The Individualization of Risk as Responsibility and Citizenship: A Case Study of Chemical Body Burdens

by

Norah Anne MacKendrick

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate Department of Sociology

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Norah Anne MacKendrick (2011)

ii

The Individualization of Risk as Responsibility and Citizenship: A Case Study of Chemical Body Burdens

by

Norah Anne MacKendrick

Graduate Department of Sociology University of Toronto

2011

Abstract

This dissertation examines how changing conceptions of risk responsibility relate to

changing ideas of citizenship and the public sphere. Using the empirical case study of

chemical body burdens, and drawing on focus groups and in-depth interviews, in addition

to a twenty-year framing analysis of Canadian news media coverage of environmental

contamination, this dissertation examines how risks are individualized through an

ideology of “precautionary consumption.” Precautionary consumption encourages self-

protection through consumer-based vigilance (e.g., by buying organic produce or

“natural” cleaning products) and shifts the focus away from the state’s responsibility to

regulate human and environmental exposure to contaminants. Three key findings emerge

from this research. First, over twenty years of Canadian media coverage, precautionary

consumption is increasingly prominent in shaping the problem frame around chemical

contamination. As a media frame, the ideology of precautionary consumption

reconceptualises chemical body burdens as an environmental problem affecting everyone

equally to an individual problem that afflicts unaware consumers. Second, interview data

suggests that the practice of mediating individual exposure to chemicals is

overwhelmingly characterized as a caregiving responsibility requiring a mother’s

iii

vigilance. Interview respondents interpreted this responsibility through a dual ideological

lens comprised of intensive mothering and precautionary consumption. Interviews with

mothers from low-income households furthermore suggest that practices of chemical

mediation vary by social class, and that access to protective commodities is highly

uneven. Third, interview data also suggest that respondents viewed vigilant shopping

practices as part of accepting greater personal responsibility for chemical pollution as a

health threat and larger environmental problem. Respondents dismissed the

transformative potential of the state in addressing body burdens; in contrast, they

expressed confidence in their power as consumers and in the responsiveness of the

market to protect them from chemical threats. The concluding chapter of the dissertation

discusses how precautionary consumption draws our attention away from the universality

of risk, and the responsibilities of the state for managing body burdens as a collective

risk.

iv

For the grandmothers: Betty, Judy, Lois and Ruth

v

Acknowledgements Many people came together to help make this happen. A very deep debt of gratitude is extended first to my supervisor, Josée Johnston, and committee members Sandy Welsh and Ron Levi. Josée has, every step of the way, been a source of encouragement and has an uncanny ability to make things happen. She connected me with other faculty in the department as I searched for a “great” research topic, secured additional funding for interviews and focus groups and pointed me toward a vast literature on the sociology of food and consumer-citizenship. Then, while we were both on maternity leave, she became a good friend and resource on motherhood and the balancing act that it requires. Josée was also instrumental in helping me see the dissertation through to completion when I was sleep-deprived from long nights with a new baby. I am also indebted to Ron Levi. Through a combination of humour and insight, Ron has a way of turning tricky, impossible problems on their head. I thank him for this, and for all of the encouragement he has given me over the past few years. Sandy has also been a tremendous source of support since the very beginning, while she was graduate coordinator, through to becoming a member of my committee. Sandy’s wise, upbeat and reassuring advice has helped me navigate through each phase of the program, and especially through to the next steps that await me. And, finally, I extend very sincere appreciation to the external committee member, Dr. Andrew Szasz. His work on toxics movements and ‘shopping our way to safety’ helped to motivate this research. I want to also note the contributions of more than a few people in the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto. Starting with John Myles and Shyon Baumann who taught the research practicum course that kick-started the dissertation and (for better or worse) has permanently implanted a skeptical ‘voice’ in my head that oversees all of my research ideas and writing. Following the conclusion of the course, both John and Shyon reviewed sections of the dissertation and provided invaluable comments. I thank Shyon for his ability to take a misguided research question or thought and put it back on the right path. I am incredibly grateful to John for providing intellectual guidance and unfailing support throughout the course of my program. I also thank Bonnie Fox for reviewing chapter 3 and for introducing me to a whole new set of literature on mothering and gender. I benefited from discussions with faculty who made time to discuss my work or provide guidance at various points: Bernd Baldus, John Hannigan, Vanina Leschziner, Ito Peng, Judy Taylor, and Jack Veugelers. Not to mention the administrative staff who held my hand along the way as well, particularly Tina Colomvakos, John Manalo, Kai-Lii Veer and Jeannette Wright. A network of fellow graduate students provided advice and friendship. Most importantly, this research was made possible through the contributions of forty-eight research participants who took the time to attend a focus group or take part in an interview. It was a pleasure to conduct these focus groups and interviews and I genuinely enjoyed revisiting them during the coding and writing processes. Of the people who helped connect me to these participants, I want to thank Laura Levin, Diane Dyson, the

vi

South Riverdale Community Health Centre, and Leslie Solomonian. Financial support for this research was provided by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Award, a doctoral fellowship from the Centre for Urban Health Initiatives at the University of Toronto, and a writing grant from the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health (NNEWH). Both Dayna Nadine Scott and Anne Rochon Ford from NNEWH provided comments on drafts of my work and helped me to situate my research within a broader policy context. I thank them, and Jyoti Phartiyal, for all of their help. In all other areas of my life, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to family and friends. Friends like Nadine Blumer, Carole Cej, Jenny Cooper, Laura Field, Matty Gibson, Joan Lewis, Shirin Montazer, Deanna Pikkov, Caroline Silverman and Laura Tuohy provided moral support and made this stage of my life a lot more fun. Matty, in a superhuman effort, also came to my rescue by somehow managing to copyedit this document in the space of only a few days. My parents, who, at first, were not the biggest fans of my decision to leave Edmonton for doctoral studies in Toronto, have waited patiently for me to finish graduate school, and in the meantime have cheered me on. I am especially grateful to my mother who devoted many visits to Toronto to babysitting, allowing me extra time to work on my research, and when she could not be there in person, provided loving advice by phone. My grandparents also provided much love and encouragement, and their influence was felt during this whole process. I cannot even begin to thank Lois Field, my mother-in-law, who is the invisible co-author of this dissertation. She uprooted her life in Edmonton and moved to Toronto to help with childcare. I have relied on her in so many ways, too numerous to count. Finally, I thank my husband Robert Field who, through example, inspired me to start and finish this dissertation, and did whatever needed to be done to see me through. And, of course, I am deeply grateful to William and Martin for their all-out cuteness that grounded me the entire way.

vii

Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................. v Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. vii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x List of Appendices ............................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background: Body Burdens...................................................................................... 2 1.2 Research Questions................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Individualized risk and Individualized politics......................................................... 7 1.4 Overview of the Dissertation .................................................................................. 11

Chapter 2........................................................................................................................... 14 Media framing of body burdens: Precautionary consumption and the individualization of risk..................................................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Technology, Risk and the Environment.................................................................. 16 2.3 Methods................................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Findings................................................................................................................... 26 2.6 Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................... 35

Chapter 3........................................................................................................................... 41 Mothers as Mediators: Chemical Risks in the Age of Intensive Mothering..................... 41

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 41 3.2 Mediation of Chemical Exposures as Part of Caregiving....................................... 43 3.3 Risk as Governance................................................................................................. 46 3.4 Intensive Mothering and the Medicalization of Mothering .................................... 47 3.5 Methods................................................................................................................... 50 3.6 Findings................................................................................................................... 52 3.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 66

Chapter 4........................................................................................................................... 71 Taking Control: Green Consumption as Agency and Responsibility............................... 71

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 71 4.2 Theorizing Individualization................................................................................... 74 4.3 Methods................................................................................................................... 82 4.4 Findings................................................................................................................... 89 4.5 Discussion and Conclusion................................................................................... 107

Chapter 5......................................................................................................................... 115 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 115

5.1 Body Burdens as Creeping Event, Emergent Risk and Consumer Problem......... 117 5.2 Precautionary Consumption as a Problem Frame and Ideology........................... 120 5.3 Neo-liberalism: Primacy of the Market ................................................................ 121 5.4 Agency through Consumption: The Role of Social Class .................................... 123 5.5 Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................................ 124

viii

5.6 Concluding Comments.......................................................................................... 126 References....................................................................................................................... 130

ix

List of Tables Table 1. Descriptive statistics for identified exposure pathways...................................... 29 Table 2. Descriptive statistics for primary definers .......................................................... 30 Table 3. Descriptive statistics for key frames................................................................... 32 Table 4. Description of focus group participant sample ................................................. 145 Table 5. Description of interview participant sample..................................................... 147 Table 6. Materials produced by advocacy organizations................................................ 151 Table 7. Materials produced by public health agencies.................................................. 152

x

List of Figures Figure 1. Distribution of articles over time by general topic area: 1986-2006…………..26

xi

List of Appendices Appendix A. Sample: Interviews and Focus Groups…………………………………...145 Appendix B: Examples of Materials Providing Advice on Chemical Mediation………151 Appendix C: Focus Group and Interview Guides……....................................................153 Appendix D: Participant Surveys…….............................................................................163 Appendix E: Information Sheets and Consent Forms…………………………………..175

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

“What is driving this market now is concern over bioaccumulation of chemicals in the body. The public is now reading labels and they’re very concerned about what they’re putting not only in the environment, but onto their skin and into their bodies.” Jim Greene, Vice President of product development at Shaklee’s [a natural products corporation] (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/14/local/me-greenchem14/4). “Our store is all about the precautionary principle.” Tonya Bruin, co-owner of The Healthiest Home and Building Supplies (Morphet 2005, F4). Everyday decisions about what to buy have become exceedingly complicated for

individuals concerned about environmental degradation and the health risks from

contaminants in consumer products and foods. For a consumer wishing to purchase a

water bottle, for example, the task involves deciphering labels describing the product as

“BPA-free,” while also weighing the pros and cons of a heavier but potentially less toxic

stainless steel bottle, versus a lighter but endocrine-disrupting plastic bottle. In the

produce aisle of a conventional grocery store, choosing an apple is similarly complex.

Does one visit the pricier organic section or select the local but pesticide-laden varieties

that also happen to be on sale? From a sociological perspective, these decisions reflect

the growing significance of the market as a site for managing risk at the individual level.

While the state is formally responsible for regulating chemical pollutants, its role in this

capacity is gradually receding from the larger cultural discourse around environmental

pollution (see chapter 2). Instead, human exposure to environmental pollution is

increasingly framed as a matter of individual choice and personal responsibility. In this

dissertation I uncover the various ways in which responsibility for environmental

2

pollution as a universal and unavoidable environmental risk has been re-conceptualized

as an individual, rather than collective, risk problem. By directing attention to how

environmental risks are interpreted as individual problems, this research differs from, but

also builds on, previous sociological work focused on how risks are mediated by the

state, communities, or grassroots organizations (e.g., Edelstein 2004; Mazur 1991; Szasz

1994). This dissertation research also contributes to a body of scholarship analyzing the

environmental and gender politics of individual consumer strategies, especially consumer

choices designed to have positive consequences for personal and environmental well-

being (see Altman et al. 2008; Szasz 2007; Micheletti 2003). More specifically, my work

analyzes how green consumer strategies, such as the consumption of organic foods and

purchase of lead-free toys, are framed as an effective and reasonable mechanism for

managing one’s exposure to environmental risks. I have chosen to focus specifically on

the case of chemical “body burdens”.

1.1 Background: Body Burdens Body burdens1—the internal contaminant load carried by living organisms—represent a

new focus for environment and health movements (see, e.g.,

http://www.ewg.org/featured/15). Because of the focus on the individual human body as

“polluted”, they represent an ideal case study for the individualization of risk. Body

burdens are associated with intensive industrialization that has released multitudes of

persistent chemical compounds into the environment. These chemicals accumulate up the

1 In this dissertation, “body burden” and “chemical bioaccumulation” are used interchangeably. The term “body burden” is commonly used in the biological sciences to refer to chemical bioaccumulation—of single or multiple compounds—in living organisms, not only in humans. It has recently been popularized in several environmental advocacy campaigns that raise awareness of chemical bioaccumulation and environmental contamination (e.g., The US-based Environmental Working Group’s “BodyBurden” campaign).

3

food chain, and predatory organisms, such as polar bears, whales, seals, and fish, contain

chemical concentrations far higher than those of their environments.

Biomonitoring technology—methods for analyzing animal tissue for biological markers

of contaminant exposure—has improved significantly in recent years, allowing the

detection of compounds not previously known to bioaccumulate (Sexton, Needham and

Pirkle 2004). Biomonitoring data suggest that the body of nearly every person living in

an industrial society contains minute concentrations of contaminants from exposure to a

polluted environment, food treated with pesticides, and consumer goods treated with

brominated flame retardants, stain repellents and other compounds (CDC 2005). Health

effects from chronic chemical exposure are uncertain and controversial, although some

studies link exposure to certain forms of cancer, fertility problems, behavioral disorders

in children, and thyroid disorders (Grandjean and Landrigan 2006). In other words, body

burdens represent the contamination of the environment and are also linked to serious

human health issues.

Exposure to environmental contaminants depends on both environmental and lifestyle

exposures. However, it is important to emphasize that human contact with contaminants

is largely involuntary, as the bioaccumulation of contaminants begins in-utero and

extends throughout the life course. In other words, one does not knowingly accumulate

environmental toxins, rather accumulation of contaminants begins before birth and is

largely imperceptible. While one can make efforts to reduce exposure to certain toxins,

the complexity involved in identifying sources of contamination should also be

emphasized. According to American biomonitoring authorities, it is exceedingly difficult

4

to determine the relative contribution of lifestyle and consumer factors compared to

environmental conditions on one’s internal contaminant burden:

The calculation of actual exposure [to environmental chemicals]

requires complex detective work to discover all kinds of details,

including the chemical identity (for example, the pesticide

chlorpyrifos), source (nearby agricultural use), medium of

transport (groundwater) and route (drinking contaminated well

water). Scientists must consider this information on exposure

against the background of people's activity patterns, eating and

drinking habits, and lifestyle, and they must also evaluate the

influence of other chemicals in the air, water, beverages, food,

dust and soil. Overall, this is a daunting challenge. (Sexton,

Needham and Pirkle 2004, 38).

Given the importance of environmental exposures, and the sheer complexity of lifestyle

factors, more cautious forms of consumption do not guarantee protection from chemical

exposure.

The industrial production and use of chemicals is regulated in Canada, as in the United

States, by state institutions that employ risk assessments to determine the toxicity,

persistence and bioaccumulative potential of chemicals, and to remove problematic

compounds from production. This regulatory system has the power to remove chemicals

from production, influence what chemicals can be imported into the country, and warn

consumers of products that have failed to meet safety standards. However, human body

5

burdens are frequently cited as evidence of the failure of these risk assessments to

properly regulate bioaccumulative and other potentially harmful environmental

contaminants (Becker 2010; CELA 2006; Daemmerich 2008; Denison 2007; Steinemann

2004).Through regulatory action and inaction, this system helps to shape the toxicity of

the consumer landscape.

While state agencies have a formal responsibility to regulate and monitor contamination

more broadly, I detect a corresponding emphasis from numerous public health agencies

on the individual’s responsibility to mediate exposure to chemicals. These agencies have

developed materials on contaminant avoidance (outlined in more detail in chapter 3) that

include advice about reducing consumption of animal fats prior to conceiving a child,

choosing organic foods for children, and avoiding the use of plastic in the microwave

(e.g., NYDH 2003). Similar messages appear in green consumerism handbooks (e.g.,

Ashton and Green 2008; Dadd 1997) and non-toxic consumption guides published by

environmental advocacy organizations (e.g., EWG 2010). These resources illustrate that

the mediation of chemical exposures at the family-level has entered the discourses of

caregiving and public health.

The availability of non-toxic products corresponds to an overall growth in the market for

green products. Green consumerism gained momentum in the late 1980s, with the help of

the environmental movement that promoted the market for environmentally friendly

products as a “win-win” strategy to reduce pollution, conserve energy and save money

(Cairncross 1992; Sutton 2004). Corresponding to the growth of green consumerism is a

substantial literature that connects individual actions—particularly within the home and

6

as a consumer—to real environmental improvements (see Dietz et al. 2009; Slocum

2004). Non-toxic consumerism is now an expanding focus of green consumerism, and

has grown into a major lifestyle and consumer trend, where non-toxic alternatives are

available for full range conventional consumer goods, from clothing and food to

furniture, electronics, vehicles and cosmetics.

1.2 Research Questions The underlying question informing the dissertation is as follows: How is the

individualization of environmental risk interpreted in everyday life, and framed through

broad cultural discourses? I identify several key, related questions that stem from this

broad line of inquiry, and which guide the three analytical chapters of the dissertation:

1. To what extent is the imperative of individual responsibility replacing state

responsibility in the discourse of risk as it relates to chemical body burdens?

(Chapter 2)

2. In what ways has personal responsibility for mediating exposure through green

consumerism been internalized by individuals? Furthermore, in what ways do

gender, motherhood and social class shape these narratives of personal

responsibility? (Chapter 3)

3. Within these narratives, how do individuals compare their role as responsible

agents and consumers to those of other social actors and institutions? (Chapter 4)

7

1.3 Individualized risk and Individualized politics At a general level, these research questions respond in part to European sociologist Ulrich

Beck’s theory of the risk society (1992, 1995, 1999). Beck writes about a fundamental

reconfiguration of risk in late modernity where environmental risks cross boundaries and

remain outside the direct control of individuals. These risks (such as genetically modified

organisms in the food supply, the global transport of pollutants, or nuclear fall-out) are

universal, transboundary, involuntary, and imperceptible: meaning that our ability to

identify who or what might be responsible for creating and mitigating risk is complicated

in a risk society. Beck (1999, 6) refers to this as “organized irresponsibility”, where risk

originates from multiple indistinguishable sources and cannot be easily associated with

an identifiable actor or institution. In the first analytical chapter, I use Beck’s theories

alongside two other explanations for risk, institutional theories and risk-as-governance.

The difficulty in establishing responsibility for risk is addressed in a separate risk

literature that looks at institutional responsibility and failures in the context of risk

management. This literature assumes that institutions are responsible for producing risk

and protecting the public from risk exposure. These institutions and organizations

include: 1) the state, which is charged with protecting public welfare, 2) regulatory

bureaucracies that have legislated responsibilities to oversee the production and

distribution of technological risks, and 3) the companies that produce new technologies,

chemical compounds, and consumer products and are thus responsible for manufacturing

8

technological risks2 (Beamish 2000; Clarke and Short 1993; Freudenburg,1993;

Freudenburg et al. 2008; Perrow 1984). Bickerstaff, Simmons and Pidgeon (2008)

suggest that responsibility for risk is constantly being re-drawn and renegotiated, thus

individuals have a difficult time determining what constitutes a responsibility for

institutions and what represents a personal responsibility. I address this problem of

institutional capacity and visibility in chapters 2 and 4, and suggest that as responsibility

becomes more complex and difficult to identify, the assignment of responsibility for

creating and managing risk is correspondingly complicated.

With greater individualization comes the organization of politics in new ways—what

Beck refers to as the “self-organization of politics” or “subpolitics” (Beck 1996, 99). This

is a decidedly more optimistic view of individualization than some of the other

perspectives I address in the dissertation (e.g., Guthman 2008; Szasz 2007). According to

Beck’s interpretation, politics is no longer solely associated with the state’s bureaucratic

activities, but has come to also include the politicization of multiple aspects of people’s

everyday lives, such that politics is both institutionalized and non-institutionalized. Citing

the case of the mass boycott of Shell as part of the Brent Spar controversy—where the

Shell corporation negotiated with environmental advocacy organizations rather than state

governments as part of a decision to reverse a plan for deep-sea oil disposal—Beck

2 As Beck (1992) argues, in addition to institutions and organizations, scientific and technological innovation plays a significant role in the creation of a risk society, and is also central to organized irresponsibility. Other than a brief mention in chapter 2, I have chosen not to examine the role of scientific processes and epistemic communities in creating chemical hazards, for the sake of focusing my analysis on the individualization of risk in the context of consumption. Furthermore, I recognize that scientific innovation takes place within public institutions (e.g., universities, government research laboratories) as well as private organizations (e.g., chemical production companies). Thus both private and public organizations hold some responsibility for driving the scientific innovation that leads to manufacturing of harmful chemical compounds (and, alternatively, seeks to mitigate them in the case of the emerging field of “green chemistry”). However, the actors and organizations that are central to expanding chemical innovation and technologies are not a focus of this dissertation.

9

suggests that subpolitics is just as consequential to the management of environmental

risks as traditional state-centered politics (Beck 1994, 1999). The subpolitical sphere is

comprised of individualized actions (such as a decision to boycott Shell) and also

includes science and technology, green consumerism and the activities of corporations

(Holzer and Sorenson 2003). Hence, subpolitics overlap with “consumer-citizenship”3 or

the study of civic engagement through everyday lifestyle and consumer activities. Stolle

and Hooghe (2004), for example, argue that younger generations shun traditional forms

of political engagement (such as voting, protesting or joining a political party) in favour

of more individualized lifestyle actions (159-160; see also Micheletti 2003). These

actions are said to be enactments of citizenship that contribute to environmental

improvement and greater social justice. I review this literature in greater detail in chapter

4, and respond to some of its key claims using the data I have collected.

Across all of these literatures on risk and citizenship is a common thread that I address in

the concluding chapter of the dissertation: neo-liberalism4. All of these literatures point

both directly and indirectly to fundamental political shifts that have altered the

3 While the literature identifies different forms of politically oriented consumerism, including political, ethical and green consumerism, I prefer to use consumer-citizenship as an overarching term to include these forms of consumerism and see it as the consideration of the public sphere—the impacts of consumption on the environment, labour, and social conditions more generally—in the context of one’s private commodity choices (Sassatelli 2007:187). I therefore include within consumer-citizenship the boycott of particular companies or products and the purchase of environmentally friendly—or “green”—products, organic foods, and fair trade goods. 4 Neo-liberal ideology favours the expansion of free market capitalism and a minimalist state, and this ideology shaped public policies in liberal democracies beginning in the 1970s (Harvey 2005; Prasad 2006). According to this ideology, the market is the most efficient and effective institution for distributing goods and services, while the Keynesian welfare state is considered inefficient and its programs are thought to entrench, rather than improve, social problems such as poverty (Harvey 2005). Proponents of neo-liberalism advocate the privatization of public services, deregulation, and greater cooperation between firms and government (Ilcan 2009). Neo-liberal ideology conceptualizes individuals not as citizens entitled to benefits from the welfare state but as autonomous and responsible consumers who should be free to make their own choices regarding their welfare (Rose 1999).

10

relationship between the individual citizen, the state and the market. Political scientists

and policy analysts point to concrete political shifts that are directly linked to a neo-

liberal political ideology that prioritizes individual responsibility over state responsibility

(Prasad 2006; Hacker 2008; Ilcan 2009). In the UK, especially, there is a broad

scholarship that demonstrates how overtly neo-liberal policies refer to citizens as

“clients”, encourage greater responsibilization, and have fundamentally transformed the

allocation of responsibility for social risks (particularly unemployment or illness), such

that these risks are now absorbed by individuals rather than states (Ferguson 2007;

Gustafsson 2004; Perrons 2000; Vickerstaff and Cox 2005). Similar shifts have been

observed in the US under what Jacob Hacker calls “the great risk shift” (Hacker 2008, 6),

and in Canada for social services, some forms of health care (Teghtsoonian 2009; Ilcan

2009), and the criminal justice system (Levi 2000). Neo-liberal transformations have also

been observed in environmental politics through whole-scale transformation of

environmental bureaucracies and a transfer of responsibility for environmental

improvement from the state to corporations and consumers (Bernstein 2000; Paehlke

2000; Slocum 2004). As I note in all three analytical chapters, neo-liberalism draws on

particular governance practices, and calls forth the creation of new subjects (Dean 1997;

Rose 1999; O’Malley 2000). The risk-as-governance literature observes how the burden

of managing risk is increasingly transferred from the state to self-auditing individuals and

private institutions (Doyle 2007; Ericson, Doyle and Barry 2003; O’Malley 1992, 2004).

Individualization is viewed as the result of neo-liberal (or “advanced liberal”) political

and economic reforms, where the state deliberately withdraws from the duty of managing

collective exposure to risk (Ericson, Doyle and Barry 2003; Rose 1999). Scott (2007), for

example, observes that government will allow new, “risky” technologies to be introduced

11

and mitigate risk exposure by supporting mechanisms that flag these risks for wary

consumers over options that would proactively prevent exposure to risk at the outset.

