concentration, mechanization, line speeds, meat-source mixing, and other changes
in ground-beef processing implemented for profit maximization systematically lend
themselves to large-scale food contamination (Stuart and Worosz 2012: 290). Yet
the perpetrators of food-borne illness outbreaks rely on short-term, technological
fixes rather than the reflexive changes needed to fundamentally mitigate outbreaks.
The authors show that the failure to systematically address these risks is aided by
beef processing corporations and representatives taking active measures to block
reflexive changes and, thus, constitute an “anti-reflexivity movement” (see Mc-
Cright and Dunlap 2010). The most theoretically innovative contribution of the
study is the claim that industrial food processing anti-reflexivity movements utilize
ethical neutralization techniques to circumvent charges of fault and unethical be-
havior and, in turn, block the structural, reflexive changes needed to reduce food
contamination. Post-recall, beef-processing companies such as Hudson Foods and
Topps Meat, deny responsibility by blaming outside sources not within their control
(e.g., slaughterhouses or the USDA), deny the victim by blaming the consumer
for not storing or preparing the beef properly or for avoiding irradiated beef, and
appeal to higher loyalties through reliance on technological fixes and continuing
their pursuit to “maximize output and minimize costs” (Stuart and Worosz 2012:
297). Stuart and Worosz argued that this latter form of ethical neutralization by
industrial ground beef processors “has averted calls for substantive changes that
might reduce efficiency and profitability, such as slowing line speeds, reducing
68  international journal of sociology

the amount of commingling, holding products until confirmation of a test result,

and allowing buyers to retest incoming products” (2012: 292). Again, reflexivity
is hindered by powerful structural forces.
In some cases, applications of RMT to understand animal agriculture may reveal
similar insights to applications of the second contradiction of capitalism. Return-
ing to our previous example of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, we see that the
emergence of this disease resulted from decisions to reduce costs and increase prof-
itability. This resulted in an unintended “side effect” that ultimately hurt the cattle
industry. In this example, Beck’s “boomerang effect” closely resembles O’Connor’s
second contradiction of capitalism thesis: prioritizing capital accumulation results
in externalities and unintended consequences that come back to effect (and pos-
sibly undermine) production. In addition, both perspectives criticize technological
fixes and call for significant structural transformation to address systemic issues.
Issues in animal agriculture related to the environment, public health, and animal
welfare all have systemic roots. Beck and O’Connor would agree that these issues
can only be addressed through the restructuring of production systems. Alternative
systems to address these issues would be much smaller and have improved living
conditions and waste treatment. However, this transformation remains inhibited by
“economic growth coalitions” and “anti-reflexivity movements” that continue to put
economic efficiency before farm animal and societal well-being. While reflexivity
thus far remains elusive in industrial animal agribusiness, future studies can further
attempt to identify examples and what makes them successful, learn more about
the forces suppressing reflexivity, and identify possible routes for new coalitions
to counter anti-reflexivity movements.

Conclusion

While the consequences of industrial animal agribusiness are well-known and

usually well-documented by environmental, agricultural, and health scientists,
a limited number of environmental sociologists have focused on these issues
through environmental sociological perspectives. This begs the question: how can
environmental sociology contribute to understanding and addressing these issues?
As stated at the beginning of the article, the theoretical frameworks employed by
environmental sociologists enable them to build different “stories” about why
industrial animal agribusiness is causing problems and/or how we might address
them. Environmental sociologists can look through unique “lenses” to decipher—
out of so much complexity—which facts are most relevant and important, explore
how to place events into various conceptual categories, deduce which causal
relations can be reasonably hypothesized, and examine theoretical frameworks
that may otherwise be omitted or deemphasized. For example, an environmental
sociologist examining industrial animal agribusiness will likely “see” something
very different than an animal scientist would. This article begins to illustrate how
the theories of environmental sociology have structured and can structure studies
 spring 2014  69

of animal agribusiness in a way that aids in the development of novel insights

and important contributions to the literature. Perspectives rooted in both U.S. and
European environmental sociology can contribute to important ways of studying
and conceptualizing industrial animal agribusiness that may otherwise be missed
or theorized much differently in other disciplines.
Most theories reviewed in this article require further development and empiri-
cal exploration, especially ToP and the second contradiction of capitalism, which
have not yet been applied to studies of industrial animal agribusiness. We urge
environmental sociologists to build upon these ideas and to conduct further research
on industrial animal agribusiness for two reasons. First, directly investigating the
consequences of industrial animal agribusiness can hopefully act as a means to
incorporate the individual lives and well-being of animals into environmental socio-
logical investigations. If this were done successfully, it could address Tovey’s (2003)
concern that environmental sociology has not sufficiently incorporated the lives
of animals into its analyses. Second, as this article illustrates, studies of industrial
animal agribusiness that utilize environmental sociological perspectives are limited,
yet these theories can cast a unique and important light on animal agribusiness.
To illustrate the latter point, we have reviewed leading environmental sociological
perspectives and showed how these frameworks have been used or could be used
to help understand and interpret the changes in, environmental consequences of,
and/or solutions to industrial animal agriculture. As this article reveals, there are
many opportunities to apply theoretical insights from environmental sociology to
study industrial animal agribusiness, and we hope that this review and theoreti-
cal elaboration will inspire scholars to explore new avenues for research and to
develop these ideas further.

Notes

1. The selected environmental sociological perspectives also include general sociological

perspectives that have been highly influential in environmental sociology, including Beck’s
reflexive modernization theory as well as Marx’s theory of alienation.
2. As these scholars have also made important contributions, we briefly highlight
some of these works as they can offer important insights for future work on industrial
animal agribusiness. Barbara Noske (1997: 18–21) has argued that, like the environmental
sociologists reviewed in this article, farm animals are alienated from their product,
productive activity, fellow animals, and natural environment. Nibert (2002), Winders and
Nibert (2004), Longo and Malone (2006), and Gunderson (2013) have explored the links
that exist between generalized commodity production and farm animal suffering. Edwards
and Driscoll (2009) documented the socioeconomic origins of the swift industrialization
of swine production in North Carolina that resulted in various social and environmental
effects and met public opposition. Fitzgerald, Kalof, and Dietz (2009) have shown that
slaughterhouse employment levels are positively related to total arrest rates (as well as
arrests for violent crimes and sex offenses), which they termed the “Sinclair effect,”
evoking the transfer of violence across species lines documented in Upton Sinclair’s The
Jungle. Weis (2013) has shown how global industrial animal production plays a central
role in international food crises and inequality. Marta Rivera-Ferre (2009) has argued that
70  international journal of sociology

the worldwide increase in meat and fish consumption is primarily caused by production
processes, thereby challenging the dominant claim that demand has driven the productive
increases and intensification of industrial animal agribusiness. Relatedly, Dietz et al. (1995)
Kalof et al. (1999), and Gossard and York (2003) have studied the practice of vegetarianism
from sociological and social psychological perspectives. Finally, it is worth mentioning
that our exclusion of aquatic food animals left out important works by environmental
sociologists (Clausen and Clark 2005; Clausen and Longo 2012; Longo 2011, 2012; Longo
and Clark 2012; Longo and Clausen 2011).
3. When understood as the “ecology-inspired and environment-induced processes of
transformation and reform in the central institutions of society” (Mol 2010: 66–67).