Throughout the dissertation, I identify the ways in which the rationality of neo-liberal

governance construes exposure to risk as a matter of individual choice and self-protection

becomes part of accepting greater personal responsibility.

1.4 Overview of the Dissertation The dissertation is organized into three analytical chapters, with each chapter

representing its own stand-alone examination of one particular aspect of the

individualization of risk.5 All three chapters draw on the same broad research questions

described above, but each re-articulates these questions in more specific ways appropriate

for in-depth analysis and discussion.

In the first analytical chapter (chapter 2), I describe changes over time in Canadian news

media framing of the problem of chemical bioaccumulation and chemical body burdens. I

review over twenty years of news coverage of this topic and identify several significant

shifts in media frames. Within these shifts I distinguish the appearance of precautionary

consumption as a key solution to chemical body burdens as part of the problem framing

of chemical bioaccumulation. In the second analytical chapter (chapter 3), I examine a

thread that emerged in the media analysis, where chemical mediation6 is presented as a

gendered practice that involves women and mothers. Drawing on in-depth interviews

5 Chapter 2 has recently been published in Sociological Inquiry as “Media framing of body burdens: Precautionary consumption and the individualization of risk” (MacKendrick 2010). 6 The task of preventing exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in food and consumer products.

12

with twenty-five mothers—and an analysis of some of the public health materials around

chemical body burdens— this chapter examines how chemical mediation is discursively

constructed as a caregiving activity located within the private, rather than public, sphere.

Mothers draw upon intensive-mothering and precautionary consumption ideologies to

inform their response to chemical body burdens in their capacities as caregivers of

children and the home. Chapter 3 reveals how these two private sphere ideologies inform

a total sense of personal responsibility within interview narratives. In chapter 4, I

examine this imperative of personal responsibility from various perspectives on

individualization. I use both the focus group and interview narratives surrounding

individualized modes of risk management to better understand first, how the imperative

of personal responsibility for risk protection is internalized by individuals, and second,

where individuals situate their actions within the larger socio-political context of

collective risk management. I interpret findings using a theoretical framework that draws

on the literature on consumer-citizenship, and on the governmentality perspective on the

individualization of risk.

Methods guiding each phase of analysis are described in all three analytical chapters,

rather than in a separate methods section. Methods of analysis, data, and sometimes the

sample of respondents, all varied depending on the research questions addressed by each

chapter. Chapter 2 uses framing analysis and a sample of 102 newspaper articles.

Chapters 3 and 4 draw mainly on in-depth interviews as data and employ a qualitative

analysis of interview narratives. The samples for these chapters differ slightly: in chapter

3, because of the focus on mothering as part of the research question, I exclude three

male respondents from the sample and restrict my analysis to mothers, whereas in chapter

13

4 I include the three male respondents. Chapter 4 also very briefly describes and

summarizes the results of preliminary focus groups that were used in an exploratory

phase preceding the in-depth interviews. These focus groups were most relevant to the

study of consumer-citizenship, and only very briefly examined motherhood and chemical

body burdens, and are therefore not included as part of chapter 3.

Likewise, chapters use slightly different sets of literatures, but all draw on the main

theoretical perspectives outlined above. Following the analytical component of the

dissertation is a conclusion section that summarizes the chapters, outlines the main

findings, and ties together findings across all three chapters. This section also outlines the

limits of this study and future research directions.

14

Chapter 2 Media framing of body burdens: Precautionary consumption and the individualization of risk

2.1 Introduction Bioaccumulation—the gradual accumulation of environmental contaminants in biological

organisms—has long been the concern of natural scientists, but has only recently

surfaced in the sociological literature. Attention has now turned to “body burdens,” an

aspect of bioaccumulation that refers to the internal contaminant load carried by most

organisms in the industrialized world. Of special concern are the health effects of body

burdens in human populations, particularly children. As individuals, we are not aware of

our own internal contaminant load, as detection of body burdens requires specialized

technology. But exposure to contaminants is universal and largely involuntary, as

chemicals are present in air, water, food, soil and indoor environments. Over the past

several years, we have seen an increase in the sociological literature dealing with the

body burden phenomenon (e.g., Altman et al. 2008; Iles 2007; Morello-Frosch et al.

2009; Roberts and Langston 2008). Much of this work is rooted in the environmental

health movement literature that has documented the rise of advocacy organizations

concerned with polluted environments and “contested” illness (e.g., Brown 2007; Brown

et al. 2004; Cable, Shriver and Mix 2008; Corburn 2005; Kroll-Smith, Brown and Gunter

2000).

As expert systems have considerable control over the definition and subsequent

management of chemical hazards (Cable, Shriver and Mix 2008), the communication of

risk around body burdens to the lay public largely depends on the popular news media.

15

By encouraging certain problem frames, the media shapes public understandings of key

causal factors and attributions of responsibility in the management of risk (Brown et al.

2001; Stallings 1990). Consequently, the media plays a vital role in framing body

burdens as both a risk and a social problem, and we can assume that public knowledge of

body burdens is significantly influenced by the news media. The importance of the news

media in interpreting local or regional contamination events is acknowledged in the

literature (Griffin, Dunwoody, and Gehrmann 1995; Robinson 2005; Zavestoski,

Agnello, Mignano, and Darroch 2004), although to date no study has systematically

examined news media coverage of body burdens arising from chronic and universal

exposure to environmental contaminants. An understanding of how the news media

frames body burdens as a social problem is critical for understanding how this issue is

taken up in the public sphere, by policy makers, communities in close proximity to

polluting industries, health professionals dealing with environmental illnesses, and

individual readers who become aware of their bodies and their environments as

“polluted”.

Drawing on the sociology of risk literature, this chapter uses frame analysis to examine

the social problem frame around body burdens in the Canadian news media from 1986 to

2006, and links these findings to broader theories of risk and society, particularly the

individualization of risk. Most significantly, recent news articles underscore the

individual’s responsibility to avoid contaminant exposure through what I call

“precautionary consumption” behavior. The frame of precautionary consumption

communicates a sense of individual empowerment and control through acts of “green”

consumption and chemical avoidance. While it transforms body burdens into a

16

manageable risk, it directs attention away from the failure of states and industries to

properly manage chemical production and dispersal.

The chapter begins by situating the study within two literatures: the literature on media

framing is used to establish why media frames are an appropriate focus for the study of

risk in public discourse, and the literature on the sociology of risk is used to identify the

kind of frames expected to appear in the analysis. This is followed by a framing analysis

of news media articles. The final section discusses how we might explain shifts over time

in the framing of body burdens, and links these shifts to theoretical debates in the study

of risk and society.

2.2 Technology, Risk and the Environment Like other forms of contamination and pollution, the bioaccumulation of contaminants in

the environment and living organisms represents an environmental and technological

risk. This section discusses two separate risk literatures: the institutional and

organizational perspective and the risk society and individualization perspective.

2.2.1 Institutional and Organizational Factors The body burden phenomenon has a clear institutional component in that government

agencies regulate chemical production and are responsible for minimizing adverse

impacts of chemical exposure on environmental quality and human health. As Perrow

(1984) demonstrated in his study of nuclear accidents, risk is not necessarily the product

of human error but can be an inherent property of industrial operating systems where

sections are so tightly coupled that minor problems quickly develop into systemic

17

failures. Organizational characteristics and configurations are key to the production of

risk, making the institutional perspective on risk a useful analytical tool, as it examines

how features of organizations, bureaucracies and policy-making processes lead to

environmental hazards and technological failures (Clarke 1993).

When risk management systems fail, struggles ensue over the identification of whom or

what is to blame (Clarke and Short 1993), and official organizations and institutions are

frequently invoked in the attribution of blame. Freudenburg (1993), for example, uses the

notion of “recreancy” to describe public distrust in institutions that have failed to

properly manage risk, a phenomenon that is especially pertinent in an era when the public

is highly dependent on, but increasingly distanced from, expert systems. According to

Freudenburg, the public’s distance from these systems explains why, despite decreasing

risk in many areas of social life, public concern about risk continues to increase.

2.2.2 The “Risk Society” and Individualization Pointing to widespread ecological degradation (e.g., DDT in breast milk, transboundary

pollution and radioactive fallout), Beck (1992, 1995, 1999) argues that we are moving

toward a “risk society” characterized by universal and high-consequence risks that

threaten human and ecological existence and transcend geographic and social divisions.

He observes that risks have ceased to be managed by traditional institutions associated

with the welfare state and are managed instead by institutions with little visibility and

public accountability, such as the market, and science and technology. Thus, the

production of risks cannot easily be associated with an identifiable actor or institution, a

condition he calls “organized irresponsibility” (Beck 1999,6). Elsewhere, Beck has

18

written extensively on individualization and modernity (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002)

and the anxiety associated with negotiating universal risks at the individual level (Beck

2006). He suggests that individualization is exacerbated by the inability of state

institutions to manage modern risks, such that the market becomes a key institution for

individuals to manage their exposure to risk (Ibid).

A related, but distinct, body of risk literature has studied the individualization of risk,

with a strong focus on risk as a technique of governance related to the dismantling of the

welfare state. These authors argue that the individualization of risk is associated with

principles of neo-liberalism, emphasizing individual choice, personal responsibility, and

the market as an efficient institution for bringing about social and political change

(Ericson, Doyle and Barry 2003; Rose 1999). They note that with the expansion of neo-

liberalism, universal risks—such as crime and economic instability—are increasingly

managed through the purchase of private insurance and other commodities of self-

protection (Doyle 2007; Ericson, Doyle and Barry 2003; O’Malley 2004). Here, risk is

used as a technique of governance, with risk management transferred to “citizen-

consumers” (Scott 2007, 37) who negotiate their exposure to risk by modifying their

consumer choices. While not explicitly embedded in risk theory, Szasz (2007) also

observes the growing commodification of risk protection, citing gated communities and

the increase in consumption of bottled water and specialty non-toxic products.

2.2.3 Media and Risk Risks are communicated through the mass media, an important source of information on

science, health and environmental issues (Carvalho and Burgess 2005; Nelkin 1987;

19

Seale 2003) and a critical actor in the social construction of risk (Allan 2002; Driedger

2007). The media help to construct phenomena as social problems, identifying which

issues are cause for concern, outlining responsibility for these problems, and

recommending courses of action (Gamson and Modigliani 1989; Hilgartner and Bosk

1988; Kitsuse and Spector 1973). Public risk perception is shaped by news stories that

frame and construct events in ways that amplify or down-play risks. The media can

amplify risks through an increase in the volume of news stories about a risk event

(Kasperson et al. 2005) or through dramatic language and images (Eldridge and Reilly

2005). News stories can exacerbate fear and anxiety (Altheide 1997) or offer reassurance

to the public by highlighting the actions of “responsible” public institutions purporting to

have risks under control (Freudenburg et al. 1996).

2.2.4 Frame Analysis Studies of risk and the media commonly employ frame analysis to study news texts, as

frames use accessible cognitive schemas to present relatively complex information and

issues in a way that increases a message’s salience (Entman 1993; Scheufele and

Tewksbury 2007; Tuchman 1978). Frames in news stories do several things: define a

problem in a particular way, interpret causal relationships, provide moral evaluation, and

recommend courses of action or treatment (Entman 1993). Importantly, frames in news

texts represent a choice between what messages to communicate (Tuchman 1978) by

drawing attention to certain aspects of reality and ignoring others (Entman 1993; Oliver

and Johnston 1999). This chapter examines the content of frames rather than the

conditions behind the construction of frames or the interaction between frames and public

opinion formation (see D’Angelo 2002). This approach is useful for identifying general

20

cultural frames and ideological standpoints (Binder 1993; Oliver and Johnston 1999), as

news frames deliberately draw on these to increase their resonance or “potency” (Gamson

and Modigliani 1989; Scheufele 1999).

It is important to pay attention to primary sources selected by journalists to define issues

and their terms of reference (Coleman, Hartley and Kennamer 2006). A shift in these

“primary definers” (Antilla 2005, 344) can coincide with a shift in how risks are framed

in the news media. In the case of climate change, for example, what was once almost

entirely a scientific issue (with scientists as primary definers) is now also framed as a

financial risk because of the involvement of insurance industry representatives as primary

definers (Carvalho and Burgess 2005). Journalists seek out “official” sources (often

publications or spokespeople from government or industry) from organizations that hold

some responsibility for a given event (Stallings 1990), or select sources that lend

credibility to the journalist’s own viewpoint (Ericson, Baranek and Chan 1989).

Organizations with opposing viewpoints must, therefore, be well organized and

persuasive to appear in news articles, and many rarely gain access to reporters (Coleman,

Hartley and Kennamer 2006; Freudenburg et al. 1996). Importantly, frames are not

determined by primary definers but are the outcome of an interaction between journalists

and their sources (Miller and Riechert 2000).

2.2.5 The Framing of Causal Mechanisms A key component of the social problem frame in media accounts of risk is the

representation of causal mechanisms and attributions of responsibility (Altheide 1997).

Media discourse may offer a selective view of causation by failing to identify systemic

21

causes of hazards. In his seminal study of media framing, Stallings (1990) observed that

news reports of a bridge failure focused more on the immediate problems associated with

environmental conditions and engineering quality than on systemic factors, such as the

design of transportation networks or the reliance on cars for transportation. Importantly,

Stallings made this observation by noting the absence of systemic causal frames in media

representations. In a similar study, Brown et al. (2001) found that references to systemic

causes of breast cancer—particularly environmental pollution—decreased over time in

the popular print media, while individual-level factors, such as personal lifestyle and

genetics, were presented as primary causes of the disease.

While the media’s influence over public discourse is “neither trivial nor decisive”

(Gamson and Modigliani 1989, 80), in the case of highly technical risks such as body

burdens, we can assume that it exerts a tremendous influence over our knowledge and

understanding of risk. Contact with chemicals is part of everyday life, and each of us has

a chemical body burden; nevertheless, the ability to detect and observe body burdens is

limited to expert systems. Consequently, the news media play a vital role in

communicating the risks of chemical bioaccumulation to the lay public—a role that has

not yet been examined in the sociological literature. This chapter begins to fill this gap by

systematically examining the social problem frame around chemical bioaccumulation,

including how contaminants are framed as a risk, over the past two decades in the

Canadian print news media.

22

2.3 Methods Over the past 20 years, chemical bioaccumulation has received considerable attention in

the Canadian news media, as both an environmental and health topic. Canadian research

institutions—including federal government agencies—actively study the ecological and

human health effects of chemical bioaccumulation, and the Canadian government has

pushed for the ratification of international treaties to control the production and disposal

of persistent organic pollutants as a result of concerns about Arctic pollution.7 In the last

five years, several prominent Canadian environmental groups (e.g., Environmental

Defense and Pollution Probe) have launched campaigns to raise public awareness of

chemical pollution and human body burdens.

The first step in the research process was collecting background information to inform

content and frame analysis. This included searching through Canadian newspaper articles

from 1986 to 2006, and a careful reading of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports

on human exposure to chemicals, as well as on-line publications from several

environmental groups (Canadian and American chapters of Environmental Defense,

World Wildlife Fund Britain, and the US-based Environmental Working Group). This

background research identified the main environmental and health concerns of chemical

bioaccumulation, particularly the concern that body burdens are a universal and

unavoidable risk because of frequent exposure to contaminants through normal everyday

experiences.

7 In 1998, Canada hosted the first round of negotiations to draft a global United Nations-sponsored treaty to deal with these pollutants.

23

The next step was to find news media articles that reflected these concerns, particularly

exposure to multiple chemical compounds through normal, everyday experiences, such as

breathing, eating, drinking, and using common household goods. Articles therefore had to

mention more than one environmental contaminant, so that coverage would not be biased

toward issues specific to an individual compound. Because topics around

bioaccumulation vary significantly over time (see figure 1), it was not possible to track

one single topic in sufficient depth over a twenty-year period.

Newspaper selection was largely determined by circulation size and geographic

representation, but was also influenced by the political economic realities of newspaper

ownership in Canada. The Globe and Mail, a national paper, and the Toronto Star, a

paper serving Canada’s largest metropolitan area, were selected as they have the largest

circulation in Canada.8 The CanWest Mediaworks newspaper chain owns most of the

other major papers published in large urban centers. Only two CanWest papers were

selected, since papers belonging to this chain share many of the same articles. The

Vancouver Sun and Calgary Herald were selected as they have a large circulation size

and a regional focus outside Ontario (Canada’s largest province in terms of population).

This effort to represent the Western provinces while at the same time minimize the

number of reprints across CanWest papers meant that papers from Québec and Atlantic

Canada could not be included. However, preliminary searches were run for English-

language editions of these papers; as suspected, they carried many of the articles featured

8 Circulation data was obtained from the Canadian Newspaper Association’s 2005 circulation figures (http://www.cnaacj.ca/Client/CNA/ cna.nsf/object/ CircData06/$file/ CIRCULATION%20 DATA%202005.pdf). It was not possible to include the other national newspaper, the National Post, as this newspaper was established in 1998 (previously the Financial Post), and even after 1998, it did not cover chemical bioaccumulation issues to any great extent. Newspapers owned by Sun Media were excluded because of their relatively low circulation sizes, and lack of coverage of chemical bioaccumulation issues.

24

in the Vancouver Sun and Calgary Herald. Therefore, a search limited to these four

papers captures the majority of newspaper articles discussing body burden issues in

Canada, although with the exclusion of Québec and Atlantic papers, it likely misses some

stories specific to these regions that were not reported as national news.

An electronic database of articles from the four papers was generated through systematic

searches in the ProQuest Canadian Newsstand database. All searches were limited from

January 1, 1986, to December 31, 2006. Initial searches using single search terms such as

(BODY BURDEN*) retrieved very few results, and others using very broad terms such

as (TOXIC*) retrieved many irrelevant articles. Therefore, multiple search terms were

combined over three separate searches, generating a total of 1599 articles. The first

search incorporated keywords encompassing a broad range of contaminants and

contaminant issues to retrieve articles discussing brominated flame retardants, PCBs,

endocrine disruptors, and the presence of DDT in breast milk: (PBDE* OR FLAME

RETARDANT*) OR (BODY BURDEN*) OR (PCB* AND HEALTH*) OR (DDT*

AND BREAST MILK) OR (ENDOCRIN* DISRUPT*) OR (HORMON* DISRUPT*).

This search generated 1017 articles. This was followed by a separate search for articles

dealing with mercury: (MERCURYAND FISH) AND (TOXI* OR HEALTH*)), which

generated 293 articles. Finally, a separate search was conducted for articles discussing

contaminants in breast milk (BREAST MILK AND (CHEMIC* OR TOXI*) AND NOT

DDT). This generated 289 articles, more than half of which overlapped with articles

retrieved in earlier searches.

25

Reprints were removed from the database, along with articles with fewer than 500 words,

as a close preliminary reading of shorter articles suggested that they did not provide

enough content for frame analysis in this context. Only news articles and special features

were selected for analysis, since these articles are guided by the journalistic norm of

objectivity with the purpose of providing information to readers, in comparison to

editorials and opinion columns that explicitly state an opinion or take a position in a

broader debate (Gamson and Modigliani 1989), and are therefore assumed to be more

representative of the media’s role in a risk society—as an intermediary between expert

and lay systems of knowledge.

Several exclusionary criteria were used to further refine the articles selected for analysis.

Articles that focused entirely on bioaccumulation in non-human organisms, for example,

were excluded unless there was some mention of human consequences of contamination.

Articles were rejected if they covered only accidental or specific point-source pollution

(e.g., a chemical spill, contamination from a fire) or exposure to contaminants from

certain occupations. Also excluded were those covering “single-instance” food safety

scandals (e.g., carcinogens in soft drinks or the contamination of eggs with dioxin) and

articles discussing farmed fish.9 These articles were rejected because single-instance food

safety scandals and specific point-source pollution represent a different form of risk from

the everyday, normal exposure to contaminants associated with the body burden

phenomenon. The former are often shorter-term risks and usually affect only a select

9 Farmed fish can contain higher levels of toxins than wild-caught fish, and most retailers use labels to distinguish wild-caught from farmed fish. Farmed fish are a specific commodity with a higher risk of contamination and do not represent a ubiquitous or universal risk.

26

population, while the latter involve ordinary lifetime exposure to a contaminated

environment and affect all individuals living in the industrialized world.

2.4 Findings In total, 102 articles were selected for analysis. The greatest number came from The

Globe and Mail (45%), with 25% from the Vancouver Sun, 22% from the Toronto Star,

and 9% from the Calgary Herald.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Num

ber

of a

rtic

les

Figure 1. Distribution of articles over time by general topic area: 1986-2006. Arrows indicate the temporal distribution of the major topic areas related to bioaccumulation.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of articles and specific topics over the 20-year period.

Topics vary according to the period of coverage. PCBs and DDT were two important

contaminant issues in the 1980s because of extensive concern over the presence of these

chemicals in human breast milk and in large mammals. News reports of chemical

bioaccumulation in the Arctic and Great Lakes region were steady throughout the 1980s

and early 1990s, but declined after the mid-1990s. Contaminants in wild fish and seafood

are consistently covered in the news since the mid-1990s. Coverage of endocrine

Endocrine disruptors

Contaminants in consumer goods PCBs, DDT, Great Lakes pollution, Arctic pollution

Contaminants in wild fish and seafood

27

disruptors begins in the early 1990s and becomes more prevalent in the mid-1990s after

the publication of the popular book Our Stolen Future (Colborn et al. 1996). News

reports of contaminants in consumer goods began in the late 1990s after the publication

of CDC reports and scientific studies identifying these compounds in humans and large

mammals such as polar bears. The spike in news coverage around 1998 seems to be

explained by a convergence of topics, particularly concerning endocrine disruptors and

consumer goods. The considerable increase in articles after 2004 reflects discussions of

human body burdens specifically, with an emphasis on health effects in children and

consumer goods as contaminant sources.

2.5 Content and Frame Analysis Content analysis is used to identify 1) the specific pathway of contaminant exposure

identified in news articles and 2) the primary definers used in the article. Frame analysis

is used to identify aspects of the dominant social problem frame.

The pathway of chemical exposure reveals the characterization of contaminant origins.

Pathways are identified by searching for references to the presence of contaminants in a)

the external environment, defined as water, soil, and air (including indoor air), as well as

reference to bioaccumulation in non-human organisms; b) food, including wild game and

wild-caught fish; and c) consumer goods, such as electronics and furniture. Primary

definers are identified in each article by counting the number of people or organizational

representatives quoted, including quotations taken from written statements or

organizational publications. Primary definers had to provide significant material to the

article: at least three sentences of text. Articles often had multiple primary definers.

28

In the first stage of frame analysis, the dominant problem frame is identified, that is, how

contamination is described as a social problem. Frames in textual materials “are

manifested by the presence or absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped

images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing

clusters of facts or judgments” (Entman 1993, 52). Therefore, frames are identified by

examining how the articles used concepts, themes or metaphors to describe the body

burden as a “concern” and assign meaning to this concern. Three different aspects of the

problem frame are identified:

1. The overall representation of body burdens as problem. This includes

identifying the specific characterization of the problem: whether body burdens are cited

as an example of environment degradation (e.g., references to contaminants as a form of

pollution or a threat to nature and wildlife) or a threat to human health (in terms of

illness, disease or disorders).

2. The way in which responsibility or blame for contamination is articulated

and whether aspects of blame are missing from the article. Here the particular actors and

organizations held responsible for creating contaminant risks are documented (e.g.,

industry or government).

3. The kinds of solutions to the body burden problem proposed by the article

(e.g., changes to regulation, cleaning up the environment or suggestions for avoiding

exposure to contaminants).

In the second stage of frame analysis, the presence of these aspects of the problem frame

is documented for each article, making it possible to track variation over time using basic

29

descriptive statistics. Examining annual variation, however, reveals only subtle changes

in framing largely because of the small number of articles published each year before

1996. For this reason, coverage is divided into two separate decades to more clearly

capture shifts in framing. When divided by decade, 28% of the articles (n=29) appear

between 1986 and 1996 and 72% (n=73) appear between 1997 and 2006. T-tests are used

to test for significant differences in averages across decades. Results for two-tailed tests

are reported for most items, with exceptions noted in the tables below.

2.5.1 Pathway of Exposure and Primary Definers Most articles note more than one pathway of exposure. As illustrated in table 1, between

1986 and 1996, 86% of articles mention an environmental pathway of exposure, and 52%

mention food as a pathway. In the second decade, there is a drop in articles noting an

environmental pathway, and T-tests of statistical difference (p<0.05) show that this

difference is significant. Moreover, 43% of the articles in the first decade connect

environmental pollution to the presence of contaminants in food, but this decreases

sharply in the second decade (17%). The proportion of articles identifying consumer

goods as an exposure pathway, in contrast, increases significantly in the second decade,

jumping from 10% to 60% (p<0.001).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for identified exposure pathways* Means (Std Dev) T-test Results 1986-1996 1997-2006

(n = 29) (n = 73) Environment 0.86 (0.12) 0.71 (0.21) t = 1.77 (p<0.05)^ Food (including fish & wild game) 0.52 (0.26) 0.51 (0.25) t = 0.09 (NS) Food-environment linkage 0.43 (0.25) 0.17 (0.14) t = 2.49 (p<0.05) Consumer goods 0.10 (0.10) 0.63 (0.24) t = - 6.51 (p<0.001)

* Means do not add to 1.0 because some articles listed multiple pathways. ^ Significant for a one-tailed test

30

Several categories of primary definers are used in the news articles (see table 2 for a full

list across decades). Regardless of time period, academic scientists (those affiliated with

universities rather than government) appear most frequently as primary definers. Their

presence in the articles contributes to a consistent focus on the “scientific” aspects of

body burdens. Although representing a small proportion of primary definers across

decades, when individual lay people appear in articles, they typically express fear of

contamination or provide information on how others can protect themselves from

exposure. With one exception, all of these individuals are women who are presented as

mothers (or women wishing to have children) and their advice applies to the social

reproductive domain. Some articles, for example, feature women who fear that

contaminants in their breast milk are “poisoning” their babies (McInnes 1988, D4),

women dealing with infertility problems (Bueckert 1991, E13) or warning against using

plastic in the microwave (Ubelacker 2005, C1). These individuals support the frame of

precautionary consumption discussed below.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for primary definers* Means (Std Dev) T-test Results 1986-1996 1997-2006 (n = 29) (n = 73) Academic scientist(s) 0.41 (0.25) 0.47 (0.25) t = -0.47 (NS) Individual/Lay person 0.07 (0.07) 0.15 (0.13) t = -1.28 (NS) Gov't representative (e.g. manager) 0.21 (0.17) 0.26 (0.20) t = -0.58 (NS) Gov't scientist(s) 0.31 (0.22) 0.18 (0.15) t = 1.34 (NS) Envt’l group representative 0.31 (0.22) 0.27 (0.20) t = 0.36 (NS) Int'l Joint Commission+ 0.24 (0.19) 0.03 (0.03) t = 2.56 (p<0.05) Other ^ 0.28 (0.21) 0.26 (0.20) t = 0.16 (NS)

* Means do not add to 1.0 because articles often have multiple primary definers ^ Primary definers falling into categories with low frequencies (<8) across decades were categorized as ‘Other’ (e.g. Inuit community representatives, members of an external advisory board). + The International Joint Commission is a U.S.-Canadian organization that oversees water quality in the Great Lakes basin. Primary definers in this category dropped significantly over the two decades, likely owing to clean-up efforts in this region in the mid-1990s and subsequent improvements in water quality.

31

2.5.2 Two Major Problem Frames: Health and Environmental All articles frame body burdens as a “problem” and communicate a sense of fear and

anxiety around this issue. They note, for example, the “surprising level of foreign

substances” in breast milk (Bergman 1989, A2), express “fears over cancer”’ (McAndrew

1998, A8), and describe endocrine disruption in aquatic ecosystems as “ominous and

frightening” (Simpson 2001, B7).

Across both time periods, all articles identify potential health problems from contaminant

exposure, including cancer, birth defects, decreased sperm counts, reproductive disorders,

and learning and behavioral disorders. Over time, these health dimensions overshadow

the environmental dimensions of body burdens. From 1986–1996, about 83% of the

articles note environmental problems associated with contaminants (such as

compromised ecological integrity or the reduced reproductive success of mammals, fish,

and amphibians), but this drops dramatically to 34% from 1997–2006, and this drop is

statistically significant (p<0.001). In this later decade, even articles identifying an

environmental pathway of exposure often do not explicitly reference environmental

concerns associated with chemical bioaccumulation. This shift reflects a broader

movement toward seeing environmental degradation through a “health lens”(Brown and

Zavestoski 2004), and attests to the increasing dominance of the health frame in the

narrative of environmental problems. The health frame marks a shift in how

environmental problems are conceptualized: as a problem separate from humans to an

issue directly connected to human well-being. 10

10 This is especially the case with the discourse of environmental justice. By drawing attention to social and racial stratification in proximity to industrial pollution and toxic waste, this discourse similarly connects environmental degradation to human health (Taylor 2000).

32

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for key frames* Means (Std Dev) T-test Results 1986-1996 1997-2006 (n = 29) (n = 73) Problem definition Environmental Problem 0.83 (0.15) 0.34 (0.23) t = 5.35 (p<0.001) Health problem 1.0 (0.0) 1.0 (0.0) --- (NS) Responsibility & Blame No attribution of responsibility 0.48 (0.26) 0.66 (0.23) t = -1.59 (NS) Assigns some responsibility:

(1) To gov't 0.67 (0.24) 0.64 (0.24) t = 0.17 (NS) (2) To industry 0.87 (0.12) 0.48 (0.26) t = 2.83 (p<0.01)

Ways to address the problem No stated solutions 0.17 (0.15) 0.38 (0.24) t = -2.31 (p<0.05) Stated solutions: (1) Collective measures* 0.92 (0.07) 0.69 (0.22) t = 2.51 (p<0.01)

(2) Precautionary consumption* 0.13 (0.11) 0.47 (0.25) t = -3.34 (p<0.001) * Means do not add to 1.0 because some articles discussed both precautionary consumption and collective action as possible solutions.

2.5.3 Responsibility and Blame: Contamination as a Blameless Phenomenon Given that news articles must reflect journalistic objectivity, it was expected that

responsibility for contamination—where actors and organizations are identified as being

responsible for creating chemical hazards—would be framed in subtle ways, for example

through general references to industrial pollution, or regulatory problems and delays.

However even subtle references to responsibility are not articulated in a considerable

proportion of the articles from the first decade (48%) and in the majority of articles

(66%) from the second decade. More specifically, these articles express concern over

contamination and describe how contamination occurs, but do not give the reader any

sense of the role of government or industry in creating these problems. In one article, for

example, we learn that “the air inside your new home could be five to 20 times more

polluted than the outdoor air in the most industrialized cities,” owing to chemical off-

gassing from paint, furniture and floor coverings (Gillespie 2005, N12). Despite citing

multiple household goods as sources of potentially harmful chemicals, the article does

33

not point to the industrial producers of these household products, nor does it question the

efficacy of government safety assessments that allowed these products to go on the

market. Another article describing a study of coastal contamination expresses concern

about the health and environmental effects of chemical bioaccumulation on local food

supplies, but does not discuss contamination as a regulatory issue or as an outcome of

industrial processes (Moneo 2006, S1). By failing to identify responsible parties, these

articles paint a picture of body burdens as a ‘blameless’ phenomenon.

Of the proportion of articles that do identify a responsible party, most of the articles in

the earlier period identify industry as responsible, while most of the articles in the later

period identify government as responsible. There is a significant decrease in articles

identifying industry responsibility between the two decades (p<0.01). While industry is

blamed for having “saturated” the environment with chemicals (McInnes 1988, D4),

government is blamed for being slow “to respond to environmental threats” (Bergman,

1989, A22), and is said to have “deliberately ignored and tried to explain away powerful

evidence … of extremely high toxic doses” (Young, 1990, B2).

2.5.4 Solutions: Collective Action vs. Precautionary Consumption Frames around solutions to body burdens fall into two categories: collective action and

what I call “precautionary consumption.” Forms of collective action include the

implementation of stronger regulations, a reduction in chemical production and

improvements in risk assessments. One article, for example, suggests that “clearing the

deadly toxins from the animals and fish … requires an international ban on the chemicals

that contaminate them” (Canadian Press 1989, C11). Another article states that “with an

eye on the 1,000 new synthetic chemicals introduced worldwide every year and the

34

100,000 already on the market, the International Joint Commission (IJC) is saying that if

a chemical belongs to a problem family, manufacturers, importers, and users should have

to prove it is not persistent and toxic before it can be introduced or remain on the market”

(Smith 1996, E6). Another puts the onus on government, suggesting that we need a

“higher level of concern and commitment by the government to find out about the

relationship of these chemicals to human disease” (Cone 1998, A28). Articles identifying

forms of collective action as a solution decline dramatically (p<0.01): from 92% in 1986–

1996 to 69% in 1997–2006.

Corresponding with this drop is a significant increase (p<0.001) in the number of articles

using a precautionary consumption frame (13% in 1986–1996 and 47% in 1997–2006).

Many of these articles employ a language related to the precautionary principle— a

“better safe than sorry” policy mandate to act despite a lack full scientific certainty to

prevent harm to human health or the environment (O’Riordan, Cameron, and Jordan

2001). This principle represents a “public paradigm” (Brown 2007, 203), yet in the case

of this frame, precaution is decidedly self-interested and enacted at the individual

consumer level. A store owner in one article, for example, is quoted as saying “our store

is all about the precautionary principle” (Morphet 2005, F4), while another article quotes

a “healthy” shopper who claims to be “very cautious in what I use. I am very good at

reading a label” (Wigod 1998, B11). Most importantly, this frame suggests that specific

changes to one’s behavior as a consumer can reduce exposure to potentially harmful

chemicals. Readers are advised to refrain from heating leftovers in plastic, to reduce their

use of cosmetics and perfumes, and to buy furniture and electronics that have not been

treated with brominated flame retardants. One article entitled “How pure can you get?

35

Worried about how many harmful chemicals are in the food you eat and the air you

breathe? There are ways to keep the toxic levels down” notes the universal and

involuntary nature of contamination, but concludes with a section advising readers to eat

organic food and to avoid many cosmetic products and conventional cleaners (Morphet

2005, F4). Another observes that avoidance is impossible—“don’t eat, don’t drink and

don’t breathe”—but includes tips on buying goods without contaminants (Mittelstaedt

2006, A10). The precautionary consumption frame implies that involuntary chemical

exposures can be avoided through informed consumer choices or through changes to

everyday behaviors.

To summarize, over a period of two decades between 1986 and 2006, we see a significant

shift in the framing of body burdens. There is a drop in the proportion of articles whose

problem frame discusses forms of collective action as a solution to chemical

bioaccumulation, such as the implementation of stronger regulations or the placement of

restrictions on chemical production. The precautionary consumption frame becomes more

prominent, while frames articulating institutional or industrial responsibility for

contamination fade away. In other words, while news frames in the earlier period

reference the broader institutional arrangements involved in the production of chemical

hazards, more recently chemical risks are framed as an individual consumer and health

problem, even when the efficacy of individual protective actions are unclear.

2.6 Discussion and Conclusions When we track variations in the framing of body burdens over a twenty-year period, we

see two important trends. First, the framing of responsibility for contamination becomes

36

increasingly vague. Second, the notion of precautionary consumption, a form of

privatized self-protection, emerges as a key frame. Its emergence coincides with the

appearance of the “consumption fallacy” (Altman et al. 2008, 426) and “personal

commodity bubble” (Szasz 2007, 97) observed in other studies. Self-protection, therefore,

is a dominant frame in the discourse of environmental and technological risks, even

though it undermines the importance of structural reform.

2.6.1 Precautionary Consumption and the Individualization of Risk The emergence of the precautionary consumption frame contributes to the

individualization of risk and responsibility, and the market for environmentally friendly

goods is presented as an alternative whereby individuals can enact their own standards of

precaution. When, for example, an article expresses concern about chemicals present in

ordinary brands of dish soap (those approved by federal regulators), and readers are

advised to avoid these brands in favor of “ecological” alternatives, the article is

encouraging the enactment of a precautionary—but individualized—risk assessment. By

conceptualizing protection as a consumption problem, a precautionary consumption

frame defines responsibility at the individual level, thereby eliminating the discursive

space in which one might contemplate the role of the state. The meaning of precaution in

this frame contrasts sharply with the precautionary principle, which is inherently

supportive of collective mechanisms of universal protection.

The increasing focus on self-protection found in the media articles is at least partly

explained by the increasing interest in the human health effects of environmental

degradation. As Brown et al. (2001) similarly argue, a focus on the human health

37

dimensions of environmental pollution turns the discussion away from themes of

collective responsibility and institutional complicity towards a “personal health” model,

prioritizing healthy behaviors and the individual’s responsibility in the maintenance of

personal well-being. The individualizing effect is bolstered by the articles’ focus on

consumer goods as pathways of exposure to chemicals. At the same time, there is a sharp

decline in the number of articles linking environmental contamination to the presence of

contaminants in food; food is no longer conceptualized as part of the environment, but is

seen as a commodity. Unlike universal environmental exposures—such as exposure to

polluted air—contact with contaminants in everyday commodities is more personal than

collective, as it relates to a specific consumer choice.

Likewise, the articles draw frequently on individual lay people—especially women—as

primary definers who articulate their fears and concerns over contamination, and advise

readers on the specifics of precautionary consumption. When women are used as primary

definers who express concern over chemicals in food, consumer goods and cosmetics,

precautionary consumption becomes a typical household responsibility, and thus

chemical exposure appears to be a routine, everyday experience. Further research is

needed to more carefully examine how the discourse of precautionary consumption is

linked to motherhood and caregiving (see also MacKendrick 2009).

Precautionary consumption hints at the possibility of controlling a fundamentally

uncontrollable phenomenon. It offers self-protection through consumption—a tangible

and immediate solution to chemical exposure—thereby suggesting that individuals are

empowered to manage this risk. Rather than look to (and wait for) the state to regulate

38

chemical production and prevent pollution at the outset, responsibility is transferred to

the individual—in this case, the reader—who gains immediate control over his or her

exposure through specific measures of chemical avoidance and “green” consumption.

The precautionary consumption frame provides a false sense of empowerment and

comfort, given that self-protection through consumption offers a tangible, immediate and

artificial solution to the systemic and structural problem of chemical exposure. The

tendency of news articles to draw on this frame may furthermore reflect journalistic

norms, as articles strive to address the underlying question of “what can I do?” with even

the most uncontrollable risk. Ironically, the more inherently unmanageable a universal

risk, the more vulnerable it is to this sort of individualization, owing to the struggle to

provide the reader with a sense of control.

2.6.2 Theoretical Implications Institutional theories—especially the notion of recreancy—do not capture the observed

shifts in framing. In the second decade, newspaper accounts overlook the role of industry

in creating chemical hazards and public institutions in regulating chemicals through

institutionalized risk assessments. This is unexpected, as body burdens ultimately reflect

institutional failure, given that they are evidence of the failure of the system of checks

and balances on chemical production to prevent harmful chemicals from entering the

environment. Together, the risk society and risk-as-governance literatures provide a lens

through which to understand this phenomenon and overlap to a degree not usually

acknowledged in the risk literature (Lupton 1999).

39

The growing attention to consumer products highlights how multiple sources of risk

complicate the framing of responsibility for risk production. Chronic chemical

bioaccumulation is an emergent risk. It is created by multiple and integrated sources,

making it difficult to identify a single perpetrator and ultimately leading to what Beck

calls organized irresponsibility. Although Beck gives brief theoretical consideration to

organized irresponsibility, this study of body burdens illustrates how this notion exists

empirically as a dominant news frame and is associated with “emergence” as an objective

characteristic of risk. In the mid- to late 1980s, for example, when the focus on chemical

bioaccumulation centered on industrial activity in the Great Lakes region, articles were

more likely to highlight the institutional dimensions of responsibility, especially the

failure of government to control pollution. After the mid-1990s, a greater number of

articles concentrated on universal exposure through the combination of environment,

food and consumer-goods pathways—coinciding with a much weaker framing of blame

and responsibility.

Finally, the ideological congruence of precautionary consumption with neo-liberalism

cannot be ignored. The precautionary consumption frame draws on the language of

choice and individual autonomy, and presents chemical bioaccumulation as a lifestyle

and consumer problem. Here, the risk-as-governance perspective is appropriate for

understanding shifts in framing. An emphasis on the consumer’s role in mitigating

environmental and technological risks resonates with a neo-liberal model of governance,

where the market, rather than the state, becomes the primary institution for social change.

As this literature demonstrates, neo-liberalism is reflected in the discursive transfer of

responsibility away from the state to the market, and away from individuals as citizens to

40

individuals as consumers (Ilcan 2009). Owing to their role in producing “safer” consumer

alternatives, the green consumer product and organic food industries stand to gain from

such a shift, as they are the only organizations that can enable self-protection. The sheer

range of green alternatives available to consumers is astounding. Major supermarkets

now carry a range of non-toxic goods, including water bottles, children’s toys, computers,

and cosmetics, as well as a full range of organic foodstuffs. As this market expands, the

frame of precautionary consumption becomes increasingly accessible to the news media,

particularly when such products are marketed as “non-toxic” and “natural”.

There are significant social and political implications associated with these shifts in

framing. By encouraging individualized responses to a universal risk, news articles divert

attention away from the role of state institutions, industry, science and technology in

creating and managing the hazards associated with industrialization and chemical

production. Individuals may be able to reduce their exposure to some contaminants by

changing their shopping habits, but the frame of precautionary consumption overstates

this ability, particularly when contaminants are present in air, water, and soil. This frame

also leaves unspoken the social and economic constraints on access to “green” products.

In fact, universal protection will require collective measures that motivate greater

regulatory stringency, better chemical safety assessments, and substantial decreases in

chemical production.

41

Chapter 3 Mothers as Mediators: Chemical Risks in the Age of

Intensive Mothering

3.1 Introduction Mothering practices evolve in response to new knowledge of threats to children—

arguably more efficiently and seamlessly than social institutions. As feminist scholars

have shown, the evolution of these practices reflects the interplay between mothering

ideologies and the social allocation of responsibility for children’s well-being (Hays

1996; Lee 2008; Malacrida 2002). In this chapter, I examine this interplay by tracking the

rise of what I call “chemical mediation” as a mothering practice. I show how it represents

a highly individualized burden of care for women and is supported by mothering

ideologies that construct good mothers as informed and vigilant caregivers.

The sociological literature on social responses to environmental pollution establishes that

women are key mobilizers in toxics movements, a role that is attributed to their concern

about family health (see, e.g., Brown and Ferguson 1995; Edelstein 2004; Szasz 1994).

This paper examines a similarly gendered but far more individualized response to

chemical threats through the practice of “chemical mediation” that takes place at the level

of the household, rather than the level of community. Chemical mediation, the practice of

preventing children’s exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in food, consumer

products, and toys, responds to over a decade of ‘body burden’ studies revealing that

from the moment of conception, humans carry in their bodies traces of environmental

contaminants from contact with polluted outdoor and indoor environments (CDC 2005),

with early childhood exposures considered most critical to future health outcomes

42

(Grandjean and Landrigan 2006). In the US and Canada, parenting guidebooks, websites

and public health pamphlets now provide advice for women planning to conceive,

pregnant women, and mothers on how to prevent a long list of potentially harmful

chemicals—including lead, mercury, phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and

bisphenol A—from entering both her own and her (future) children’s bodies.

Because chemical mediation demands considerable vigilance over the feeding of

children, management of the household and everyday consumption decisions, it is an

extension of private sphere responsibilities. Although men’s contribution to the caring of

children is increasing, the literature establishes that women still undertake most of the

caring work and consumption decisions (Arendell 2000; Craig 2006). I argue that

mothers, more than other actors, are considered primarily responsible for controlling

children’s exposure to chemicals, and this responsibility represents a new way mothers

are held accountable for their children’s well-being. Mothers themselves draw on two

ideologies to internalize this responsibility: that of intensive mothering (Hays 1996) and a

second ideology that I identify as “precautionary consumption.” These are two private

sphere ideologies that reinforce individualized approaches to managing new forms of

risk11 and simultaneously reinforce mothering as a singular, but total responsibility for

children’s well-being.

In the first part of the chapter, I describe the ideology of precautionary consumption and

draw on advocacy group and public health literatures to show how actions within the

11 I consider this a “new” form of risk because of the recent improvements in biomonitoring technology that have revealed more conclusively over the last decade the extent to which chemicals permeate human bodies (Sexton et al. 2004).

43

private sphere are valued as an essential response to chemical body burdens. I then draw

on the risk, intensive mothering and medicalized mothering literatures as the main

theoretical frameworks through which I come to understand individualized and privatized

responsibilities for care. Following this, I present a summary of interviews with twenty-

five mothers in their reproductive years living in Toronto to illustrate how chemical

mediation is discursively constructed as a mother’s primary, private-sphere

responsibility. I also show how these themes vary by income. In the final section of the

chapter, I discuss how greater attention to the individualizing nature of private sphere

ideologies can advance feminist scholarship on mothering.

3.2 Mediation of Chemical Exposures as Part of Caregiving Consumption becomes precautionary when one’s own standards of what is considered

“safe” are used to mitigate personal exposure to risk. It consists of, for example, reading a

product label on dish detergent to avoid undesirable chemicals (such as anti-bacterial

agents)—chemicals that are allowed under federal regulation but have been identified

elsewhere as cause for concern. As I have shown in previous work on this concept,

precautionary consumption urges individuals to become more informed about potentially

harmful chemicals and to use this information to make cautious product choices

(MacKendrick 2010). As an ideology, precautionary consumption places considerable

value on the imperative of precaution (the principle that one must act to protect human

health and the environment despite a lack of full scientific certainty), and prioritizes

individual consumer agency as a primary mode of response to chemical body burdens. It

also influences how body burdens are viewed as a social problem by portraying it as a

personal or individual-level concern, rather than societal or collective concern. The idea

44

that individual-level responses to body burdens can effectively reduce exposure to

chemicals has also been termed the “consumption fallacy” or a “personal commodity

bubble” (Altman et al. 2008, 426; Szasz 2007, 99). Below, I provide examples of how

precautionary consumption is applied by advocacy organizations and public health

agencies to show how actions within the private sphere are often presented as vital to

chemical mediation.

In the US and Canada12, multiple advocacy organizations concerned about environmental

health have produced guidebooks outlining appropriate chemical mediation routines.

Refer to table 3 of appendix B, for a list of some of these organizations and related

documents. The US-based Environmental Working Group, for example, provides several

safe shopping guides—some specifically for children—and operates a cosmetic safety

database allowing women to locate safer alternative products (EWG 2010). In another

guide, published by a Canadian organization, chemical mediation is presented as an

extension of childproofing. In these guidebooks, parents are advised to select organic

foods as much as possible, reduce consumption of animal fats prior to conceiving a child,

avoid most plastic food storage containers and select only natural and non-toxic cleaning

products (CPCHE 2008; GPBSR 2001). These guides occasionally note the role of

regulators and industry, but consumer action is consistently presented as a protective

mechanism against regulatory inaction.

12 I focus on the US and Canada in this section, as advocacy and public health organizations borrow from one another. Materials from US organizations are used by Canadians and vice-versa, and these organizations track regulatory developments across North America.

45

In some jurisdictions in the US and Canada, public health agencies are approaching

chemical exposures as a threat to child and maternal health, but with adult male health

conspicuously unaddressed, even though environmental contaminants are also thought to

have adverse effects on male reproductive health (see, e.g., Lottrup et al. 2006). Table 4

of appendix B lists some of these organizations. Pamphlets produced by these

organizations address parents and caregivers of children, but given women’s role in

managing family-level health (Devault 1991; Lupton 2000) and the focus on pregnancy

and breastfeeding, mothers are the likely target audience. These pamphlets summarize the

risks to reproductive and children’s health from chemical exposures, and recommend

specific actions as part of safer chemical mediation routines, such as removing chemical

pesticides from the home, airing out new carpets to allow harmful ‘de-gassing’ to occur

outdoors, reducing consumption of fish and seafood, and mopping the floors to rid the

home of chemical-laden dust (BEH 2009; NYDH 2003; TPH 2001). Unlike the materials

from advocacy organizations discussed above, there is no discussion here of how

chemicals are produced or regulated by the state (even though these publication materials

are themselves produced by state agencies.)