References

Barbosa, Luiz. 2009. “Theories in Environmental Sociology.” In Twenty Lessons in

Environmental Sociology, ed. Kenneth A. Gould and Tammy L. Lewis, 25–44. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
———. 1995. “The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive
Modernization.” In Reflexive Modernization, ed. Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, and
Scott Lash, 1–55. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
———. 2010. “World Risk Society as Cosmopolitan Society: Ecological Questions in
a Framework of Manufactured Uncertainties.” In Human Footprints on the Global
Environment: Threats to Sustainability, ed. Eugene A. Rosa, Andreas Diekmann,
Thomas Dietz, and Carlo C. Jaeger, 47–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beck, Ulrich; Wolfgang Bonns; and Christoph Lau. 2003. “The Theory of Reflexive
Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses, and Research Programme.” Theory, Culture,
and Society 20, no. 2: 1–33.
Benton, Ted. 1993. Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights, and Social Justice.
London: Verso.
Bonfoh, Bassirou; Karin Schwabenbauer; David Wallinga; Joerg Hartung; Esther Schelling;
Jakob Zinsstag; et al. 2010. “Human Health Hazards Associated with Livestock
Production.” In Livestock in a Changing Landscape, vol. 1, ed. Henning Steinfeld, Harold
A. Mooney, Fritz Schneider, and Laurie E. Neville, 197–219. Washington: Island Press.
Bonanno, Alessandro; Lawrence Busch; William H. Friedland; Lourdes Gouveia;
and Enzo Mingione, eds. 1994. From Columbus to Conagra: The Globalization of
Agriculture and Food. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Bos, Bram, and John Grin. 2008. “‘Doing’ Reflexive Modernization in Pig Husbandry:
The Hard Work of Changing the Course of a River.” Science, Technology and Human
Values 33, no. 4: 480–507.
Buttel, Frederick, and Craig Humphrey. 2002. “Sociological Theory and the Natural
Environment.” In Handbook of Environmental Sociology, ed. Riley Dunlap and
William Michelson, 33–69. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Buttell, Frederick H.; Peter Dickens; Riley E. Dunlap; and August Gijswijt. 2002.
“Sociological Theory and the Environment: An Overview and Introduction.” In
Sociological Theory and the Environment, ed. Riley E. Dunlap, Frederick H. Buttel,
Peter Dickens, and August Gijswijt, 3–29. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Catton, William R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. “Environmental Sociology: A New
Paradigm.” American Sociologist 13, no. 1: 41–49.
———. 1980. “A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology.” American
Behavioral Scientist 24, no. 1: 15–47.
 spring 2014  71

Clark, Brett, and John B Foster. 2009. “Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic
Rift: Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade.” International Journal of
Comparative Sociology 50, nos. 3–4: 311-34.
———. 2010. “The Dialectic of Social and Ecological Metabolism: Marx, Mészáros, and
the Absolute Limits of Capital.” Socialism and Democracy 24, no. 2: 124–38.
Clark, Brett, and Richard York. 2005. “Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate
Change, and the Biospheric Rift.” Theory and Society 34: 391–428.
Clausen, Rebecca, and Brett Clark. 2005. “The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology:
An Analysis of the Ocean Crisis Within Capitalist Production.” Organization and
Environment 18, no. 4: 422–44.
Clausen, Rebecca, and Stefano B. Longo. 2012. “The Tragedy of the Commodity and the
Farce of AquAdvantage Salmon.” Development and Change 34, no. 1: 229–51.
Dickens, Peter. 1992. Society and Nature: Towards a Green Social Theory. New York:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
———. 1996. Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation, and the Division of
Labour. London: Routledge.
Dietz, Thomas, and Eugene A. Rosa. 1994. “Rethinking the Environmental Impacts of
Population, Affluence, and Technology.” Human Ecology Review 1: 277–300.
Dietz, Thomas; Ann S. Frisch; Linda Kalof; Paul C. Stern; and Gregory A. Guagnano.
1995. “Values and Vegetarianism: An Exploratory Analysis.” Rural Sociology 60, no.
3: 533–42.
Dunlap, Riley E., and William R. Catton. 1979. “Environmental Sociology.” Annual
Review of Sociology 5: 243–73.
Dunlap, Riley E., and Eugene A. Rosa. 2000. “Environmental Sociology.” In
Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. 2, ed. Edgar F. Borgatta and Rhonda J.V.
Montgomery, 800–813. New York: Macmillan.
Edwards, Bob, and Adam Driscoll. 2009. “From Farms to Factories: The Environmental
Consequences of Swine Industrialization in North Carolina.” In Twenty Lessons in
Environmental Sociology, ed. Kenneth A. Gould and Tammy L. Lewis, 153–75. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Fitzgerald, Amy; Linda Kalof; and Thomas Dietz. 2009. “Slaughterhouses and Increased
Crime Rates: An Empirical Analysis of the Spillover from ‘The Jungle’ into the
Surrounding Community.” Organization and Environment 22, no. 2: 158–84.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2006. Livestock’s Long
Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome.
Foster, John B. 1999. “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for
Environmental Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 105, no. 2: 366–405.
———. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York: Monthly Review Press.
———. 2002. “Marx’s Ecology in Historical Perspective.” International Socialism
Journal 96: 71–86.
Foster, John B., and Fred Magdoff. 2000. “Liebig, Marx, and the Depletion of Soil
Fertility: Relevance for Today’s Agriculture.” In Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness
Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment, ed. Fred Magdoff, John B. Foster, and
Frederick H. Buttel, 43–60. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Foster, John B.; Brett Clark; and Richard York. 2010. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s
War on the Earth. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gossard, Marcia H., and Richard York. 2003. “Social Structural Influences on Meat
Consumption.” Human Ecology Review 10, no. 1: 1–9.
Gould, Kenneth A.; David N. Pellow; and Allan Schnaiberg. 2004. “Interrogating the
Treadmill of Production: Everything You Wanted to Know About the Treadmill but
Were Afraid to Ask.” Organization and Environment 17: 296–316.
72  international journal of sociology