Looking at all these materials together, what is significant is that while suggested actions

are framed as “simple solutions”, they entail substantial changes to established household

routines, particularly for consumption of household goods, the feeding of children, and

cleaning of the home. Adoption of these intricate routines requires a highly technical

form of parental vigilance. In the context of cleaning products, toiletries and cosmetics,

for example, there is an extensive list of chemicals to avoid, many with multiple names,

such that avoidance requires careful scrutiny of product labels. Finally, these materials

46

illustrate how the ideology of precautionary consumption places a tremendous burden of

responsibility on the caregiving individual—and therefore mothers13—to mediate

chemical exposures, owing especially to the focus on maternal and child health. In the

next section of the chapter, I address the subject of maternal responsibility in the context

of risk-as-governance and mothering literatures to show how mothering practices readily

incorporate an individualized logic of responsibility.

3.3 Risk as Governance From a risk perspective, precautionary consumption might be interpreted as an example

of the individualization of risk that has accompanied neo-liberal political and economic

reforms in the US and Canada. These reforms are associated with a fundamental

redistribution of responsibility for managing collective risk from the welfare state to

“self-governing ‘consumer-citizens’” (Scott 2007, 37; see also Beck 2006). The “risk-as-

governance” literature illustrates how the state has retreated from the responsibility of

managing the hazards associated with economic life (Mythen 2005) and health (Nye

2003), and instead provides the conditions for greater “freedom of choice” for individuals

to negotiate hazards on their own (Rose 1999, 65). Risk therefore becomes a technique of

governance as individuals are encouraged to make their own calculative judgements

about hazards by consulting with experts to develop strategies of risk management, and

investing in protective commodities (especially private insurance) that absorb the harm

arising from hazards (Ericson, Doyle and Barry 2003; Ewald 1991; Lupton 1999). I see

household-level chemical mediation as an example of risk-as-governance, as state

13 Singh (2004), Phares (1992) and Neff (2010) establish that, in parenting literature, “mothers” and parents are used interchangeably, and that maternal pathology is a key variable, while the role of fathers is largely neglected.

47

agencies and advocacy organizations cultivate the mother’s agency as an informed

consumer and vigilant caregiver within the private sphere, rather than expand formal

institutional measures that would directly control chemical releases (i.e. greater

regulatory stringency).

3.4 Intensive Mothering and the Medicalization of Mothering Turning now to the mothering literature, we observe how the responsibility for children’s

well-being corresponds to an individualized logic of care, where the mother, as a singular

actor, is allocated the responsibility to minimize risks to her children. In this section, I

draw attention to how the gendered division of labour within the private sphere is

reinforced by mothering ideologies, while also recognizing that the social organization of

domestic labour reflects gender relations more broadly, where the work of caring and

feeding children falls largely to mothers (Devault 1991; Fox 2009; Walzer 1998).

The ideology of “intensive mothering” has profoundly shaped mothers’

conceptualizations of their role in the private sphere (Hays 1996, 8). It is considered the

primary mothering ideology in North America and is thought to set the normative

standard for the “good and caring” mother (Arendell 2000,1195). As Hays demonstrates

in her work, intensive mothering is a child-centered ideology where good mothering and

proper child rearing involves the mother as the central and selfless caregiver who devotes

considerable resources and personal energy to raising the child—including deferral to

expert knowledge on best practices of child rearing. Historically, intensive mothering

coincides with the expansion of industrial capitalism and the separation of public and

48

private spheres, with mothers primarily responsible for care of children and the home

(Fox 2006; Hays 1996). It furthermore reflects changing ideologies of domesticity, where

mothers take charge of raising their children and marshal all available resources—

particularly their own time and energy—toward improving their child’s well-being (Grant

1998; Walzer 1998).

As studies of class differences in parenting have shown, the principles of intensive

mothering are largely a middle-class phenomenon (Lareau 2002, 2003). One recent study

illustrates how adherence to this ideology depends on middle-class resources (especially

financial security), the presence of a male partner, and self-confidence from employment

success to allow a mother to devote herself fully to the care of her children (Fox 2009).

Women’s own articulations of intensive mothering assume “child centrality” (Johnston

and Swanson 2006, 511). As one study of Swedish mothers found, children’s well-being

is prized in motherhood discourses, with the mother’s well-being a priority only to the

extent that it benefits the child (Elvin-Nowak and Thomsson 2001). It is the mother, more

than the father, who must be willing to sacrifice her own needs to provide a safe,

nurturing and enriching environment for her children (Elvin-Nowak and Thomsson 2001;

Hays 1996).

The more strongly women view mothering through the intensive mothering ideology, the

more likely they are to view it as a demanding “enterprise” that involves the deployment

of specialized knowledge and skill (Hays 1996, 159). As such, reliance on experts is

considered central to mothering. This same observation is found within the “medicalized”

49

or “scientific mothering” literature, but with greater attention to the institutional

interventions that contribute to the medicalization of mothering (Apple 1995; Arnup

1994; Ehrenreich and English 1978; Grant 1998). Together, these literatures reveal how

dominant mothering ideologies place an overwhelming emphasis on the mother’s

singular responsibility for her child’s well-being, a responsibility that includes

dependence on expert knowledge (Miller 2007; Wall 2001). This “singling-out” of

mothers begins during pregnancy when mothers are urged to maximize the unborn child’s

health through careful living, self-monitoring, and regular interaction with medical

institutions, such that the very beginning of motherhood is marked by a dependence on

experts and institutions of medical intervention (Lupton 1996, 1999). When child rearing

and the maternal experience are viewed through a medical gaze, expert advice creates the

expectation that good mothers have children who are free of illness and disability, with

most responsibility for childhood illnesses and disorders placed on mothers (Malacrida

2002; Murphy 2003). Both medicalized and intensive mothering work to extend a

mother’s accountability for multiple aspects of her children’s outcomes, such as physical

and mental health, emotional stability, cognitive development and success in adulthood

(Wall 2005).

In this chapter, I use the words of the interviewees themselves to show how mothers int

his study interpret the responsibility of chemical mediation through both intensive

mothering and precautionary consumption ideologies.

50

3.5 Methods Findings are based on in-depth interviews with individuals living in Toronto. I used two

selection criteria to locate respondents: first, having children living at home, and, second,

having some responsibility for household food shopping. Responsibility for food

shopping was a good proxy for involvement and interest in chemical mediation as part of

caregiving, given that organic food is marketed as free of pesticides, and because of

concerns about chemical additives in foods, as well as chemicals used in food packaging.

By recruiting for a food study rather than an environmental health study, the sample

allowed for a broader cross-section of individuals with varying levels of awareness of

chemical contamination issues.

Interviewees were recruited by word-of-mouth, by placing posters in grocery stores and

community centres with food security or parenting classes, and through online postings

on local parenting websites. A small honorarium (a gift certificate to a local grocery

store) was provided in all cases to compensate participants for their time.

Interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview questionnaire that was developed

from themes identified in the theoretical literature and secondary materials reviewed

above. I allowed respondents to elaborate on sections of the questionnaire that applied

most to their everyday lives, and sometimes adapted questions for the respondent’s

particular interests and routines of chemical mediation.

51

Data collection continued until significant overlap in themes was observed. In total

twenty-eight parents were recruited, three of whom were male.14 Owing to this very

small proportion of fathers and the focus of the research question on aspects related to

mothering, interviews with male respondents are not included in the analysis, and

findings draw from the sample of twenty-five mothers. Educational attainment was fairly

high, most respondents had some university education or a bachelor’s degree. Only one

respondent had not completed high school, while another had a high school diploma as

their highest level of educational attainment. Ten participants were low-income, defined

by comparing total household income against the low-income cut-off rates published by

Statistics Canada, and five of these low-income participants received multiple forms of

government social assistance, comprising most of their household income. Nine

respondents identified their ethnicity as something other than Caucasian or Canadian,

with four having immigrated to Canada. Ages ranged from twenty to forty, with an

average age of thirty-four years. Six respondents indicated that they had no partner at

home and the remainder were in married or in common-law, heterosexual relationships.

All participants have been assigned pseudonyms here.

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. The Atlas.ti software

package was used for the coding of transcripts. The coding process reflected an

“interchange” process (Schmidt 2004, 253) that brought together theoretical knowledge

from the literature with observations gained from a careful reading of the interview

transcripts. The coding process began with open coding, and from there “focused” coding 14 The recruitment strategy was designed to attract primary caregivers, and I accommodated any male applicants who responded to the recruitment notice and did some of the household food shopping. Only four men responded to recruitment notices. Each of these individuals was responsible for at least half of his household’s food shopping.

52

was used to refine preliminary themes. Open coding identified new and unexpected

themes, while focused coding located themes related to theory and the main research

goals (see Esterberg 2002).

3.6 Findings Interviewees were asked to describe how their “awareness and concern about chemicals

in the environment, home or consumer products developed,” and to describe (if relevant)

how they had adapted household routines to this awareness. They were also asked how

involved their partner (if applicable) was in this task, and whether they felt that they

themselves were doing a good job of managing their children’s exposure to

environmental chemicals. All the participants had some awareness of chemicals in the

environment, food and consumer products and could provide an example of something

that concerned them, with most referring to pesticides on produce, bisphenol A,

hormones in meat products, and conventional cleaning products. In this section, I outline

the main themes from the interviews to illustrate how chemical mediation is gendered

and strongly informed by the ideologies of intensive mothering and precautionary

consumption. While the sample of interviewees is not meant to be representative, I

nevertheless highlight some themes that were unique to the small proportion of low-

income respondents. My objective here is to reveal an initial pattern that can be explored

in a larger and more representative study.

3.6.1 Becoming a Mother For all of the interviewees, an active concern about chemicals in food, the home and

consumer products developed when they started to consider reproductive health and

53

future children, and deepened following pregnancy and the birth of their children.

Brenda, a forty-one-year-old health professional, described how she became concerned

about chemical body burdens once she decided to start a family. After seeking a

naturopath’s advice, she and her husband switched to a diet comprised entirely of organic

foods, and Brenda became pregnant very soon afterward. Brenda has continued to

maintain this diet, which she attributes to a concern to protect her daughter’s health.

I thought well, I’m pregnant so it’s better for the baby, and then when

the baby was born I thought well, it’s better for her for breastfeeding

and [now] I also feed her all organic food.

Trina, a thirty-three-year-old woman pregnant with her first child, recalled very clearly

the turning point in her pregnancy when she connected chemical exposures to the health

of her fetus:

When I was four months pregnant we had this event at [a] university

and the catering company had brought lentil soup and the only thing

that they had was Styrofoam bowls. And my friend said, “you’re not

going to eat that out of a Styrofoam bowl, look at what you’re putting

into your baby!” And she said it so graphically and, I thought, “Oh my

god, she’s so right”, so I went and I got a coffee cup and I put the soup

in there because it was glass. So from there I stopped buying everything

that has Styrofoam. Even at my baby shower everything was paper or

glass.

54

As much as respondents talked of their own awareness developing in an autonomous

way, Brenda and Trina’s interviews reveal the subtle influence from other actors who

reminded them of their chemical mediation responsibilities.

The responsibility to mediate chemical exposures was inseparable from a discourse of

intensive mothering, where all respondents saw themselves as entirely responsible for the

well-being of their children. Marie, a thirty-eight year-old business consultant and mother

of two children, put it this way: “[You] realize here’s this little baby that you are 100

percent responsible for. They are completely defenseless and innocent and you have the

responsibility to protect them.” Karen, a thirty-six-year-old, low-income, stay-at-home

mother of two school-aged children, reflected on how having children “just opens up a

whole new dynamic and a whole new conversation, because it's not just about us.”

Sometimes chemical mediation was articulated as a commitment to provide the best care

for children. Tamara, a thirty-two-year-old teacher and mother of a preschooler,

explained that “I care more about the next generation … my daughter is my everything,

right? I just want the best for her.” Nancy, a thirty-seven-year-old stay-at-home mother of

a toddler, echoed this saying, “your focus is on that child to make sure you can provide

the safest, best environment for them.”

3.6.2 Chemical Mediation as Gendered The gendered dimensions of chemical mediation became particularly visible when

women positioned their role as chemical mediators relative to that of their male spouses

and partners. Respondents such as Rachel, a thirty-eight-year-old health professional with

55

an infant, spoke of how her husband insisted on buying green cleaning supplies once she

became pregnant. However, the other female interviewees with spouses used one of two

categories to describe their spouse: 1) supportive but not involved, or 2) sceptical. In the

case of the former, lack of involvement was attributed to the spouse’s lack of interest or

capability. For Moira, a thirty-five-year-old, unemployed, low-income mother of a pre-

schooler, her husband does not have a “natural inclination to look at that stuff. He’s

interested in it but he doesn’t go out of his way, whereas I do. So he trusts my judgment

on it.” Megan, a thirty-one-year old teacher with an infant, felt a similar way, explaining

with an example: “If I sent him to buy toilet paper he would buy the eco-friendly stuff

because he knows that's what we use and he's on board with it, but he definitely doesn't

initiate. It just wouldn't enter his realm of thought.” “He leaves it up to me,” as Diane, a

thirty-three-year-old sales manager with an infant son put it. The lack of involvement of

male spouses in these cases likely reflects the social organization of care within the

home, where household consumption decisions are the mother’s responsibility.

Some described their spouses taking a more “rational” or “scientific” perspective, or

openly disagreeing with the amount of time, effort and money invested in chemical

mediation. Audrey, a twenty-seven-year-old, stay-at-home mother of two children, talked

at length about her husband’s training as a scientist and how his scepticism undermines

her confidence in initiating a household chemical mediation routine.

[He] definitely knows more about chemicals in the home…he has more

education on it. There have been times when he’s said, “why are people

worrying about that? People have become hysterical about something

that is unimportant.” … And I almost feel guilty because I think he’s on

56

the side of science ... But the majority of the time he doesn’t really care.

He has other things to do. Whereas I’ll read a little bit about something

and [then] say “I shouldn’t be using plastic. Maybe I should be making

my own baby wipes instead of buying these ones.”

Audrey’s comments illustrate how chemical mediation is firmly located within the

private sphere of mothering, as a child-rearing or household issue rather than a pollution

issue. We see the same pattern with Marie, who described chemical mediation as a source

of tension in her marriage, owing to the time, effort and money required to support her

choices:

In terms of cleaning products … it’s my husband who wants

[conventional ones]. But I don’t feel safe with them, we even keep them

in an area that is locked where the kids can’t get anywhere near it. He

thinks I’m over-reacting … [My daughter’s] baby cereal was a

packaged high-end organic [brand]. It cost more to do it. I didn’t care.

That was important to me and he did question that a couple of times. He

was like, “I don’t understand. Can’t you just buy the regular cereal?”

Samantha, a twenty-five-year-old sales manager with an infant son, openly reflected on

why she and her partner disagree on what proportion of the household budget should be

dedicated to organic foods. While her partner attends lectures on environmental pollution

issues and reads widely on such topics, Samantha was frustrated that he could not

connect food choices with environmental quality.

57

I just don’t think that he’s made the connection that food and

environment go together … he’ll tell me flat out, “I’m just cheap[er

than you are]” ... I think there’s a gender difference there, definitely,

because [partner]’s mom sees the food–environment connection …

whereas [partner]’s dad and his two brothers … do not make that

connection to food and the environment. I find my brother—who’s very

food aware—doesn’t make the connection that food and the

environment go together. He sees them as being separate entities. The

different men in my life who are environmentally conscious aren’t food

conscious.

Similar to Audrey, Samantha’s comments illustrate how chemical mediation is tied to

mothering and “mundane” domestic activities like the feeding the family. According to

Marie, Samantha and Audrey, their spouses presented certain rationales (e.g., thrift,

convenience and purported scientific evidence) to oppose and challenge their concerns

about chemical mediation, rationales that are fully removed from the responsibility of

caring and mothering.

3.6.3 Cautious Consumption as Good Mothering When respondents described and contextualized their chemical mediation routines, many

drew on both intensive mothering and precautionary consumption ideologies. Cara, a

thirty-five-year-old, stay-at-home mother of three children, is a good example of a

respondent with a chemical mediation routine highly congruent with precautionary

58

consumption and intensive mothering. Cara’s routine is complex, fixed, non-negotiable

and internalized to the extent that it seemed effortless and normal to her. She buys

chicken from a farm outside the city where the animals are raised naturally, uses only

natural cleaning products and cosmetics, and refers to the Environmental Working

Group’s shopping guides to avoid produce with higher pesticide residues, which requires

her to shop at several different stores. Like the other respondents, Cara connected her

routine to a desire to give her children the best possible start: “you have a child and

they’re perfect and then you start thinking when you’re nursing, ‘everything I’m eating is

going through to that perfect baby.’” She worries that if she did not follow these practices

there would be observable consequences (and corresponding self-blame). Referring to her

children’s diet of natural foods, for example, Cara explains: “It makes me think that’s

why all the kids are medicated. They’re eating all this crappy stuff and then they can’t

behave themselves, and what’s it doing to them?”

Cara’s interview illustrates how the perceived responsibility of chemical mediation is

followed by self-evaluation. The perceived inability to manage chemical exposures can

be viewed as a form of failure, as we see below with Audrey as well. In her interview,

she drew on the differences between her first and second pregnancies to illustrate her

growing awareness of chemicals in food and consumer products. She described her first

pregnancy as unplanned and therefore it did not occur to her to take measures to mitigate

her exposure to chemicals in consumer products and food (she notes that she dyed her

hair and did not buy organic foods). This child was recently diagnosed with autism and

she wonders openly whether her exposure to environmental contaminants might have

been responsible. During her second pregnancy, she explained that

59

I got more serious about: What do I need to eat? What do I need to cut

out? What should I be doing that’s different? I got more radical during

my second pregnancy because I thought, I kind of screwed up the first

time, you know? … Having kids sways you to make choices that are

better for you and better for your family because you start thinking

well, this isn’t just about me. I’m not just affecting myself here, I’m

affecting someone who doesn’t have a history and doesn’t have any

habits yet.

Audrey feels that her actions must somehow be responsible for her son’s illness, and she

identifies her chemical mediation routine as a possible culprit. The sense of failure

Audrey describes reflects precautionary consumption ideology—that she did not enact

sufficient precaution in her consumer and lifestyle choices. Audrey’s guilt also reveals

how intensive mothering cultivates a feeling of total responsibility for her child’s well-

being and health outcomes.

Audrey’s position furthermore reveals a key assumption within precautionary

consumption ideology that I also observed among other respondents: that information

about appropriate choices, deliberate product selections and greater access to those

products can provide sufficient control over a child’s exposure to chemicals. Samantha,

for example, has adopted a strict and complex routine of food provision and chemical

avoidance. She listed off a number of ways she minimizes both her own and her son’s

exposure to chemicals, telling me proudly that her son is “99.99% organic.” When I

60

asked whether she finds mediating chemicals a chore or a source of stress, she paused and

admitted to enjoying the process of reading ingredient lists and doing research into her

family’s exposure to chemicals: “It’s routine,” she explains, “and I actually find it

interesting!” Note how this statement is also congruent with intensive mothering

ideology, where diligent, informed and devoted mothering should be enjoyable and

rewarding. Megan emphasized how her neighbourhood makes it easy to shop for

chemical-free products: “sometimes it's more convenient to eat organically because [a

speciality meat store and an organic bakery] are right down the street and so I can go for

a walk in the park and then whip in and pick-up something and it’s a convenient choice

for me.” Megan showed me specific products she had found at local stores (including a

baby chair made with all natural materials) and popular books she found helpful for

crafting a chemical mediation routine. She lends these books out to her friends and gives

product advice to friends with new babies. For respondents like Cara, Samantha and

Megan, consumer choice and the conscious altering of lifestyles to minimize chemical

exposures provided a welcome opportunity to enact a desired level of precaution.

The market for green products was thought to enable good and cautious mothering, but

when probing for specific routines of chemical mediation, green products were viewed as

essential to the child but not for the parent. Several women, for example, noted that they

feed their babies organic foods but do not eat organic foods themselves. Organic food

was seen as the “ideal” food, and thus more important for the growing baby who is more

vulnerable and precious, than for the parents who are already contaminated and less

deserving of the extra expense. Rachel discussed how she manages her food budget by

feeding her daughter organic foods while she and her husband eat conventional foods:

61

Now the baby is eating solid food and we want to give her meat, but I

don’t want to give her meat full of chemicals. It was okay for us to have

chicken from wherever, but if she’s going to eat it I want her to eat the

good stuff. So she eats expensive cuts of meat and we eat the cat

food.[Laughing]

Rachel makes it clear that organic meat is unaffordable, but she justifies the extra

expense for her daughter—illustrative of a child-centered and selfless approach.

Similarly, Linda, a thirty-five-year-old teacher with an infant describes how she and her

husband are already contaminated by pesticides, and therefore do not need organic foods,

whereas their daughter does:

Because you want the best for your children, right? My husband and I,

we've already got all the pesticides and all the crap in us … whereas she

doesn't. She's starting from scratch. I want to give her the best possible

start, so if there's a better choice food-wise for her, then we'd like to do

that.

Wanting the best for one’s child, along with a willingness to forgo a similar level of

quality for oneself, is illustrative of the imperative of child-centrality identified as part of

intensive mothering ideology. In the context of chemical mediation, children’s exposure

to chemicals is of primary importance, and parents are secondary as they are already

contaminated.

62

While some respondents felt that there were some aspects of contamination that were out

of their control (particularly among low-income respondents described in the next

section), only one respondent with a middle-class income openly doubted chemical

mediation as a reasonable protective strategy and refused to invest much time and energy

into crafting a mediation routine. Nancy expressed serious doubts about her ability to

control her child’s exposure to chemicals through her consumption decisions. She

explained that she does not go out of her way to buy organic products for her son because

he is already exposed to air pollution, chemical cleaners used at other people’s houses

and contaminants in toys: “You have to be exposed to these things and he's not going to

exist in a bubble. We live in a polluted environment, right?” Nancy expressed a sense of

frustration with trying to incorporate a precautionary approach to consumption was not

detected in the other interviews:

There's way too much information out there. You're just inundated with

stuff. I feel like I'm back at university and picking a cause. Where…I

can't buy that and I can't buy this, and you end up boycotting everything

and you can't buy a thing.

3.6.4 Income as Agency As we saw above, many respondents drew on both the ideologies of intensive mothering

and precautionary consumption. Their overlap in the interview narratives highlights how

both ideologies reinforce an individualized responsibility for the safety of children, with

consumer agency viewed as an empowering mothering resource. Some women, however,

63

characterized limits on household income as constraining their agency as consumers, and

their interviews focused more on the routines they have developed to maximize non-toxic

consumption on a restricted budget. These respondents are considered low-income, but

government forms of social assistance do not comprise the majority of household income.

Tracy, a thirty-one-year-old, self-employed, lone parent, explained that she consults web

sites and magazines to learn best practices for managing chemical exposures. She then

makes separate shopping lists for affordable organic items and conventional ones that she

will settle for. She tells me that she would like to buy more organic products and one day

hopes to buy all natural toys for her son, but for now cannot think of replacing the toys

she received as gifts and hand-me-downs. Karen, whose family is facing severe financial

constraints owing to personal and business-related bankruptcy, refers wistfully to the

days when she was able to afford an organic food box and explains that now even basic

groceries for her family of four is a struggle. Karen dislikes buying conventional produce

and, as a compromise, she peels all fruits and vegetables, believing that she might reduce

her children’s exposure to pesticides:

Their tiny new bodies have to process all the same chemicals [that I

do]. So I always peel the apples for my little guy because we don’t buy

organic and unfortunately he’s not getting the fibre from it. It’s still

better than juice but it’s not the whole food.

Like Tracy and Karen, Moira also peels conventional produce and selects organic items

only when their conventional counterparts are high in pesticide residues. For Moira,

64

chemical avoidance is continually competing with income constraints: “I don’t know if

I’ll be able to keep it up. [But] I will stop paying my phone bill before I start getting

crappy food for my kid.” Despite income constraints, Moira suggests that the provision of

“crappy food” (referring to processed or fast foods) is below the standards of care for her

daughter, and thus a healthy diet is prioritized over other household demands.

For Tracy, Karen and Moira, the inability to meet a desired standard of chemical

mediation is characterized as a temporary deviation from the ideal and a budget-related

necessity. The compromises they develop were presented as “blind faith” options,

whereas the purchase of more non-toxic products and organic foods was an inaccessible,

but ultimately more effective, option for controlling exposure to chemicals. In other

words, they viewed consumer choice as a form of agency, but significantly problematized

their ability to access this form of agency. Their interviews expose how both

precautionary consumption and intensive mothering ideologies assume that mothers are

free to choose among desirable mothering practices and protective commodities. Yet, for

these respondents, choice is highly unequal because of restricted financial resources.

3.6.5 Learning to be a Good Mother For low-income respondents living almost entirely on government social assistance, an

awareness of chemical mediation was described as being delivered to them by an external

authority and as something that was outside of their immediate concern as mothers. In

contrast to the other interviewees, these five respondents did not indicate that they were

seeking out information on chemical mediation. Rather, they identified it as part of the

overall discourse of good mothering originating from social services agencies and

65

organizations that monitor their family life. For Nasiha, a forty-year-old, stay-at-home

mother of five children, and Delores, a twenty-year-old, lone mother of an infant,

awareness of chemical exposures came through seminars offered by city dieticians. As

Delores explains,

I found out because of this other class I go to. The dietician came in and

she told us all about these pesticides [in food] and all this stuff that goes

in Mr. Clean and how we can make our own cleaning supplies and she

gave us a list.

Sandra, a twenty-six-year-old, divorced, lone mother of an infant also became aware of

the dangers of chemical exposures from parenting classes, and she describes this as

information that came as a surprise to her.

I learned through a nutritionist and that was forced, you know? It was

like okay, you're going to learn about this… And then at the end you're

like, “Shit, I needed to know that!” [Laughing]

Sandra also doubted her agency as a consumer in protecting her child from pollution. She

explained that even if she could afford organic food, her child would still have to ride the

bus and be exposed to dirty air and “germs” from other passengers. Lori, a thirty-five-

year-old lone mother of two school-aged girls, likewise felt that she had little control over

pollution, and does not worry much about chemical mediation: “Our water is polluted so

we're washing our vegetables with polluted water. The soil is polluted to a certain extent.

There's pollution in the air. It's impossible to get away from it.” When I ask her about

66

measures she’s taken at home to mediate chemical exposure, she briefly mentions a

campaign at her daughters’ school that encourages parents to buy stainless steel bottles

for their children, but she does not express a personal concern about the health effects of

plastic.

Agency does not surface as a theme in the interviewees with these five low-income

respondents, presumably because the market for green products is inaccessible because of

income constraints. A sense of agency is likely also limited because information about

chemical mediation originates from outside authorities that have an established role of

regulating and disciplining their behaviour as mothers. Maternal regulation is much more

visible in these interviews when we compare these responses to those from other

respondents, who expressed a greater sense of control over chemical mediation and saw it

as an enjoyable process of self-education.

3.7 Conclusion In their interviews, women interpreted chemical mediation through a mothering

perspective, in terms of her attachment to her child and as part of an array of activities

involved in becoming responsible for someone else: “it’s not just about me.” Likewise,

many women described how their babies begin as “perfect” and how their job as mothers

is to do all they can to guard against external threats to this perfection. Threats were

thought to come from making the wrong consumer choice, from failing to prevent

chemicals from entering the home, the bodies of infants and children, and her own body,

in the case of pregnant and breastfeeding women. Mothers described feeling totally

responsible for children and considered themselves an authority on their well-being, such

67

that chemical mediation was simply an extension of mothers’ work. The task of

preventing children from becoming “contaminated” was perceived to belong solely to

mothers. In fact, compared to other forms of domestic and caring work—where men’s

involvement is increasing (Craig 2006)—chemical mediation conforms to an even more

strongly gendered division of labour. In most of the households involved in this study, the

actual work of chemical mediation (reading labels, locating organic food, reading books

on chemical avoidance, finding safe toys and cosmetics) was entirely undertaken by

women. Women characterized their male partner as uninterested or incapable, and in

some cases hostile to chemical mediation as a priority. Finally, many mothers had also

adopted intensive mothering’s strong child-centered outlook in their response to chemical

body burdens, as pollution in children was the primary concern. Although reducing

exposure to environmental contaminants can improve adult health, interviewees

consistently referenced the need to protect their children and rarely noted the benefits for

themselves—as we saw above with families who made organic food choices only for

their children. Women saw their chemical mediation routines as an investment in their

child’s well-being.

This chapter makes a contribution to the feminist literature on mothering by revealing the

extent to which intensive mothering is congruent with individualized modes of risk

management. The ideology of precautionary consumption had clearly shaped the

assumptions underlying women’s understandings of how their own and their children’s

bodies are exposed to chemicals, where exposure was seen to happen on an individual

level and as the result of individual choices. The cultivation of individual consumer

agency was generally considered a reasonable protective mechanism. With the exception

68

of a few cases, absent from the interviews was any degree of scepticism toward one’s

ability to control their exposure to contaminants. I had expected more respondents to note

how chemicals are ubiquitous in air, water and soil, and, to a significant extent, outside

their control as consumers and caregivers (see Szasz 2007). Practices associated with

intensive mothering likewise contain an individualizing element, as it is the individual

mother—rather than other members of the household, or other actors and institutions—

who invests the energy and seeks out resources to allow her to meet the exacting

standards of child rearing (within which we can now include chemical mediation). As we

saw in some interviews, the evaluations that accompany these practices are also

shouldered by women in an individual sense, where failure to adhere to a chemical

mediation routine, or make the wrong consumer choices, were construed as a failure to

act responsibly or in an informed way.

In sum, the study of chemical mediation illustrates how intensive mothering ideology

overlaps with precautionary consumption ideology to entrench mothering as total

responsibility for children’s care, health and well-being. Especially among higher-income

mothers, respondents drew on both ideologies to communicate a feeling of complete

accountability for children’s health outcomes and exposure to risk. While the mothering

literature has already established that mothering is a singular responsibility, this study

pushes that observation even further by examining how women felt completely

responsible for their child’s exposure to a hazard that is relatively complex (given the

array of products and compounds that are thought to pose a threat), ubiquitous in the

environment and largely imperceptible. Chemical body burdens can be considered a

relatively new form of risk—of which mothers have only very recently become

69

aware15—yet interviewees’ descriptions of their routines reveals how the domain of

responsibilities considered normal and acceptable to mothering expands easily and

seamlessly to accommodate new tasks and new accountabilities. The complex routines of

chemical mediation described by many mothers as taken-for-granted domestic duties are

especially illustrative of how the imperative of total responsibility is internalized by

mothers, and rarely problematized. A sense of total responsibility is especially striking

when we consider that governments in Canada and the US have a legislated responsibility

to protect environment quality and human health from harmful chemical exposures.

Finally, in my interviews I observed the strongest overlap between precautionary

consumption and intensive mothering ideologies for those respondents who had access to

a privileged set of resources—particularly income—to allow them to be vigilant

consumers and engage in a formal chemical mediation routine. For some women with

lower incomes, there was a strong sense of responsibility for chemical mediation, but a

perceived lack of autonomy in crafting a routine owing to limited financial resources. For

mothers subsisting on social assistance, this same sense of responsibility was absent, and

external agencies played a much bigger role in informing them on how to be good

chemical mediators. In fact, interviewees’ accounts of these programs suggest that

precautionary consumption helps to inform the regulation of low-income and at-risk

women’s conduct as mothers. Congruent with much of the literature on mothering and

social class, this study illustrates how middle-class norms and standards of good

mothering continue to serve as the gold standard of mothering, against which mothers of

all social classes are evaluated. Yet, if protection is indeed to come from cautious

15 See footnote 11, above.

70

consumer choices, low-income women are not only held to an unreachable standard, but

fail to be protected in important ways. As a primary response to environmental pollutants,

chemical mediation is a highly privileged and stratified form of protection that leaves

low-income groups largely unprotected.

71

Chapter 4 Taking Control: Green Consumption as Agency and

Responsibility

4.1 Introduction Often imperceptible, environmental hazards, such as chemical pollution from pesticide

use and the manufacturing of consumer goods, cross political boundaries, hemispheres,

and permeate our homes and bodies. As we become more aware of the vulnerability of

the human body to chemical exposures, there is a corresponding desire to prevent harmful

chemicals from entering our bodies, and changes to personal consumption patterns are

increasingly seen as a reasonable way to manage this threat. As a collective risk problem

chemical pollution is increasingly understood as an individual-level risk problem

requiring a more vigilant approach to consumption patterns and lifestyle (see chapters 2

and 3). It is representative of a broader shift in the discourse of risk toward understanding

universal and collective risks as individualized threats, and the need for protection less as

a larger social responsibility and more as a personal responsibility.

This chapter is concerned with how the imperative of personal responsibility is visible in

two specific contexts related to the individualization of risk. The first context is

consumer-citizenship where personal risk management is thought to constitute a new

kind of politics and mode of civic engagement through more conscious forms of

consumption. The second is the cultivation of personal responsibility as a technique of

governance that replaces formal institutional practices concerned with managing

collective risk problems.

72

Using the case study of chemical “body burdens,” in this study I draw on people’s own

interpretation of their personal strategies of risk management to examine how exposure to

universal risks becomes understood as a matter of personal responsibility. A chemical

body burden refers to one’s internal chemical load from the absorption of chemical

compounds into the human body from exposure to environmental pollutants, consumer

products and foods. Although chemical body burdens are common to all individuals

living in industrial society and largely arise from involuntary exposure to a polluted

environment over the course of one’s lifetime (CDC 1999, 2003, 2005), as I show in

chapters 2 and 3, it has been conceptualized by the news media and by public health

organizations as a problem requiring the substitution of “unsafe” commodities with

“greener” products (e.g., organic foods, non-toxic cleaners) that are free of potentially

harmful compounds. News media framing of the body burden phenomenon, in particular,

presents the purchase of these green commodities as a primary solution to chemical body

burdens, while the state’s regulatory role in preventing the release of chemical pollution

(through environmental releases and in consumer products) is gradually disappearing

from the framing of this issue (see chapter 2).

Two questions guide this chapter. First, to what extent are individual-level strategies

perceived to be appropriate for managing the environmental health risks associated with

body burdens? Second, how do assessments of one’s own individual capacity to negotiate

chemical body burdens compare with one’s assessment of the state’s capacity to manage

this risk? Taken together, these questions provide insight into the ways in which

73

individuals perceive the boundaries of the legitimate role of the state in managing

collective exposure to environmental risks.

Drawing on focus groups and interviews with forty-eight respondents living in the

Toronto area, I discuss how adopting greater personal responsibility for managing

exposure to chemical risks is perceived to provide self-protection and also meet the

obligations of responsible citizenship. Moreover, support for greater personal

responsibility reflects less of a normative or moral position on how to address the

problem of chemical body burdens, and more of a pragmatic view of what institutions

and actors can most realistically manage this problem. Embedded within respondents’

narratives was the desire to obtain greater agency (or control over risk) in a context where

chemical hazards are relatively invisible and intangible. Respondents expressed

confidence in their ability as savvy consumers to protect themselves from chemical

exposure, and their actions as consumers were thought to influence positive change at the

level of the market. Confidence in their power as consumers contrasts sharply with their

appraisal of the state’s capacity to manage risk. The state was characterized as captured,

inefficient and largely irrelevant to the problem of chemical pollution. Nevertheless,

one’s perceived agency as a consumer seems to depend on having sufficient material

resources to direct toward greener purchases, a finding that suggests that consumer-based

modes of responsible citizenship and self-protection are not equally accessible across

social classes.

74

I open the chapter by situating the main research questions within two theoretical

frameworks that problematize individualization and personal responsibility in the context

of risk management: the consumer-citizenship literature and the governmentality

literature. Following this, I outline the methods guiding the exploratory focus group and

in-depth interview phases of the study and summarize the main findings from each phase.

In the final section of the chapter, I discuss these findings in light of both the consumer-

citizenship and governmentality literatures. I suggest that personal responsibility through

consumption is driven, in part, by declining faith in the state to respond quickly and

competently to collective risk problems, and a corresponding desire for greater agency

over risk, such that the market is viewed as having the greatest potential for enabling

transformative16 politics.

4.2 Theorizing Individualization Individualization refers to a particular understanding of historical change and modernity

where a process of de-traditionalization allows for the expansion of choice over one’s

“biography.” Individualization, according to Ulrich Beck, Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim,

and Anthony Giddens, is evidenced in the greater flexibility of aspects of the life course

that were previously fixed by tradition, such that one can now choose among

occupations, marital partners, and identities (Beck 1992,1994; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim

2002; Giddens 1991). As choice expands and the restrictions of tradition decline,

individuals feel increasingly disembedded from social structures, but are re-embedded in

new contexts where individuals perceive heightened control over their personal

16 By “transformative”, I am referring to the ability to generate “real” structural change.

75

biography. As a consequence of individualization, modern life is experienced as less

predictable and more dependent on personal choice (Giddens 1994).

Beck’s writings on the risk society connect the underlying driver of universal exposure to

high-consequence risks to the same driver of individualization: the erosion of public

welfare institutions that have provided collective protection from risk, and a

corresponding expansion of personal choice over life circumstances (Beck 1992,1999;

Elliott 2002). Giddens (1990, 1991) discusses the declining faith in collective institutions

to steer or control modernity, and the considerable uncertainty that arises as the future

becomes more unpredictable (1999). As modernity advances in ways that seem to elude

the control of institutions, science and technology, personal control over risk becomes

more critical, and there is a corresponding preoccupation with making risk calculable and

predictable (1991). More recently, Beck (2006) has used the term “tragic

individualization” to describe the futility of individual negotiations with contemporary

hazards, a condition he links to the failure of systems of collective risk management.

The individual must cope with the uncertainty of the global world

by him- or herself. Here individualization is a default outcome of

a failure of expert systems to manage risks…As a consequence,

people are thrown back onto themselves, they are alienated from

expert systems but have nothing else instead…For example,

responsibility for the decision on genetically modified foods and

their unforeseeable, unknowable long-term consequences is

ultimately dumped on the so-called ‘responsible consumer’.

76

(Beck, 2006:336)

Next, I turn to three perspectives that theorize individualization as part of an imperative

of personal responsibility. The first positions personal responsibility enacted through

consumption as part of a new expression of citizenship, whereas the second is more

sceptical of the transformative potential of consumer action. The third perspective sees

personal responsibility as the expansion of individual freedom, and part of a broader

rationality of neo-liberal governance.

4.2.1 Personal Responsibility as Citizenship The imperative of personal responsibility drives a new politics of consumption, according

to the literature on consumer-citizenship. This literature argues that deliberate and

thoughtful commodity choices, such as the purchase of organic produce, investment in a

Community Supported Agriculture share, or the purchase of a cup of “fair-trade certified”

coffee, can be conceptualized as an important element of responsible citizenship. In the

context of environmental problems, the politicization of mundane, everyday practices

such as shopping and eating is related to an emerging literature suggesting that individual

and household actions have real consequences on environmental quality (Dietz et al.

2009; see also Slocum 2004). Embedded in alternative commodity choices is a desire to

contribute to the collective good, while doing good for oneself, as many of these choices

(especially in the case of organic and non-toxic products) are understood as more

beneficial for individual health (Connolly and Prothero 2008; Macnaughten 2003). In

other words, the market for alternative commodities represents a chance to contribute to

77

environmental improvement and social justice, while also avoiding the harmful personal

consequences of conventional forms of consuming.

In general, the consumer-citizenship literature encourages a broader understanding of

political action and extends the possibilities beyond the public sphere of electoral politics,

bureaucracies, and regulatory mechanisms, to the private sphere of consumption, the

home, and caring for others (Micheletti 2003; Barnett et al. 2005)17. Consumer-

citizenship is considered “individualized collective action” as consumption choices—on a

collective level—send signals through the market to motivate further investment in

sustainable and more socially just production practices and commodities (Micheletti

2003, 35; see also Stolle and Hooghe 2006). Looking more carefully at this concept,

consumer-citizenship borrows elements from the republican model of citizenship, where

citizenship is not about claiming entitlements or rights but is part of fulfilling a set of

obligations to the collective good (see also Schudson 2007). In other words, shopping can

be publicly oriented. Yet, as a consumer-based view of citizenship, it exists in serious

tension with classical elements of the republican model of citizenship. According to this

model, the private sphere is a domain where private interests take precedence over

17 My understanding of the distinction between the private and public sphere draws from Weintraub (1997). The public and private spheres represent a dichotomy, and the public sphere generally refers to those domains that serve the collective good and are constitutive of formal political institutions and activities (e.g., participation in a political party, voting in an election). Citizenship is understood as membership in the public sphere and enacted for the sake of the public good. The private sphere refers more to those domains that serve individual preferences. The state acts in the public good, so is part of the public sphere, whereas market exchange belongs to the private sphere as its goal is to maximize the individual benefit. Weintraub notes how feminist scholars further distinguish the public from private in slightly different ways, where the home and family belong to the private sphere and participation in wage labour and public life belongs to the public sphere. Therefore I see the private sphere comprised of the domains of the home, the family and the market. The public sphere is comprised of the institutions and activities that are part of political and social citizenship.

78

considerations of the public good, whereas enlightened participation in the public sphere

generates actions that are more likely to be directed toward the mutual benefit of the

community and individual (Kymlika 1994;Heater 1999;2004). Good citizens are,

furthermore, meaningfully engaged in political life located outside the family, self-

interest and the home (Ibid). Consumer-citizenship remains on the margins of mainstream

citizenship studies, but shares much in common with feminist perspectives on citizenship.

In fact, both perspectives reject that the public virtue tradition of politics (an orientation

toward improving the public good) should be thought of as diametrically opposed to the

private virtue tradition (an orientation toward improving one’s own circumstances) (Burtt

1993; Micheletti 2003, 22). The feminist literature, for example, draws attention to the

politicization of the private sphere to show how women’s social, reproductive and caring

work can be directed toward improving the public good and can motivate participation in

other forms of political activism (Ackelsberg 2010; Lister 2003). Both the consumer-

citizenship and feminist perspectives suggest that the fulfillment of self-interest (in terms

of looking after oneself or one’s family) can actually encourage considerations of the

public good and serve as an entry point for political action within the public sphere.

There are compelling arguments for considering how the spaces of political action have

been broadened to include the private sphere, and consumption in particular. Surveys of

consumer-citizens suggest that commodity choices are viewed by some as an extension of

one’s political actions by allowing one to “vote” with one’s dollars (Allen and Kovach

1997; Barnett et al. 2005; Micheletti 2003; Micheletti, Follesdal and Stolle 2004;

Newholm 2000; Shaw, Newholm and Dickinson 2006; Stolle and Hooghe 2004; Stolle,

Hooghe, Micheletti 2005; Stolle et al. 2005). Because it involves modifying lifestyles,

79

and given the ad-hoc nature of purchasing patterns, consumer-citizenship is a

comparatively unstructured and less hierarchical form of political action (Micheletti

2003; Neilson and Paxton 2010; Stolle, Hooghe and Micheletti 2005). Consumer-

citizenship nevertheless allows consumers to feel empowered to contribute to structural

change (Lockie 2009; Newholm 2000;Shaw, Newholm and Dickinson 2006) and may

even encourage greater political activism (Micheletti 2003; Neilson and Paxton 2010).

Because consumer citizens attribute collective consumption patterns to environmental

degradation and social justice inequalities, they seek to align purchases and lifestyle

decisions with normative and political ideologies, morals and values (Barnett et al. 2005;

Connolly and Prothero 2008; Lockie 2009; Shaw et al. 2005). Alternative commodities,

in other words, present an accessible and immediate way to align or correct the perceived

mismatch between one’s beliefs and one’s actions as a consumer, while also benefitting

the individual personally (e.g., through improved health) (Connolly and Prothero 2008).

4.2.2 Personal Responsibility as a Threat to Citizenship Tangible political outcomes connected to consumer-citizenship initiatives are difficult to

assess (Newholm 2000; Stolle and Hooghe 2004), and a sizable literature casts doubt on

the politically transformative potential of consumer-citizenship. These scholars express

concern that consumer-based forms of political action are dominated by self-interest,

might actually discourage engagement with formal political structures, and ultimately

take place on the wrong scale to address larger, structural problems (Guthman 2008;

Maniates 2002; Sandilands 1993;Szasz 2007). This ‘sceptical’ literature looks carefully at

whether consumer-citizenship involves a democratic form of politics, and whether green

and ethical products are linked to the same drivers of over-consumption, environmental

80

degradation and social injustices as conventional products. Attention to the consumer’s

responsibility for addressing structural problems is thought to direct accountability for

change away from governments. In other words, consumer-citizenship may contribute to

a “political anaesthesia” that could actually discourage other forms of political

participation and leave states unaccountable for social and environmental problems

(Szasz 2007, 195). Participation in consumer-based movements, moreover, is inherently

exclusionary as it depends on one’s purchasing power (Johnston 2008; Johnston and

Szabo in press; Jubas 2007). Moreover, consumer-citizenship as a form of politics

assumes that consumers are fully informed in making their purchases, yet several

scholars suggest that consumers’ access to information and the application of this

information to product choices is often incomplete, contingent, and uneven (Lang 1998;

Newholm 1999, 2000).

The self-interested nature of consumption is thought to be at odds with the principles of

citizenship that prioritize the collective good over individual preferences and needs

(Guthman 2008; Johnston 2008; Johnston and Szabo in press; Maniates 2002; Sassatelli

2006; Smith 1998). Johnston’s (2008) study of the popular Whole Foods Market chain,

for example, demonstrates how consumption and citizenship can work in opposing ways,

and how individual preferences and tastes are more readily accommodated by the market,

often at the expense of improvements to social and ecological conditions. Interviews with

shoppers of ethical products suggest that “reflexive” engagement with claims from

corporate actors and marketing is easily overpowered by traditional consumer desires,

such as taste, novelty and distinction (Johnston and Szabo in press). Finally, green and

ethical products cannot fully escape the limits of the established “infrastructures of

81

provision” that limit consumer agency (Seyfang 2009, 16), such that ethical or green

consumption remains sporadic, uncoordinated and ultimately inconsequential in

comparison to concerted regulatory or policy efforts (Johnston 2008; Jubas 2007;

Maniates 2002; Sassatelli 2006).

4.2.3 Responsibilization as a Technique of Governance The governmentality literature views greater “responsibilization” as a technique of

governance (Burchell 1996, 36), where individuals manage their own exposure to risk by

monitoring and transforming their personal conduct (Dean 1999, 1997; O’Malley 2004;

Rose 1999). Responsibilization is attributed to neo-liberal policy shifts, where the

relationship between citizen and state has been profoundly transformed, such that citizens

no longer look to the institutions of public welfare for protection, but are expected to

draw on their capacities as self-governing subjects. Good citizenship therefore consists of

becoming responsible for one’s own conduct and exposure to hazards (Ilcan 2009; Miller

and Rose 2008; O’Malley 2004; Scott 2007). By adopting a “calculative rationality”

individuals are empowered to make informed decisions about their exposure to risk

(Haggerty 2003:193), thus self-protection becomes an obligation of good citizenship

(Rose 1999). Responsibilization is also characterized by greater “freedom of choice” over

possibilities for managing personal exposure to risk (Rose 1999, 65; see also Gordon

1991; Lupton 1999). Greater choice over commodities of self-protection (e.g. insurance)

is thought to multiply these possibilities (Ericson, Doyle and Barry 2003; Rose 1999).

Responsibilization is highly visible in the private sphere of social reproduction and

personal health, where an imperative of “responsible living” is encouraged through

careful self-monitoring and by avoiding health-related hazards (Lupton 1996; Osborne et

82

al. 1997). In relation to food consumption, individuals are urged to discipline their bodies

by adopting particular diets and approaches to eating that are more “healthful” (Guthman

and Dupuis 2006). During pregnancy, the same processes occur through self-regulation

of the maternal body and the cultivation of maternal responsibility (Lupton 1999; Murphy

2003).

Looking across all three views of personal responsibility, few studies actually compare

how individuals assess their own agency as conscientious consumers relative to the

state’s capacity for enacting transformative, structural change. In what follows, I present

the results of in-depth interviews where respondents were asked to comment on their

perceived control over exposure to chemical hazards, and to compare their agency as

consumers to their agency as voters, and the state’s capacity to manage collective risk

problems against the market’s capacity. I examine these narratives by paying attention to

the various ways in which respondents internalize the imperative of personal

responsibility, and how respondents compare their own individual agency as risk

managers against the state’s capacity to manage collective risk problems.