Gunderson, Ryan. 2011. “The Metabolic Rifts of Livestock Agribusiness.” Organization

and Environment 24, no. 4: 404–22.
———. 2013. “From Cattle to Capital: Exchange Value, Animal Commodification, and
Barbarism.” Critical Sociology 39, no. 2: 259–75.
Hooda, P.S.; A.C. Edwards; H.A. Anderson; and A. Miller. 2000. “A Review of Water
Quality Concerns in Livestock Farming Areas.” Science of the Total Environment 250,
nos. 1–3: 143–67.
Horlings, L.G., and T.K. Marsden. 2011. “Towards the Real Green Revolution?:
Exploring the Conceptual Dimensions of a New Ecological Modernisation of
Agriculture that Could ‘Feed the World.’” Global Environmental Change 21, no. 2:
441–52.
Horrigan, Leo; Robert S. Lawrence; and Polly Walker. 2002. “How Sustainable
Agriculture can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial
Agriculture.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110, no. 5: 445–56.
Jay, Mairi, and Munir Morad. 2007. “Crying over Spilt Milk: A Critical Assessment of
the Ecological Modernization of New Zealand’s Dairy Industry.” Society and Natural
Resources 20, no. 5: 469–78.
Kalof, Linda; Thomas Dietz; Paul C. Stern; and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1999. “Social
Psychological and Structural Influences on Vegetarian Beliefs.” Rural Sociology 64,
no. 3: 500–511.
Longo, Stefano B. 2011. “Global Sushi: A Political Economic Analysis of the
Mediterranean Bluefin Tuna Fishery in the Modern Era.” Journal of World-Systems
Research 17, no. 2: 403–27.
———. 2012. “Mediterranean Rift: Socio-Ecological Transformations in the Sicilian
Bluefin Tuna Fishery.” Critical Sociology 38, no. 3: 417–36.
Longo, Stefano B., and Brett Clark. 2012. “The Commodification of Bluefin Tuna: The
Historical Transformation of the Mediterranean Fishery.” Journal of Agrarian Change
12, nos. 2–3: 204–26.
Longo, Stefano B., and Rebecca Clausen. 2011. “The Tragedy of the Commodity: The
Overexploitation of the Mediterranean Bluefin Tuna Fishery.” Organization and
Environment 24, no. 3: 312–28.
Longo, Stefano B., and Nicholas Malone. 2006. “Meat, Medicine and Materialism: A
Dialectical Analysis of Human Relations to Nonhuman Animals and Nature.” Human
Ecology Review 13, no. 2: 111–21.
MacDonald, James M., and William D. McBride. 2009. The Transformation of U.S.
Livestock Agriculture: Scale, Efficiency, and Risks. United States Department of
Agriculture. Available at www. ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB43/EIB43.pdf.
Marcus, Erik. 2005. Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money. Boston: Brio Press.
Marsden, Terry. 2004. “The Quest for Ecological Modernisation: Re-Spacing Rural
Development and Agri-Food Studies.” Sociologia Ruralis 44, no. 2: 129–46.
Marx, Karl. 1977. Capital. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage.
———. 1978. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” In The Marx-Engels
Reader, ed. R.C. Tucker, 66–125. New York: Norton.
———. 1981. Capital. Vol. 3. New York: Vintage.
Mason, Jim, and Mary Finelli. “Brave New Farm?” In The Animals Reader: The
Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings, ed. L. Kalof and A. Fitzgerald, 158–70.
New York: Berg.
McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2010. “Anti-Reflexivity: The American
Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”
Theory, Culture, and Society 27, nos. 2–3: 100–133.
Mol, Arthur P.J. 1997. “Ecological Modernization: Industrial Transformations and
 spring 2014  73

Environmental Reform.” In International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, ed.