4.3 Methods As we see in the discussion above, the private sphere is identified as a primary realm

within which personal responsibility is experienced, and the consumer-citizenship

literature in particular demonstrates how food commodities (certified organic foods,

“local” foods, and “fair-trade” certified goods) are among the most highly politicized for

consumers concerned about social justice and environmental degradation. Moreover, in

the media and public health discourse around chemical body burdens, food and

83

household products are frequently identified as key exposure pathways (Iles 2007;

MacKendrick 2010), and children’s health is identified as the greatest concern. For all of

these reasons, body burdens were studied in the context of food purchasing and

household consumption.

The research was divided into two phases. In the first phase, three focus groups were

organized to provide exploratory data to inform the more comprehensive interview phase.

4.3.1 Focus groups Recruitment for this phase was broad and did not restrict participation to individuals with

particular demographic characteristics, but did select participants with some basic

awareness of chemical body burdens. Participants were recruited by posting notices in

major health food stores in downtown Toronto and on environmental websites and

listservs specific to the Toronto area. Notices described the general objectives of the

study (with specific reference to environmental contaminants), the purpose of the focus

groups and the offer of an honorarium for participation (a gift certificate for a grocery

store of their choice). I screened participants to ensure that they met basic criteria: live in

Toronto, shop for non-toxic products and have a general awareness of contaminant risks

without specializing in related fields either professionally or academically. I moderated

focus groups along with a colleague who was also involved in the study.

In total, three groups were organized involving a total of twenty participants. Seventeen

respondents were female and three were male. It is not clear why participation among

male participants was low. It is possible that the study appealed more to female

84

participants because of the focus in public health literature and the news media on

environmental pollution as a women’s reproductive health and children’s health problem.

Given the limited numbers of male respondents, I arranged to have all three male

participants attend the same focus group. As such, only one of the focus groups had a mix

of male and female participants, and the other two groups were entirely comprised of

female participants. Of the twenty participants, twelve were married, one was divorced

and the remainder were single. Seven participants were within the 20–29 age range,

seven were 30–39, and four above the age of 40. Four participants indicated that they

have children at home.

The purpose of the focus groups was to generate a discussion around the controllability of

body burdens to assess the extent to which exposure was perceived to be voluntary and,

second, how participants conceptualized their ability to control their exposure to

chemicals. A second goal was to generate an open discussion about how to address the

problem of chemical body burdens, by asking respondents about the relative importance

of regulatory, non-government and individualized solutions. To encourage interactive

discussions among participants, I designed questions to be broad and open-ended and I

used visual aids (photos of everyday consumer products and scenes of pristine

environments) to prompt discussions of perceived chemical risks. All participants

completed a short questionnaire to provide additional information on their green

shopping habits and lifestyle, basic knowledge of contaminant risks and demographic

details.

85

All focus groups were digitally recorded, and immediately transcribed by a professional

transcriber. Transcriptions were analyzed qualitatively through open coding where I let

themes emerge from the data, and focused coding where I sought to refine themes into a

workable set that could be used to inform the development of the interview questionnaire.

Focus group data reinforced themes identified during background research. More

specifically, discussions revealed that awareness of chemical body burden issues was

heightened during early adulthood when women considered fertility and planned to have

children, and was especially salient while raising very young children. Food shopping

was the most frequently cited context within which participants tried to mediate their

exposure to chemicals. These two findings helped to guide recruitment for the interview

phase of the study.

4.3.2 Interviews In the second phase of data collection, I chose to use semi-structured interviews to allow

for a more detailed exploration of how individuals interpret personal responsibility in the

context of chemical body burdens as a universal risk, and to involve a much broader

range of participants with varying levels of awareness of chemical body burden issues.

As such, I sought to recruit participants who were starting a family or who had children

living at home and who also had some responsibility for food shopping. (Responsibility

for food shopping also ensured that respondents had some control over domestic

purchasing decisions.) By recruiting for a food study rather than an environmental health

study, participants had varying levels of awareness of chemical contamination issues, and

the sample was not biased toward those with a special interest in environmental

contamination topics.

86

I recruited interviewees by placing posters in grocery stores and community centres in the

Toronto area and through online postings on local parenting websites. I also placed

posters in community centres with food security or parenting classes to attract

participants with lower incomes. In some cases, low-income respondents were recruited

through word-of-mouth by social workers familiar with the study. A gift certificate to a

local grocery store was provided as an honorarium to all participants. In accordance with

protocols from the University of Toronto’s Soscial Science, Humanities and Education

Research Ethics Board, all participants were provided with an information sheet

describing the goals of the study, and were asked to sign a consent form. They have been

assigned pseudonyms here.

I conducted all interviews, which lasted about ninety minutes and were guided by a semi-

structured interview questionnaire. I first asked a series of interrelated questions to assess

the level of perceived risk from chemical body burdens in food, the home and everyday

consumer products. I used a general question to open the interview, asking respondents to

describe “what kinds of things are most important to you and have the biggest impact on

the way you shop for food? The way you shop for items in your home?” Following this, I

transitioned into questions that were more specific to the topic of chemical body

burdens—referred to as “chemicals in our environment, and in our bodies, from exposure

to pesticides, chemicals in household products–like furniture, toys or cleaning products.”

I asked respondents if they had heard of the issue of body burdens, and all respondents

indicated that they had. I was able to determine this by carefully observing the

respondent’s physical response to this question—whether they nodded in agreement or

appeared confused, and whether they gave me a concrete example of something that

87

concerned them. Participants most commonly related this issue to hormones in meat

production, pesticides in food, and chemicals in cleaning products. I then asked

respondents whether “knowing about this affects your day-to-day life? For example, has

it affected how you shop or influenced the kinds of things you will or will not buy?” For

those for whom it did have an effect, I asked for “examples of things you’ve done in

response to knowledge of chemical body burdens” and whether they felt they were doing

“a good job of controlling your own (and your children’s) exposure to chemicals?”

Finally, I asked respondents how much control they felt they had over their exposure to

chemicals, and whether they thought that consuming specialty non-toxic products or

making specific changes in the home could make a difference to their exposure. I also

asked what they believe is the best way to control exposure to chemicals.

To close the interview, I transitioned into a series of “big-picture questions” that related

to the issues discussed over course of the interview. I asked respondents what they

thought was “the best way to make change in the world when it comes to the issues

we’ve discussed so far (food, the environment and chemicals)?” After the respondents

had a chance to answer, I probed for their views on who or what is responsible for these

issues, followed by specific questions probing for government’s role. In my final

question, I asked the respondent to reflect on “how much can our shopping decisions

(that is, our actions as consumers) make a difference? Are they more or less effective

than what we might call ‘traditional’ political action, such as voting, writing a letter to an

elected official or participating in a protest?”

88

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis incorporated a

qualitative approach that incorporated both deductive and inductive reasoning, where

themes identified in the interview data reflected theoretical pre-assumptions (developed

using theory, focus group results and from reading through secondary material, such as

green consumer guides, labels on non-toxic products, and popular magazine articles) and

observations from the process of interviewing. Themes were treated as analytical

categories, which were subsequently refined and re-developed through an ongoing

process of coding of transcriptions. The Atlas.ti software package was used for the

coding of transcripts. The coding process began with open coding to identify all relevant

themes that emerged from the data, including preliminary themes. From there “focused”

coding was used to refine themes into a workable set of categories that could inform my

interpretation of the interview data. While open coding was useful for identifying new

and unexpected themes, focused coding was useful for locating themes related to theory

and the main research goals, as well as to identify overlaps and divergence among

respondents (Esterberg 2002; Macnaghten and Myers, 2004).

Data collection continued until I was able to identify significant overlap in themes and a

levelling-off of new themes emerging from the data. In total, twenty-eight respondents

were interviewed. Twenty-five of these respondents were female and, despite attempts

recruit male participants that fit inclusion criteria—through snowball sampling and

several follow-up postings on parenting web sites where I asked specifically for

involvement from fathers—only three male respondents participated in the study. This

may reflect a gendered division of labour within the home, where women do the majority

of the food shopping, and feel primarily responsible for decisions made in the private

89

realm (Allen 2007; Luxton and Bezanson 2006). Twenty-five of the respondents had one

or more children under the age of eighteen living at home and three of the female

respondents were pregnant with their first child. Educational attainment was fairly high.

Only one respondent had not completed high school and one had a high school diploma

as their highest level of educational attainment. Nine respondents had some years of post-

secondary education, fourteen had a bachelor’s degree, and three had a graduate degree.

Ten participants were low-income, defined by comparing total household income against

the low-income cut-off rates published by Statistics Canada. Nine respondents identified

their ethnicity as something other than Caucasian or Canadian, with four having

immigrated to Canada. Ages ranged from twenty to forty-five, with an average age of

thirty-four years. Six female respondents indicated that they had no partner at home and

the remainder of respondents were in married or in common-law heterosexual

relationships.

4.4 Findings The purpose of the focus groups was to generate exploratory data to inform the interview

phase of the study. In this section I briefly summarize the main themes from the focus

group phase of the study, and then devote greater attention to exploring themes that

emerged in the interviews.

4.4.1 Focus groups Three major themes emerged from the focus groups. First, control over exposure to

potentially harmful chemicals was thought to be possible through informed, systematic

and vigilant consumption and lifestyle decisions, including selecting organic foods,

90

limiting use of cosmetic products, airing out the home to clear it of toxic off-gassing from

common household items, and shopping at specialty health stores that carried non-toxic

products. One female participant explained that “I feel like I have lots of control [over my

exposure to chemicals]. Because of I have a way of filtering out most of the bad stuff,

like water at home, and because I belong to a food co-op and I grow a lot of food, and I

make my own cleaning products, my own deodorants. Occasionally I’m really infuriated

by a lack of choice around plastics, because I try to boycott plastic.”

The second theme described a sense of empowerment from greater choice among

commodities of protection (such as non-toxic products and organic foods). Access to

alternative retailers and a wide range of protective commodities was thought to allow one

to manage risk at a desired level of safety, thereby making chemical risks more tangible

and controllable. One respondent, for example, felt that the large health food store in her

neighbourhood “makes availability and choice easy. You can be an empowered shopper

there and choose among your competing brands of tea or whatever [else].”

Finally, in contrast to the trust expressed in their own vigilant consumer habits,

participants expressed very low levels of trust in government agencies and did not believe

that government action could protect the public from exposure to chemicals. A male

respondent attributed it to regulatory capture, “There's a lot of inside pressures, I guess, in

driving regulations. And industries are very powerful and they can have a lot of

influence. Things aren't always driven towards the environment or people's health.” No

participant expressed trust in regulatory processes overseeing chemical production and

distribution.

91

4.4.2 Interviews Three similar narratives also dominated the interview data. Careful consumption was

considered a reliable protective mechanism among many participants, one that allowed an

empowered sense of control and agency over exposure to chemicals. The second

narrative describes individual action—and, for many respondents, consumer action

through the institution of the market—as the most effective and pragmatic mechanism for

addressing risks from chemical body burdens. The third narrative expresses considerable

scepticism in the transformative potential of state-led action—again, a theme that was

also identified in the focus groups. As I show below, this third narrative was not as

prominent among low-income respondents.

4.4.2.1 Control through consumer vigilance

Chemical body burdens were perceived mainly as a threat to health, and most

respondents aimed to reduce at least some of their family’s exposure through their daily

food shopping and consumer product decisions. Marie, a thirty-eight-year-old business

consultant, for example, explained that she “personally can smell all the off-gassing from

the carpets and the chairs and the paint and everything. It usually gives me a headache.

So I’m very careful about those kinds of things.” Maaren, a thirty-year-old, unemployed

woman pregnant with her first child, felt that “many, many things are not safe and not

healthy at all. Cancer rates are going up and up.” Only one respondent, David, a thirty-

four-year-old service sector worker, expressed serious scepticism that chemical body

burdens were a cause for concern. He described concern about chemical body burdens as

92

“a bit overblown … my children go to their grandparents’ house and they’re going to [be

exposed] there. They go to kindergarten and it’s right there.” He also noted that he does

not try to control his family’s exposure to chemicals.

When asked what one can do to control one’s exposure to chemicals, many respondents

described enacting shopping and household routines intended to reduce their own or their

children’s exposure to substances such as pesticides, plasticizers, fragrances, and

ingredients used in conventional cleaning products. Individual-level action was

constructed by many respondents as a reliable and effective form of protection from

chemical exposure. Samantha, a twenty-five-year-old sales manager with an infant son,

most clearly described her confidence in her ability to control her child’s exposure to

chemicals when she asserted that, because of her careful shopping routine and attention to

ingredient labels, “my baby is 99.9% organic”. For respondents, such as Karen, a 36

year-old stay-at-home mother, control was best achieved through greater awareness and

self-education.

I think it’s just to be aware. I think we need to take the

responsibility and become aware of where the chemicals are

coming from. And it’s not just chemicals, it’s stuff like radiation

from your internet modem from your cordless phones, from your

TVs, microwaves. It’s all that kind of stuff. I just think we need to

become aware.

93

Respondents, such as Cara, a thirty-five-year-old, stay-at-home mother, were especially

proactive in minimizing exposures. Cara listed the names of specific chemicals that she

wants to avoid and explained how she reads ingredient labels carefully to identify

whether these compounds are present. She maintains strict standards over what foods her

children eat (mainly organic and unprocessed) and what products and toys can be brought

into the home. Similar to Cara, Brenda, a forty-one-year-old health professional, felt that

“buying organic is probably the best way [to control exposure], and looking at labels to

see what’s in products before you buy them, that sort of thing.” When asked about times

when she does not feel that she has control, Brenda explained that, “we are relying on the

honesty of people who are selling products … So there’s things like that that we can’t

control.” Brenda expresses a heightened sense of control over her exposure to chemicals,

as the only limit to her control is the truthfulness of the information that informs her

product selections. In all of these responses, we see how individuals are thought to obtain

agency over exposure to risk through access to good information and consumer vigilance.

Interestingly, no respondent described these practices and the processes involved in

making safer consumer choices as anxiety-producing or burdensome. In the words of

Audrey, a twenty-seven-year-old, stay-at-home mother, vigilant consumption is “routine

… I’m used to buying the same types of items.” For respondents such as Audrey, once

having identified a set of “safe” commodities, continual access to these commodities on

each shopping trip provides structure and reassurance. Despite the considerable fear that

we might expect to be associated with managing personal and family-level body burdens,

respondents suggest that the processes of mediating risk of contamination is normal

94

because it involves tweaking existing routines and is associated with the mundane aspects

of everyday life.

As Trina, a thirty-three-year-old, government worker pregnant with her first child

explained, growing and making one’s own food is the best form of protection because “if

you make home food, you know what’s going in it. You understand the context of what it

is.” Zhen, a forty-year-old, low- income computer administrator, was one respondent who

started growing her own food in a neighbour’s garden when she became concerned about

food safety. She explained that the only food she really trusts is the food that she grows

herself. These responses suggest that total control over one’s food is synonymous with

complete transparency over how it was produced, and that total control requires

disconnecting completely from conventional commodity chains. By suggesting that their

own practices and personal standards of purity and naturalness are most trustworthy,

these individuals are looking to themselves as the ultimate form of protection.

As I show in the following section, individual-level actions and choices were not only

perceived as enhancing control over exposure to chemicals (where self-protection is a key

goal), but were also described by many respondents as part of taking personal

responsibility for collective risk problems.

4.4.2.2 Individual action as transformative When participants were asked what they thought is the best way to make change in the

world when it comes to chemical body burdens, a significant theme that emerged was the

importance of taking responsibility for one’s actions and encouraging others to do the

95

same. For Karen, “it first starts with individually wanting the change for ourselves and

then just practising that for ourselves. …Like, I take a lot of responsibility for things that

are happening and I expect that people around me will too.” Faye, thirty-five-year-old,

low-income, stay-at-home parent of a toddler put it in a very similar way:

I don’t know much about politics. The best way to make change?

Do something a little bit at a time. So, you know, I mean, if

everyone does something then at least you’ll get some sort of

progression and change and then it will probably be like a ball

effect, you know? The more people talk about the more it gets

heard and more people bring their children up thinking the same

way, right?

As Carla, a twenty-five-year-old lone parent living on social assistance explains, “we” are

responsible and should not look outside ourselves for someone or something to blame:

Who is responsible? Probably ourselves. Pretty much. If you do

your part and pass the message on to your friends and your loved

ones, then you're affecting the whole problem. This is a big

world, you can't really blame anybody. Because it's too big for

one person to ever take the blame. So you have to do it for

yourself and then reach out to other people who are around you.

96

Similar to Carla, Vance, a forty-five-year-old, self employed father of two children, also

constructed personal responsibility as rejecting a narrative of blame: “The ‘them’ are us.

All the Costco shoppers, all the dollar store shoppers, they are us.” When I asked him to

think about who is responsible for these problems he explained, “Collectively, all of us

[are responsible]. It’s too easy to point fingers. You point a finger, you’ve got three

pointing back.” According to these respondents, change is possible when responsibility is

adopted on an individual level, and through encouraging others to also take

responsibility. By looking for accountability outside of ourselves, we shirk that

responsibility.

Many of the respondents described how informed and deliberate consumer choices

allowed one to be more responsible and do one’s part. Marie noted that the best way to

take responsibility is to become an informed consumer, because we have the most control

over our own actions:

I think that we as individuals have a responsibility to say no, I’m

not going to buy these products that are filled with pesticides or

filled with chemicals. I think we need to do a better job as

consumers with making sure that we are taking responsibility for

our homes and for ourselves. I think the only thing we have

responsibility for—that we can control—is us and what we bring

into our homes.

97

Purchasing power was described as having tremendous transformative potential—

potential that exceeded one’s power as voter. Tamara, a thirty-two-year-old teacher and

mother of a preschooler, for example, feels that her actions as a consumer are less futile

than political activism: “I feel very helpless to make changes at the larger level like going

out and being an activist or being political or anything. I just feel like I can only do it for

myself and my family.” Rachel, a thirty-eight-year-old health professional with an infant,

describes her agency as a shopper in terms of power that extends beyond the act of

purchasing a commodity: “I like to think we have a lot of power as consumers. I don’t

know why we don’t act on it.” Vance put it most succinctly: “I think in a capitalistic

society, your purchase is your vote. You need to vote with your actions and not just your

mouth.”

According to respondents such as Moira, a thirty-five-year-old, low-income, unemployed

woman, voting is only effective when one’s vote aligns with others. For her, shopping

can enable change in a similar way:

At the ballot box you’re just one in millions. It can’t make that

big of a difference and to actually get any change you have to

have a bunch of people mobilized to do it and even then you vote

for an individual or a party... So I guess [shopping] is the same

thing. It’s all going in and voting with your dollars.

98

Note how Moira views consumer action as collective mobilization—almost like a social

movement. This view of shopping as collective action was present in many of the

interviews. Marie is another respondent who suggested that shopping is effective because

it happens on a daily basis, while voting happens infrequently.

I think that consumers have a huge power in their wallets. If

people make a decision to boycott a certain product or to stop

purchasing in masses a certain product I think that the retailers

start to feel it…in terms of making a day- to-day difference, votes

only happen once in a while or petitions only once in a while.

Underlying several of the interviews, including Marie’s, was the belief that “voting with

your dollars” is more transformative than voting in an election because it potentially

influences the actions of corporations. Corporations, rather than states, were viewed by

some respondents as the most important target for action. Phillippe, a thirty-three-year-

old financial analyst, saw shopping as a frequent expression of one’s political

preferences, and he contextualized this belief in terms of the logic and efficacy of the

market:

The major corporations are the ones that have the infrastructure in

place and are in the best position to change the way the society

functions. They’re only concerned with their shareholder’s dollar.

So you can vote with your dollar, let the major corporations know

99

what your preferences are by investing in the more socially

conscious products.

Elsewhere in the interview, Phillippe acknowledged that the chemical industry is not

strictly regulated. Rather than focus on poor regulatory oversight, he discusses the need

for greater consumer “awareness of what the chemicals are in [products] and just

choosing not to use them.” He explains that:

The people that are creating the chemicals don’t want you to

know how bad they are for you or what [products] they’re in.

There are all sorts of lawsuits and lobbyists from the chemical

industry that try to prohibit the notification of what chemicals are

in products, or limit and restrain the warning labels for these

chemicals. The chemical industry is doing it for the

dollar…They’re blinded by the money and are just trying to

protect their stockholders. So people have to self-educate, have to

know what chemicals to avoid in these products.

Corporations are viewed as self-interested and ultimately dangerous, according to

respondents like Phillippe. These participants saw consumers as the only actors who can

keep corporations in line, and suggested that consumers must protect themselves through

self-education and vigilant consumer choices. Megan, a thirty-one-year-old teacher on

maternity leave with her first child, also described corporations as self-interested and saw

100

the market as the most important institution for enacting social change. She explained

that chemical corporations “can only be swayed by your consumer dollar. So in the end it

always comes down to the consumer dollar as the final deciding factor … the dollar is

still bottom line, the best way to move things forward.” In both Megan’s and Phillippe’s

responses is the belief that corporations have the most power, and that their primary

motivation is to maximize profit, with comparatively little concern for public welfare.

Consumers must therefore look out for themselves, and can protect public welfare by

sending signals to corporations through the market. In the next section, I highlight how

this faith in the power of consumers and the market to keep corporations in check

compares to stated confidence in government.

4.4.2.3 The State? This section reviews the responses to a follow-up question where I asked interviewees to

reflect specifically on the role of the state in solving problems related to the

environmental sustainability of the food supply and the chemical body burden problem in

general. Linda,a thirty-five-year-old teacher on maternity leave, and Kerri, a twenty-nine-

year-old employee for an environmental organization who is pregnant with her first child,

were the only two respondents to articulate a clear role for government in relation to

chemical body burdens and food sustainability. As Linda explained,

[Government] should be more concerned about the environment

and again regulating food, the whole “Made-in-Canada” thing

should be much more stringent. And just being more concerned,

spending more money for that, as opposed to [national] defence.

101

Kerri’s response drew on her experience working with an advocacy group that is directly

involved in lobbying for regulatory change: “[government] should just shut [polluting

industries] down … It’s their role, it’s their duty to protect us. And it should not have to

come from grassroots organizations pushing these issues.” Despite strong support for

government action articulated here, later in the interview, Kerri indicated that green

consumerism is potentially “very effective, actually, more so than the voting. Because

it’s all about consumer demand, right? If all these consumers are wanting all these green

products, then the companies are going to jump on board pretty quick.”

While Linda and Kerry saw a role for government regulation, other interviewees, such as

Delores, a twenty-year-old lone parent living on social assistance, as well as Tamara and

Faye, could not conceive of a specific role for government. These respondents paused

before answering my question, and offered a very short answer suggesting that they “did

not know” of a possible way for government to be involved. For others, government’s

role was vaguely defined, and a pro-market perspective was articulated, where consumers

are proactive and government operates in the background to support market-based

reforms. We see this especially in Moira’s response, who, as we observed above,

expressed very clear support for voting with one’s dollar. When asked about

government’s role, she hesitated and explained that:

I think they have to be, well you know, it’s hard to do because

there’s not a lot of money, but I think they have to be more aware.

They have to be up on monitoring facilities. So I think it’s up to

102

them to really be a—I forget the word—but just to monitor and

keep the companies honest and make sure that they divulge what

is going on and what they’re doing and what they’re putting in

products.

Moira’s assessment identifies government as having the background role of raising public

awareness and monitoring corporations. Brenda, who also supported consumer action in

her interview, offered a similar set of passive government actions—actions that

ultimately support the market for organic goods: [t]hey can authenticate organic and they

can maybe help organic farmers, you know, with maybe subsidies or something to

support them more.”

Likewise, Audrey expressed a need for greater government regulation of the food

industry but nevertheless focused on government support for greater consumer education:

I feel like the food industry isn’t particularly regulated. It seems

like there is not much control over what is being put on the

shelves and what is being marketed to people, what’s being given

to kids at school, what types of products are being pushed… I do

think that better education should be something that’s provided by

the government in some form.

Compared to earlier responses to questions about individual agency, participants were

considerably more hesitant in defining a role for government, and government’s role was

103

vaguely defined overall. Furthermore, no respondent referred in any specific way to the

regulations and agencies that oversee chemicals and foods in Canada. One exception is

Diane, who did mention a role for regulators, but identified the United States Food and

Drug Administration, rather than Canadian regulatory bodies:

I thought that there was some test that things needed to pass

before they could go into the open market. Maybe there are, I

don’t even know. But yeah, I think that just like the Food and

Drug Administration it should be the same with the safety of our

kids and the things that they use, but I don’t know.

Her response suggests that American regulators have greater visibility in Canada—likely

related to Canadian proximity to the US in terms of a significant media presence and the

considerable market share of US-made goods sold in Canada. The absence of any

mention of the Canadian regulatory system in all of the interviews might also be

explained by the complexity and inscrutability of the regulatory system that oversees

environmental regulation and chemical production (see Denison 2007; Harrison and

Hoberg 1994), and the complexity of a risk society more generally (Beck 1992, 1999).

Other respondents dismissed the transformative potential of government altogether, citing

either bureaucratic inefficiency or capture by corporate interests. Karen, a thirty-six-year-

old, low-income, stay-at-home mother of two school-aged children, for example, worried

that “the politics of government tends to bog stuff down. There’s a lot of red tape and a

104

lot of bureaucracy. There’s a lot of rhetoric and less action at that level.” Similar to some

of the focus group respondents, Rachel believed that government would never restrict

industry, and underlying her response is considerable scepticism about government

independence from corporate interests:

Corporations whose priority is keeping their bottom line and

making their shareholders happy, that’s never going to be same

priority as people who want to have healthy products in their

house. But at the same time, economically, we can’t have a

government that says, “Johnson & Johnson you have to stop

producing your entire line.” It’s just not going to fly. It’s not

realistic.

My interview with Tracy, a thirty-one-year-old, self-employed lone parent, revealed how

a perception of government apathy undermines one’s confidence in traditional

mechanisms of political change. According to Tracy, the government does not “notice

where we shop. I don’t think they care ... I would think a more active way [to make

change] would be the traditional way [of voting].” Although she appeared to support

voting as an active form of politics, a few minutes later, Tracy suggested that consumer

action prompting shifts in market demand will ultimately set in motion regulatory

change: “until everyone switches [to natural products] and the other companies go out of

business or are forced to do all environmentally friendly stuff, then I don’t know if the

government will really care.” In other words, Tracy considers voting as one way to push

105

for regulatory change, yet believes that signals sent through the market are a more

effective way to get government’s attention.

The greatest support for state involvement emerged in the interviews with low-income

respondents. Although the sample size for this study is small and these responses are not

representative beyond the sample of interviewees, I believe that some of the overlaps and

agreements among the low-income interviewees points to a pattern that could be more

systematically examined in a larger study. More specifically, of the ten low-income

respondents, seven mentioned the need for government intervention (although the

specific role was vaguely articulated)—a pattern that contrasts with considerable support

for consumer and market-based initiatives among the higher-income participants.

When I asked Zhen, for example, how best to address problems associated with the

sustainability of the food supply and chemical body burdens, she expressed a clear need

for government action, “Government has to do this.” This was the full extent of her

answer, and while she regularly shops for organic and green products, she did not refer to

her agency as a consumer, or identify the market as a way to discipline polluting

corporations. For Sandra, a twenty-six year-old unemployed lone parent who cannot

afford to buy basic groceries to meet her needs, the purchase of organic or natural

products is viewed as an extreme and unattainable option. She refers to a friend who uses

“all natural foods, no dairy whatsoever, all soy products, everything is healthy for you.

She went to extremes, you know what I mean? Her daughter is completely healthy and

beautiful. But I'm like, how much money do you spend? How much is my grocery bill

106

compared to yours?” A few minutes later she referred to the potential for political parties

and agendas to affect change:

You know, because it's the old thing: you can lead a horse to

water but you can't make him drink … I like [the leader of the

federal National Democratic Party] Jack Layton in that he's very

for the people. And the way that he talks about the need for

change … I like that he's for poverty and he's for people that are

in poverty.

Her limited income and social class position seem to inform her response to this question,

as her support for political party action appears to be linked to a desire to have concerns,

such as poverty, represented on the political agenda.

Other low-income respondents placed government and individual action on an equal

footing. Carla explains it this way: “[I]f the factory is blowing up smoke … the

government can do its part in terms of, like, trying to regulate factories, pollution and

whatever. But then individuals can help the whole pollution solution.” Lori referred to

limited access to organic food for low-income people as a structural issue: “ I think the

government should get involved a little bit more, but honestly it starts with the

individuals in the community. … Yeah, if there was a way to regulate the price of organic

food that it didn't cost so much, I think that would be good. I think it has to be accessible

to everybody, organic food.” She felt that government action would ultimately depend on

107

individual concern: “I think it's the individual, really. I mean the government can do

whatever they want. Unless the individuals make an effort or get concerned about stuff

it's not going to change anything.”

Responses from the majority of low-income participants illustrate how personal

responsibility is seen to exist alongside actions undertaken by the state. This may be

explained by the involvement of multiple government agencies—at the municipal,

provincial and federal level–in their everyday lives. Most of these respondents have

greater contact with government organizations compared to their higher-income

counterparts, as they receive social assistance, interact with social workers on a regular

basis, and some attend government-sponsored programs related to children’s health or

nutrition. Even more striking is how, for these respondents, personal responsibility is not

necessarily synonymous with green consumption. For low-income respondents, their

limited income also constrains their consumer agency. As such, the market for green

products is a less attractive, or less viable, option for addressing environmental issues,

especially when compared to the actions of the state.

4.5 Discussion and Conclusion Across the majority of interview narratives, the management of risks associated with

chemical body burdens was interpreted in terms of personal responsibility and consumer

agency. Interviewees interpreted their individual responsibility to negotiate these hazards

in fairly positive ways. Most importantly, the purchase of green commodities provided a

greater sense of control over exposure to chemical risks and gave a certain tangibility and

immediacy to protection. Green consumer products were seen to create a boundary

108

between themselves and chemicals “out there.” Interviewees framed their choices as

voluntary, and appeared to welcome opportunities to protect themselves.

The positive interpretation of individual responsibility is congruent with both the

governmentality and consumer-citizenship perspectives. A governmentality perspective

expects market-based choice to be a primary mode through which individuals come to

understand their own freedom within the context of neo-liberalism, and quite similarly,

consumer-citizenship sees this choice as expanding opportunities for political expression.

The interviews help to reveal how individualization can be understood as empowering,

and that consumers’ perceived agency expands as access to self-protective commodities

multiplies (e.g., as the number of green products available expands). Surprisingly—given

that chemicals are invisible and ubiquitous, and that people can never really know what

chemicals are entering their bodies—absent from the interviews were themes of fear,

anxiety and uncertainty in relation to selecting the appropriate commodities of self-

protection. In other words, individual responsibility for risk was perceived by

interviewees as more emancipatory than burdensome. Given the range of green

commodities available and the packaging of many products that indicates what harmful

chemicals are absent (such as “certified organic”, “antibiotic-free”, “phthalate-free”,

“BPA-free”) an aware shopper can indeed feel protected, assuming they have access to

these commodities. They simply shift their shopping practices over to what is marketed

as a “safer” bundle of goods. Of course, if these commodities did not exist or were seen

to be ineffective, freedom of choice is constricted, and we might therefore expect more

expressions of anxiety, fear and uncertainty.

109

Interviews also revealed how self-protective forms of consumption are informed by

citizenship considerations, and thereby reinforce some of the existing claims in the

consumer-citizenship literature: particularly the point about private virtue

accommodating considerations of the public good. Because chemical body burdens

represent a more immediate threat to individual health than some other contexts of

consumer-citizenship (e.g., fair trade goods or environmental products that address

deforestation), we would expect health considerations to dominate. And while health was

certainly the main priority articulated in interviews, participants also contextualized safer

product choices as part of assuming greater responsibility for chemical body burdens as a

collective risk problem. Respondents were not only thinking of the consequences of

consumer choices on themselves and their families, but also reflected on their culpability

in contributing to environmental problems. Interview narratives bound together

protection and responsibility as dual, rather than competing, imperatives, where personal

protection is a duty to oneself and personal responsibility is a duty to the collective good.

Also, many interviewees saw consumption as a collective activity, as they imagined their

choices coinciding with a series of similar actions taken by others to send signals through

the market. Many also noted the importance of informing other people, like friends and

family, about how to consume responsibly; this point was made to illustrate how they

extended their political involvement beyond their actual purchases. Consumption as a

collective activity was especially evident in the analogy used by many respondents of

buying-as-voting, particularly since we typically understand voting as a collective

activity that is a duty of citizenship.

110

Yet the interviews also reveal how the consumer-citizenship literature overestimates the

extent to which green consumption is informed by highly normative orientations and a

desire to engage in more liberating and less-hierarchical forms of politics. Rather than

frame their actions as a normative project, interviewees’ support for action through the

market reflected a pragmatic view of how transformative change works—what actors and

institutions are relevant to a given problem, and what institution is most realistically able

to transmit the desire for change. A heightened sense of personal responsibility seems to

correspond instead to the perceived inability of the state to address collective risk

problems. Moreover, respondents interpreted the question of environmental risk through

the lens of market fundamentalism (Somers 2008; Somers and Block 2005:261), as the

market was described as the most logical and pragmatic way of ensuring collective

protection from risk. Market fundamentalism refers to a public narrative that supports the

re-organization of social life according to market mechanisms and logic (Somers and

Block 2005:261). The market, and not the state or civil society, is considered the most

effective institution through which we can deal with social problems. According to

respondents, corporations, not the state, were responsible for creating chemical hazards,

and thus the market was thought to be most effective at transmitting signals that could

discipline corporations—signals for change that might eventually be picked up by the

state. This further supported a responsibilization that individuals appeared ready and

eager to take on: the market approach they identify is said to work only when each

individual takes responsibility for their purchases.

Interviews also suggest that the discourse of consumer-citizenship has profoundly shaped

how individuals estimate their potential to “make a difference” through their consumer

111

choices. A high estimation of individual agency is evident when respondents described

the level of control they feel they have over their exposure to chemicals. Few respondents

described their exposure to chemicals as involuntary or inevitable. However, in the

scientific literature, there is considerable evidence of the ways in which exposure to

environmental contaminants is universal and largely escapes individual control (see

Altman et al. 2008; Becker 2010; Eyles 2009). This message that one can make a

difference has been extended to the realm of body burdens, where the purchase of a green

commodity is framed as making a difference to one’s internal body burden, while also

reducing one’s environmental footprint.18 There is a danger here, as this message

heightens the sense of individual control over exposure to toxins, yet there is only a

limited scientific understanding of how consumer actions ultimately affect our internal

body burdens. By using chemical body burdens as a case study, this study helps to

demonstrate how the discourse of consumer-citizenship overestimates consumer agency

and minimizes consideration of things that we cannot control through our purchases.

Interviews with low-income respondents reveal another weakness in the consumer-

citizenship literature: that it has largely failed to consider social and economic

stratification, where unequal access to the market means unequal access to individualized

expressions of citizenship and mechanisms of self-protection. As much as individual

agency through consumption opens up new possibilities for action, with stated goals that

18 As (Johnston 2008) illustrates in her study of Whole Foods Market, the message that individuals can make a difference has been enthusiastically adopted in the marketing of green products. This is ever more the case for non-toxic commodities. Method, for example, an American company that produces a variety of home cleaning products, for example, uses the trademark “people against dirty.” According to the company’s website, “whether it's fighting grime on the kitchen floor, taking out the toxins in the shower or pummeling the bad stuff floating in the world, we are people against dirty.” (http://www.methodhome.com/)

112

are congruent with civic-mindedness, this agency is only available to those with enough

income and education to make informed consumer choices. As such, protection through

consumption is unequal and privileged. Beyond the issues of how genuinely protective

these consumer choices are, those who can afford to make safer choices may be better

protected, or at least feel better protected and more empowered than those who cannot

routinely make these protective consumer choices. As much as low-income interviewees

expressed the need for individual-level responsibility, the market was not referenced as a

mechanism for political change. Rather, individual action was seen to take place in

conjunction with government action—a kind of political engagement between citizens

and the state that we see valorized within the republican model of citizenship. I interpret

this in two ways. First, access to the market depends on one’s purchasing power, and thus

for low-income respondents who have very limited power, the market is a less accessible

institution. If one cannot afford to buy very much at all, one has very little agency as a

consumer. Second, many of the low-income respondents relied on social assistance and

took part in government programs, and thus regularly interacted with state agencies that

we can assume have “real” effects on their every day lives.19 Regardless of whether one

wishes such interaction, the capacity for the state to “make a difference” is therefore

heightened for respondents who interact with the state in their day-to-day lives, and this

is reflected in the interviewees’ discussions of the possibilities for transformative change.

Finally, what do we make of the relative invisibility of the regulatory agencies that

ultimately shape the consumer landscape in Canada? The system that oversees the

19 For a discussion of how social welfare bureaucracies shape the lives of women on social assistance see, for example, Abramovitz (1996); Hays (2003); and Edin and Lein (1997).

113

production and distribution of chemical pollutants in the industrialized world was

considered largely irrelevant to both the creation of chemical body burdens as a problem

and the resolution of this problem. Instead, corporations were seen as the main actors

producing chemical risks. Above, I attribute this to neo-liberal policy shifts. But we must

also consider the inscrutability of the regulatory and policy mechanisms involved in food

and consumers products (Harrison and Hoberg 1994). The state’s regulatory processes

are highly invisible in our day-to-day interactions with food and consumer products, and

people rarely ever come into contact with these regulatory mechanisms in their everyday

lives. This contrasts with the visibility of corporate producers and third party certification

systems. Most non-toxic and organic products, for example, reveal some sort of

certification or claim that at least appears to make the contents of the product more

transparent, and these claims are connected to the corporate producer or a certification

body that appears separate from the state. Our daily life interactions with food and

consumer products appear, on the surface, as interactions with the market actors who

produce and sell these goods, and do not appear to involve the state agencies that regulate

the safety of these commodities.

To summarize, by looking at individual interpretations of personal responsibility in the

context of chemical body burdens, I find that one’s personal responsibility is interpreted

mainly as a form of agency, where one’s actions as a consumer provides a double benefit:

self-protection (enacting responsibility to oneself) and contribution to a collective

problem through consumer-citizenship (enacting responsibility to the collective good).

Respondent narratives furthermore reveal how these views of consumer agency are not

necessarily rooted in normative and moral orientations, but reflect a pragmatic acceptance

114

of a very neo-liberal structure of power relations where the market, rather than the state,

is the most responsive institution to collective risks. However, by considering differences

in perceived agency by social class, we see how consumer-based forms of responsibility

and citizenship are characterized by, and reproduce, existing patterns of inequality.

115

Chapter 5 Conclusion

Chemical pollution is becoming understood less as an “environmental” problem affecting

human populations and the natural environment, but is increasingly viewed as a private

and individualized problem. My dissertation has addressed this topic through the specific

case study of chemical body burdens. Using data sources that range from news media

stories, focus groups and interviews, I have demonstrated how the ideology of

precautionary consumption —the imperative of personal risk management through more

cautious consumer choices—is evident at both a macro-discursive level and in the

narratives describing everyday life.

In the first analytical chapter, chapter 2, I demonstrated how shifts in the media framing

of body burdens suggest that self-protection has emerged as a key frame in the media

discourse of risk, one that provides a sense of individual control over chemical exposure

and shifts the focus away from collective forms of protection from universal risks,

particularly state regulation. The empirical aspects of the body burden phenomenon—

particularly “emergence” where causal factors are multiple such that there is no

identifiable culprit—reinforce organized irresponsibility and the individualization of risk.

By further identifying theoretical overlaps in the risk society and risk-as governance

literatures, this chapter casts doubt on the ability of institutional theories to explain

transformations in media discourse around risk.

Chapter 3 revealed how the practice of chemical mediation is overwhelmingly

characterized as caring work requiring a mother’s vigilance, a finding also present in the

116

media analysis of chapter 2. Women themselves interpret this responsibility through a

dual ideological lens of intensive mothering and precautionary consumption ideologies.

This chapter demonstrates how private sphere ideologies emphasize mothers’ singular

responsibility and encourage a highly individualized burden of care for women. It

furthermore reveals how agency as a responsible consumer is highly dependent on

income. Enacting personal responsibility through cautious consumption is rendered

relatively inaccessible for women with low incomes, and who may not have easy access

to markets for non-toxic products.

Finally, in chapter 4, I found that precautionary consumption is politicized for

respondents. When respondents interpret risk as a consumer—and individual-level—

problem, they are not only concerned about self-protection but are also concerned about

enacting a personal responsibility through greener consumer choices. Respondents in

focus groups and interviews dismissed the transformative potential of voting and

government action, and displayed much more confidence in their power as consumers

and in the responsiveness of the market to protect them from hazards associated with

conventional foods and consumer products. Based on these findings, I suggest that

embedded within privatized responsibility is a desire to obtain greater control over risk,

and ideas of where that control is best applied reflect the larger narrative of market

fundamentalism (Somers 2008). According to respondents, the market is a highly

transformative institution, and corporations—rather than the state—are the primary target

for change. Similar to chapter 3, I find that consumer-based forms of responsibility are

restricted for low-income respondents, meaning that consumer-citizenship is constituted

by, and likely reproduces, existing patterns of inequality.

117

In this concluding chapter, I discuss some of the common threads and insights that link

all three analytical chapters together, and show how these threads contribute to literatures

on risk, gender and consumer-citizenship. These threads all shed light on why body

burdens are vulnerable to individualization. These threads are: 1) the material

characteristics of body burdens that facilitate the interpretation of body burdens as an

individualized—rather than universal—problem; 2) the role of precautionary

consumption as both a problem frame and ideology; 3) neo-liberalism as an ideology

congruent with precautionary consumption; and 4) disparities in protection based on

social class.

5.1 Body Burdens as Creeping Event, Emergent Risk and Consumer Problem As much as precautionary consumption reflects socio-political shifts over time—the

main focus of my discussion below—in this section I discuss how the material

characteristics of chemical bioaccumulation contribute to the social construction of

individualized risks. Here I draw on a critical-realist perspective that connects socially-

constructed awareness of environmental issues to the “real” or material characteristics of

environmental deterioration itself (see Carolan 2005; Murphy 2004).20 The material—and

particularly temporal—characteristics of large-scale technological hazards such as body

burdens are especially important to explaining how dynamics of blame erupt or—more

appropriately in the case of body burdens—fail to erupt. As much as body burdens are

evidence that all of us are involuntarily polluted, conspicuously missing from media

20 The critical realist epistemology accepts the material reality of the biophysical world and accepts a significant degree of human interpretation of this world where the “natural is mediated through society” (Irwin 2001, 18).

118

frames and interview narratives is a clear expression of incredulity, rage or laying of

blame that might be observed with reactions to more sudden or “accidental” chemical

releases that pollute the homes, bodies and waters of nearby communities (as observed,

for example, with the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). In fact, body burdens could

be characterized as a “creeping event” (Molotch 1970, 139; Beamish 2002, 5), a slow-

developing hazard that involves far less urgency and very different blame dynamics

compared to a sudden accident of a similar scale. Creeping events develop slowly, are

invisible for long periods of time and detection occurs incrementally as the problem

compounds, and events are often ignored for long periods of time. As such, blame is

easily diffused and the hazard easily normalized (Beamish 2002). This is especially the

case with body burdens because exposure to toxins takes place over one’s lifetime and

happens through the mundane and everyday activities of shopping, eating, drinking and

using consumer products.

Related to this, in chapter 2, I described body burdens as an emergent risk where there is

no single and clear origin—and therefore perpetrator—and argue that emergence

encourages an interpretation of body burdens as an individualized risk. Chemical body

burdens are the result of exposure to hundreds of chemical compounds via multiple

pathways, such that even the scientific community has significant difficulty determining

how and when specific compounds enter human bodies. In the case of brominated flame

retardants detected in human breast milk samples, for example, there is considerable

debate as to whether exposure comes primarily from household dust or from consuming

meat from animals exposed to flame retardant residues present in water and soil (see, e.g.,

Bocio et al. 2003; Jones-Otazo et al. 2005; Solomon and Weiss 2002, 344). The

119

responsibility for managing body burdens is individualized because, as an emergent risk,

body burdens are not easily connected to an identifiable perpetrator or protective

institution, such that one must turn to oneself for protection. Nevertheless, there is a

political infrastructure that is charged with regulating, controlling, and mitigating human

and environmental exposure to chemicals released into the environment and absorbed

through food and consumer products. As I address later in chapter 4, this infrastructure—

and its concomitant responsibilities—appeared relatively intangible in the lives of the

people I interviewed.

How the material characteristics of contamination shape the interpretation of body

burdens as a social problem is especially evident in news media stories. Many of these

stories report on new scientific findings (Bocio et al. 2003; Hoskins 2003; Smith and

Lourie 2009) showing that daily contact with foods, food packaging and consumer

products exposes individuals to toxins. The attention to toxins in food and consumer

products further individualizes the risks associated with body burdens, by contextualizing

these risks as a consumer problem, rather than an environmental or political problem.

Because foods and consumer products are subject to some degree of individual choice,

precautionary consumption ideology appears as a logical fit. Of course,—and as I address

below—this ideology dominates in the absence of a strong, competing discourse

emphasizing the importance of state regulation over consumer products.

120

5.2 Precautionary Consumption as a Problem Frame and Ideology Across all three analytical chapters, the focus on precautionary consumption as a problem

frame (in media analysis) and ideology (in interview narratives) reveals how self-

protection through consumer action is not solely a material practice, but requires

engagement with certain cultural practices, beliefs, and core ideas. By paying attention to

how precautionary consumption operates as an ideology and a frame, this dissertation

yields a much richer understanding of the individualization of risk through green

consumerism than would be achieved by simply observing or surveying consumer

behaviour. Data from the media analysis, focus groups and interview narratives

illuminate the ways in which precautionary consumption is comprised of a particular

understanding of how responsibility for causing and addressing environmental

deterioration should be allocated, and what actions are considered acceptable for

addressing this as a social problem. Precautionary consumption is an ideology because it

paints a particular picture of how the social world works, and, most importantly, because

it contains “values and norms relevant to promoting change” (Oliver and Johnston 1999,

7). More specifically, precautionary consumption construes threats as levelled at

individuals, owing to their choices as consumers, and recommends more cautious product

selections and lifestyle modifications as the best forms of protection. The individual—

rather than human populations more broadly—is the target of the threat. Likewise, the

individual—rather than political institutions or corporations—is the responsible agent.

Precautionary consumption also contains an emancipatory promise, as it suggests that one

can circumvent the routinized risk assessments undertaken by formal institutions charged

with regulating and monitoring consumer products and foods, and enact one’s own

121

specific standards of precaution. In other words, by becoming a better label-reader and

shopping at the “right” stores, one can avoid all the harmful chemicals that are allowed

under current regulations. The flip side of this emancipatory promise is personal

culpability—as we saw in chapter 3—where contamination and the health effects

stemming from it are perceived to be the result of poor product choices.

5.3 Neo-liberalism: Primacy of the Market As demonstrated throughout the dissertation, precautionary consumption draws on

elements of neo-liberal ideology.21 Precautionary consumption presents the market

(rather than legislative institutions) as the most effective institution for bringing

corporations in line, considers self-protection through consumption as empowered

agency, and draws attention away from the responsibilities of the state in particular

contexts.

Across all three analyses, this dissertation identifies a hierarchy of agency that

corresponds to market fundamentalism and the neo-liberal view of political capacity.

According to this hierarchy, consumer-based agency is more potent than political agency

enacted through traditional forms of civic engagement. This hierarchy is visible in the

second decade of the media analysis and within most of the interviews and focus group

narratives. Chapter 4 hinted that a hierarchy of agency—where one has greater agency as

consumer than voter—may be related to 1) a belief in the efficiency of the market and 2)

the perceived incompetence of political institutions. Other studies (e.g., Macnaghten and

Jacobs 1997, 16-17) have made similar observations, reasoning that individuals invest

21 See footnote 4 for a definition of neo-liberal ideology.

122

their efforts depending on where they see the greatest institutional capacity. As I argue

here, the primacy of individual action cannot be understood without taking a closer look

at the absence of the state from public perceptions of body burdens and environmental

responsibility more generally. Interviewee’s confidence in their own agency as

consumers may correspond to the neo-liberal state’s retreat from its duties to protect the

public from certain kinds of risk.