Michael R. Redclift and Graham Woodgate, 138–49. London: Edward Elgar.
———. 2001. Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization
of the Global Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
———. 2010. “Ecological Modernization as a Social Theory of Environmental Reform.”
In The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 2d ed., ed. Michael R.
Redclift and Graham Woodgate, 63–76. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Mol, Arthur P.J., and Gert Spaargaren. 2002. “Ecological Modernization and the
Environmental State.” In The Environmental State Under Pressure, ed. Arthur P.J. Mol
and Frederick H. Buttel, 33–52. London: Elsevier.
Moore, Jason W. 2000. “Environmental Crises and the Metabolic Rift in World-Historical
Perspective.” Organization and Environment 13, no. 2: 123–57.
———. 2011a. “Transcending the Metabolic Rift: A Theory of Crises in the Capitalist
World-Ecology.” Journal of Peasant Studies 38, no. 1: 1–46.
———. 2011b. “Ecology, Capital, and the Nature of Our Times: Accumulation and
Crisis in the Capitalist World-Ecology.” Journal of World-Systems Analysis 17, no. 1:
108–47.
Naylor, Rosamond; Henning Steinfeld; Walter Falcon; James Galloway; Vaclav Smil;
Eric Bradfod; et al. 2005. “Losing the Links between Livestock and Land.” Science
310: 1621–22.
Nibert, David. 2002. Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and
Liberation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
———. 2003. “Humans and Other Animals: Sociology’s Moral and Intellectual
Challenge.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23, no. 3: 4–25.
Noske, Barbara. 1997. Beyond Boundaries: Humans and Animals. New York: Black Rose
Books.
O’Connor, James. 1998. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York:
Guilford Press.
Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. 2009. “Supply vs. Demand of Agri-Industrial Meat and Fish
Products: A Chicken and Egg Paradigm?” International Journal of Sociology of
Agriculture and Food 16, no. 2: 90–105.
Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Stuart, Diana, and Michelle R. Worosz. 2012. “Risk, Anti-Reflexivity, and Ethical
Neutralization in Industrial Food Processing.” Agriculture and Human Values 29:
287–301.
Stuart, Diana; Rebecca L. Schewe; and Ryan Gunderson. 2013. “Extending Social Theory
to Farm Animals: Addressing Alienation in the Dairy Sector.” Sociologia Ruralis 53,
no. 2: 201–22.
Tovey, Hillary. 2003. “Theorising Nature and Society in Sociology: The Invisibility of
Animals.”Sociologia Ruralis 43, no. 3: 196–215.
United Nations Environment Programme. 2010. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of
Production and Consumption: Priority Products and Materials. International Panel
for Sustainable Resource Management. Available at www.unep.org/resourcepanel/
Portals/24102/PDFs/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf.
Vitousek, Peter M.; John D. Aber; Robert W. Howarth; Gene E. Likens; Pamela A.
Matson; David W. Schindler; et al. 1997. “Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen
Cycle: Sources and Consequences.” Ecological Applications 7, no. 3: 737–50.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and
Origins of European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic
Press.
74  international journal of sociology

———. 1980. The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of
European World-Economy, 1600–1750. New York: Academic Press.
———. 1989. The Modern World System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the
Capitalist World-Economy, 1730s–1840s. New York: Academic Press.
Weis, Tony. 2013. “The Meat of the Global Food Crisis.” Journal of Peasant Studies 40,
no. 1: 65–85.
Winders, Bill, and David Nibert. 2004. “Consuming the Surplus: Expanding ‘Meat’
Consumption and Animal Oppression.” International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy 24, no. 9: 76–96.
York, Richard, and Philip Mancus. 2009. “Critical Human Ecology: Historical
Materialism and Natural Laws.” Sociological Theory 27, no. 2: 122–49.
———. 2013. “The Invisible Animal: Anthrozoology and Macrosociology.” Sociological
Theory 31, no. 1: 75–91.
York, Richard, and Eugene A. Rosa. 2003. “Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization
Theory.”Organization and Environment 16, no. 3: 273–88.
York, Richard; Eugene A. Rosa; and Thomas Dietz. 2010. “Ecological Modernization
Theory: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges.” In The International Handbook of
Environmental Sociology, 2d ed., ed. Michael R. Redclift and Graham Woodgate,
77–90. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.
Copyright of International Journal of Sociology is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.