Not only was the state viewed as powerless relative to market forces, but the state

agencies responsible for regulating toxins were far from the consciousness or

understanding of interviewees and focus group participants. Feeling alienated from the

state, or not able to see how state regulatory processes actually operated, study

participants embraced the act of reading ingredient labels to distinguish “safe” products

from those that are “unsafe.” While this may constitute a kind of consumer agency, it is

important to emphasize that this is a parallel process to the institutionalized systems

within state agencies that have a responsibility to test chemical compounds to determine

whether they are safe for human consumption and the environment, and these agencies

have access to scientific data that is not always available, or easily interpreted by the

general shopping public. That individuals describe feeling pressured to sort through

products that are already regulated reflects the failure of expert systems—and therefore

the state—to adequately protect the public and the environment from harmful chemicals.

By encouraging individualistic forms of consumer-based self-regulation, precautionary

consumption promotes a vision of protection that is fundamentally at odds with the

notion of universality. Exposure, as characterized by the media and interpreted by

123

interviewees, happens on the individual level and responsibility is enacted on an

individual level. Individuals do not claim universal rights or privileges based on broad

categories of membership (such as the rights of social citizenship), rather they have a

responsibility only to themselves—a vision that is at odds with the democratic vision of

state responsibility for public welfare that is a foundation for democracy in Canada and

elsewhere. Precautionary consumption draws our attention away from the universality of

risk, and the responsibilities of the state for managing body burdens as a collective risk.

5.4 Agency through Consumption: The Role of Social Class In contrast to structural mechanisms for dealing with pollution–such as institutionalized

risk assessments that determine chemical safety, regulation, or environmental clean-up

efforts—precautionary consumption reinforces an ad-hoc and individualized form of self-

protection that is not accessible to all. As chapters 3 and 4 illustrate, protection is uneven,

and the ability to actualize routines of chemical mediation differed by social class. By

taking a closer look at how interview narratives differ according to social class, I find that

risk is more readily interpreted as an individual responsibility when one has access to the

requisite resources to allow one a sense of personal agency. Without access to these

resources— education, a disposable income to allow one to afford more expensive green

commodities, and neighbourhood access to these commodities—one loses a sense of

personal agency over risk and looks to other responsible actors and institutions. Finally,

assuming that individual shopping choices make some degree of difference to one’s

internal body burden, there are significant environmental justice implications if

protection from chemical exposure depends on precautionary forms of shopping. In

124

contrast to regulatory stringency that provides more universal protection from chemical

hazards, those without the necessary material resources or access to markets selling green

commodities are comparatively unprotected.

5.5 Limitations and Future Directions One limitation of this study is the focus on the food shopping in interview questions,

which may have restricted conceptualizations of responsibility to the private sphere of

social reproduction, even though the interview did include prompts to encouraging

thinking about the role of state and the public realm. Moreover, because most

respondents were the primary caregiver in the family, they may have chosen to focus on

ideas of agency that relate primarily to their role as caregivers, rather than political

agents. As much as possible, as an interviewer I tried to encourage respondents to look

outside the private sphere to possibilities related to their agency as public citizens, and to

possibilities that take place within formal political institutions. I expect that very different

narratives would have emerged had the focus been on actions related to mitigating

climate change, which has both private and public sphere elements, and had more

respondents been single, male or with older adults whose children live outside the home.

Accordingly, in each of the chapters, I have been careful to appropriately contextualize

the findings and conclusions, such that commentary is directed toward expanding our

knowledge of politics and risk management within the private sphere. I have also tried to

tease apart why problems that exist within the private sphere seem to exclude possibilities

for engagement in the public sphere. As we know from feminist scholars, the private and

public spheres are not isolated from each other, rather the realm of social reproduction is

inextricably intertwined with the economic, political, and ecological structures

125

undergirding contemporary life (Ackelsberg 2010; DeVault 1991; Hays 1996; Katz et al.

2003; Luxton and Bezanson 2006). In the context of this study, the private sphere context

nevertheless dominated, and public sphere connections were fairly weak.

It would be useful to also examine how the individualization of risk operates in other risk

contexts where government is more visibly involved in regulating risk, and consumer

action is also considered a valid response to risk. Climate change is one such context,

where high-profile international agreements demonstrate a clear role for the state, yet

there also exists a host of individual- and household-level possibilities for mitigating

carbon emissions (by, for example, switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, carpooling

and buying local foods). In this context, how is the state capacity for managing risk

evaluated relative to the possibilities of consumer- and household-level actions?

Furthermore, this study offers an exploratory look at the limits of social class on the

possibilities for individualized self-protection. Given role of income, education and

neighbourhood on shaping access to alternative commodities, a more systematic and

comprehensive look at social class is missing from both the individualization of risk and

consumer-citizenship literatures. Using a larger sample size, through a survey or

qualitative project specifically focused on the urban working class families and

neighbourhoods, such a study would examine differences in risk perception by social

class, as well as differences in evaluations of consumer-agency.

Finally, this dissertation only very briefly considers the role of social movement

organizations in using individual consumer strategies as a mobilizing strategy. As I show

126

in chapter 3, several major ENGOs in Canada and the U.S. publish guides to non-toxic

consumption promote the idea of precautionary consumption. Consumer mobilization is a

carry-over from the green guides of the late 1980s (e.g., Cairncross 1992) but has clearly

expanded into a much broader and more sophisticated tool for public mobilization. In

fact, as I suggest below, in Canada consumer campaigns appear to be a central to

pressuring government for greater regulatory stringency. Consequently, we need to

explore why individualization is seen as an effective mobilization tool by social

movement organizations that target the state, as well as individual behaviour and

attitudes. In other words, how have social movement organizations re-framed shopping as

a collective action behaviour?

5.6 Concluding Comments In contrast to other sociological research revealing how concerns about community- and

family-level exposure to toxins has motivated health and toxics movements (Brown

2007; Brown and Ferguson, 1995; Brown et al. 2004; Corborn 2005; Edelstein 2004;

Szasz 1994), body burdens represent the personalization of pollution (Altman et al.

2008). Toxic waste, toxic emissions from factories, and illegal dumping of contaminants

have inspired social movements centered on improving community health, realizing

regulatory change and making state agencies and corporations more accountable for their

(in)actions and failures (e.g., Brown and Ferguson, 1995; Edelstein 2004; Szasz 1994).

Body burdens, in contrast, have motivated solutions disconnected from the regulatory

level, and directed instead toward modifying individual behaviours. Perhaps because

exposure to pollution is imperceptible and occurs gradually through mundane activities

such as eating, using a computer or applying a lotion, social responses to body burdens

127

are drastically different from what we have already observed with the dumping or unsafe

disposal of contaminants.

The findings from this dissertation raise questions around whether individualized

responses to environmental toxins are replacing more collective forms of mobilization.

Greater support for collective action directed at reducing exposure to toxins will likely

depend on counter-discourses that challenge the idea that contamination of the human

body is voluntary and can be addressed through individual consumer strategies. In fact,

Altman et al. (2008) suggest that when individuals are presented with personal

biomonitoring results revealing traces of contaminants that they had expressly tried to

avoid, individuals were more likely to express an interest in becoming more politically

involved or joining a social movement organization (426). Consequently, these counter-

discourses will need to focus on the involuntary nature of exposure and the associated

regulatory failures that have contributed to human and environmental exposure.

Where this counter-discourse will emerge is another key question. So far, existing social

movement organizations seem to reject this discourse, and recent events in Canada show

that consumer-based movements may be an effective tool for generating a regulatory

response. In December 2007, for example, a consumer-based campaign against BPA

prompted the removal of drinking containers containing BPA from retailer shelves, and

this was followed by tougher federal regulations on this compound in 2010. The

proactive response of retailers and corresponding regulatory change suggests that

consumer-based campaigns can mobilize regulators. Moreover, social movement

organizations working on the body burden issue have raised public awareness by

128

emphasizing the vulnerability of individual bodies to pollution, as with a recent campaign

that drew blood samples from prominent Canadian politicians and published the

biomonitoring results to reveal the array chemical biomarkers present in each individual

(Environmental Defense 2007). These organizations are also eager to provide a tangible

answer to the question of “What can I do?” that follows the growing public awareness of

body burdens, and many emphasize changes to shopping habits and lifestyles, with only a

brief mention of political action, such as writing to an elected representative (Smith and

Lourie 2009).22

Finally, this study of body burdens reveals how particular understandings of the human

connection to the natural world shape the understanding of appropriate responses to

social-ecological problems. The pervasive distinction of the human and natural worlds in

social understandings of environmental problems is a central theme in environmental

sociology—and one that is also relevant to the study of chemical body burdens. In media

stories and interviews, individual bodies and homes were assumed to be separate from the

external environment, such that the various pathways of exposure (environment, food,

home and consumer products) were rarely acknowledged as intersecting. Put another

way, media stories and interview respondents did not acknowledge how “indoor”

manufactured environments connect to the “outdoor” or “natural” environment. For

example, factories producing chemicals for non-stick pans also release these chemicals

22 In this book, the authors (associated with Environmental Defence, the organization that led the BPA campaign in Canada) draw their own blood samples both before and after deliberate exposure to everyday consumer products and foods. By screening these samples for contaminant biomarkers, the authors show how exposure to products such as air fresheners are associated with marked increase in phthalates and consumption of canned tuna is associated with a marked increase in mercury levels in the blood. While their book does call for regulatory action, they emphasize the vulnerability of the human body to toxins, and argue for greater individual precaution in choosing household products and foods.

129

into air and waterways and thus exposure could happen through contact with the external

environment and not just a consumer product. And once our old furniture treated with

brominated flame retardants is discarded in landfills, these persistent compounds leach

into ground water and soil. Yet these interconnections were rarely—if ever—

acknowledged in media stories and in the interviews and focus groups I conducted. Other

studies examining the public understanding of environmental pollution have also found

that individuals construct a symbolic boundary between their bodies and homes and the

external environment (Altman et al. 2008, 427; Eyles et al. 2009). In fact, much in the

same way as a distinction between the public and the private spheres obscures our view

of how domestic life shapes public life (a subject I addressed in chapter 3), there is a

similar blindness to the ways in which our homes and bodies are part of a much larger

contaminated environment. If we acknowledge a connection between the contamination

of the home and the contamination of the environment outside the home, then we may be

more likely to consider body burdens a public issue requiring collective solutions.

130

References Abramovitz. 1996. Regulating the lives of women: Social welfare policy from colonial

times to the present. Cambridge, MA: Southend Press.

Ackelsberg, Martha A. 2010. Resisting citizenship : Feminist essays on politics, community, and democracy. New York: Routledge.

Allan, Stuart. 2002. Media, risk, and science. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Allen, Patricia and Martin Kovach. 2000. The capitalist composition of organic:The potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of organic agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 17(3): 221-232.

Allen, Patricia and Carolyn Sachs. 2007. Women and food chains: The gendered politics of food. International Journal of Agriculture and Food 15(1): 1-23.

Altheide, D. L. 1997. The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear. The Sociological Quarterly 38(4): 647-668.

Altman, Rebecca Gasior, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Julia Green Brody, Ruthann Rudel, Phil Brown, and Mara Averick. 2008. Pollution comes home and gets personal: Women's experience of household chemical exposure. Journal of health and social behavior 49: 417-435.

Antilla, L. 2005. Climate of scepticism: Us newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 15(4): 338-352.

Apple, Rima D. 1995. Constructing mothers: Scientific motherhood in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Social History of Medicine 8(2): 161-178.

Arendell, Terry. 2000. Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade's scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family 62(4): 1192-1207.

Arnup, Katherine. 1994. Education for motherhood : Advice for mothers in twentieth-century canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ashton, Karen and Elizabeth Salter Green. 2008. The toxic consumer : Living healthy in a hazardous world. New York: Sterling Pub. Co.

Association, (CELA) Canadian Environmental Law. 2006. Confidentiality and burden of proof under the Canadian environmental protection act (CEPA). Submission to the house of commons standing committee on environment and sustainable development. Canadian Environmental Law Association, Toronto, ON.

Baillie-Hamilton, Paula. 2005. Toxic overload : A doctor's plan for combating the illnesses caused by chemicals in our foods, our homes, and our medicine cabinets. New York: Avery.

Barnett, Clive, Paul Cloke, Nick Clarke, and Alice Malpass. 2005. Consuming ethics: Articulating the subjects and spaces of ethical consumption. Antipode 37(1): 23-45.

131

Beamish, T. D. 2000. Accumulating trouble: Complex organization, a culture of silence, and a secret spill. Social problems 47(4): 473-498.

—. 2002. Silent spill:The organization of an industrial crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

—. 1992. Risk society : Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.

—. 1994. The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. Pp. 1-55 in Reflexive modernization : Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, edited by U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

—.1995. Ecological politics in an age of risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.

—.1996. The reinvention of politics : Rethinking modernity in the global social order Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

—.1999. World risk society. Malden, Mass: Polity Press.

—. 2006. Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society 35(3): 329-345.

Beck, Ulrich and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. 2002. Individualization : Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Becker, Monica, Sally Edwards, and Rachel I. Massey. 2010. Toxic chemicals in toys and children's products: Limitations of current responses and recommendations for government and industry. Environmental science & technology 44(21): 7986-7991.

Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth, Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck, and Joost van Loon. 2000. Health and responsibility: From social change to technological change and vice versa. Pp. 122-135 in The risk society and beyond : Critical issues for social theory. London: SAGE.

(BEH) Bureau of Environmental Health. 2009. How to protect your baby from BPA. edited by Massachusetts Department of Public Health Health. Boston: Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

Bergman, B. 1989. Toxins place arctic way of life in jeopardy. Pp. A22 in Toronto Star.

Berkson, Lindsey. 2000. Hormone deception : How everyday foods and products are disrupting your hormones– and how to protect yourself and your family. Lincolnwood, Ill.: Contemporary Books.

Bernstein, Steven. 2000. Ideas, social structure and the compromise of liberal environmentalism. European Journal of International Relations 6(4): 464-512.

Bickerstaff, K., P. Simmons, and N. Pidgeon. 2008. Constructing responsibilities for risk: Negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environment and Planning A 40(6): 1312-1330.

Binder, Amy. 1993. Constructing racial rhetoric: Media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap music. American Sociological Review 58(6): 753-767.

132

Bocio, A., J. M. Llobet, J. L. Domingo, J. Corbella, A. Teixido, and C. Casas. 2003. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in foodstuffs: Human exposure through the diet. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51(10): 3191-3195.

Breecher, Maury, M. and Shirley Linde. 1992. Healthy homes in a toxic world : Preventing, identifying, and eliminating hidden health hazards in your home. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brenner, B. A., Susan J. Ferguson, Anne S. Kasper, and Susan M. Love. 2000. Sister support: Women create a breast cancer movement. Pp. 325-344 in Breast cancer : Society shapes an epidemic, vol. 1st ed. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Brenner, N. and N. Theodore. 2002. Cities and the geographies of "Actually existing neoliberalism". ANTIPODE 34(3): 349-379.

Brown, Phil. 2007. Toxic exposures : Contested illnesses and the environmental health movement. New York: Columbia University Press.

Brown, Phil.l and Faith I. T. Ferguson. 1995. "Making a big stink": Women's work, women's relationships, and toxic waste activism. Gender and Society 9(2): 145-172.

Brown, P., S. McCormick, B. Mayer, S. Zavestoski, R. Morello-Frosch, and L. Senier. 2006. "A lab of our own" - environmental causation of breast cancer and challenges to the dominant epidemiological paradigm.

Brown, P., S. Zavestoski, S. McCormick, B. Mayer, R. Morello-Frosch, and R. G. Altman. 2004. Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness 26(1): 50-80.

Brown, Phil, Stephen M. Zavestoski, Sabrina McCormick, Joshua Mandelbaum, and Theo Luebke. 2001. Print media coverage of environmental causation of breast cancer. Sociology of Health & Illness 23(6): 747-775.

Bueckert, D. 1991. Pollution, infertility studied. Pp. E13 in The Globe and Mail.

Burtt, Shelley. 1993. The politics of virtue today: A critique and a proposal. The American Political Science Review 87(2): 360-368.

Cable, Sherry, Thomas E. Shriver, and Tamara L. Mix. 2008. Risk society and contested illness: The case of nuclear weapons workers. American Sociological Review 73(3): 380-400.

Cairncross, Frances. 1992. Costing the earth : The challenge for governments, the opportunities for business. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Capek, S. 2000. Reframing endometriosis: From "Career-woman's disease" To environment/body connections. Pp. 345-363 in Illness and the environment : A reader in contested medicine. New York: New York University Press.

Carolan, M. S. 2005. Society, biology, and ecology: Bringing nature back into sociology's disciplinary narrative through critical realism. Organization & Environment 18(4): 393-421.

133

Carvalho, A. and J. Burgess. 2005. Cultural circuits of climate change in uk broadsheet newspapers, 1985-2003. Risk Analysis 25(6): 1457-1469.

(CDC) Centers for Disease Control. 1999. First national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health.

—. 2003. Second national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health.

—. 2005. Third national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health.

Clarke, J. 2006. Consumers, clients or citizens? Politics, policy and practice in the reform of social care. European Societies 8(3): 423-442.

Clarke, Lee. 1993. The disqualification heuristic. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 5: 298-312.

Clarke, L. and J. F. Short. 1993. Social-organization and risk: Some current controversies. Annual Review of Sociology 19: 375-399.

Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers. 1996. Our stolen future : Are we threatening our fertility, intelligence, and survival? : A scientific detective story. New York: Dutton.

Coleman, Cynthia-Lou, J. Hartley, and D. Kennamer. 2006. Examining claimsmakers' frames in news coverage of direct-to-consumer advertising. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 83(3): 547-563.

Cone, M. 1998. Pollution is feminizing world's wildlife, study indicates. Pp. A16 in The Vancouver Sun.

—. 2008. Products derived from natural, nontoxic ingredients – once seen as fringe – are now mainstream. Pp. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-greenchem14-2008sep14,0,5897268,full.story in Los Angeles Times.

Connolly, John and Andrea Prothero. 2008. Green consumption: Life politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture 8(1): 117-145.

Corburn, Jason. 2005. Street science : Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Craig, Lyn. 2006. Does father care mean fathers share? A comparison of how mothers and fathers in intact families spend time with children. Gender & Society 20(2): 259-281.

Dadd, D. L. 1997. Home safe home: Protecting yourself and your family from everyday toxics and harmful household products. New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher Putnam.

134

Daemmrich, A. 2008. Forum risk frameworks and biomonitoring: Distributed regulation of synthetic chemicals in humans. Environmental History 13(4): 684-694.

D'Angelo, Paul. 2002. News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to entman. Journal of Communication 52(4): 870-888.

Dean, M. 1997. Sociology after society. Pp. 205-228 in Sociology after postmodernism, edited by D. Owen. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

—. 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denison, Richard A. 2007. Not that innocent:A comparative analysis of Canadian, European Union and United States policies on industrial chemicals. Environmental Defense and Pollution Probe, Washington, DC. Available at: www.environmentaldefense.org/go/chempolicyreport.

Denney, D. 2009. Fear, human rights and new labour policy post-9/11. Pp. 4-18 in Living in dangerous times: Fear, insecurity, risk and social policy, edited by D. Denney.

DeVault, Marjorie L. 1991. Feeding the family : The social organization of caring as gendered work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dietz, Thomas, Gerald T Gardner, Jonathan Gilligan, Paul C Stern, and Michael P. Vanderbergh. 2009. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce u.S. Carbon emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(44): 18452-18456.

Doyle, Aaron. 2007. Introduction: Trust, citizenship and exclusion in the risk society. Pp. 7-22 in Risk and trust : Including or excluding citizens?, edited by L. C. o. Canada. Black Point, N.S.: Fernwood Pub.

Driedger, S. M. 2007. Risk and the media: A comparison of print and televised news stories of a Canadian drinking water risk event. Risk Analysis 27(3): 775-786.

Edelstein, Michael R. 2004. Contaminated communities: Coping with residential toxic exposure. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Work, welfare, and single mothers' economic survival strategies. American Sociological Review 62(2): 253-266.

Ehrenreich, Barbara and Deirdre English. 1979. For her own good : 150 years of the experts' advice to women. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.

Eldridge, John, Jacquie Reilly, N. Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. 2005. Risk and relativity: Bse and the british media. Pp. 138-154 in The social amplification of risk, edited by N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. Sterling, Va.: Earthscan.

Elkington, J. and J. Hailes. 1988. The green consumer guide. London: Gollancz.

Elliott, Anthony. 2002. Beck's sociology of risk: A critical assessment. Sociology 36(2): 293-315.

135

Elvin-Nowak, Y. and H. Thomsson. 2001. Motherhood as idea and practice - a discursive understanding of employed mothers in sweden. Gender & Society 15(3): 407-428.

Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51-58.

Environmental Defence. 2007. Toxic nation on parliament hill. http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/toxicnation-parliament-hill. Accessed March 3, 2011.

Ericson, Richard V., Patricia M. Baranek, and Janet B. L. Chan. 1989. Negotiating control : A study of news sources. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ericson, Richard V., Aaron Doyle, and Dean Barry. 2003. Insurance as governance. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Esterberg, K. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Ewald, F. 1991. Insurance and risks. Pp. 197-210 in The Foucault effect : Studies in governmentality : With two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault, edited by G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

(EWG) Environmental Working Group. EWG skin deep cosmetic safety database, 2008 (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/index.php).

Eyles, John, Kathi Wilson, Lisa Mu, Sue Keller-Olaman, and Susan Elliott. 2009. What people think about the environment and its relationship to their health: Perceptions of health at different scales of environment in Hamilton, Ontario. Local Environment 14(10): 981-998.

Ferguson, I. 2007. Increasing user choice or privatizing risk? The antinomies of personalization. British Journal of Social Work 37(3): 387-403.

Fox, Bonnie. 2006. Motherhood as a class act: The many ways in which "Intensive mothering" Is entangled with social class. Pp. 231-262 in Social reproduction : Feminist political economy challenges neo-liberalism, edited by M. Luxton and K. Bezanson. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

—. 2009. When couples become parents : The creation of gender in the transition to parenthood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Freudenburg, William R. 1993. Risk and recreancy:Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces 71(4): 909-932.

Freudenburg, William R., Cynthia-Lou Coleman, James Gonzales, and Catherine Helgeland. 1996. Media coverage of hazard events: Analyzing the assumptions. Risk Analysis 16(1): 31-42.

Freudenburg, W. R., R. Gramling, S. Laska, and K. T. Erikson. 2008. Organizing hazards, engineering disasters? Improving the recognition of political-economic factors in the creation of disasters. Social Forces 87(2): 1015-1038.

136

Gamson, William A. and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.

Gavigan, Christopher. 2009. Healthy child, healthy world. New York: Penguin Group.

Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

—. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

—. 1994. Living in a post-traditional society. Pp. 56-109 in Reflexive modernization : Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, edited by U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Gillespie, C. 2005. Guarding your home against pollutants. Pp. N12 in Toronto Star.

Ginsberg, G and B. Toal. 2006. What's toxic, what's not. New York: Berkley Books.

Grandjean, P. and P. J. Landrigan. 2006. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. The Lancet 368(9553): 2167-2178.

Grant, Julia. 1998. Raising baby by the book : The education of American mothers. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Gustafsson, U. 2004. The privatisation of risk in school meals policies. Health Risk & Society 6(1): 53-65.

Guthman, J. 2008. Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39(3): 1171-1183.

Guthman, J. and E. M. DuPuis. 2006. Embodying neoliberalism: Economy, culture, and the politics of fat. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space 24: 427-448.

Hacker, Jacob S. 2008. The great risk shift : The new economic insecurity and the decline of the american dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haggerty, Kevin. 2003. From risk to precaution: The rationalities of personal crime prevention. Pp. 193-215 in Risk & morality, edited by R. V. Ericson and A. Doyle. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Harrison, Kathryn and George Hoberg. 1994. Risk, science and politics : Regulating toxic substances in canada and the united states. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Harvey, David. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hays, Sharon. 1996. The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale

—. 2003. Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heater, Derek Benjamin. 1999. What is citizenship? Malden, Mass: Polity Press.

—. 2004. A brief history of citizenship. New York: New York University Press.

137

Hilgartner, S. and C. L. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social-problems - a public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology 94(1): 53-78.

Holzer, Boris and Mads P. Sørensen. 2003. Rethinking subpolitics: Beyond the 'iron cage' of modern politics? Theory, Culture & Society 20(2): 79-102.

Hoskins, J. A. 2003. Health effects due to indoor air pollution. Indoor and Built Environment 12(6): 427-433.

Ilcan, S. 2009. Privatizing responsibility: Public sector reform under neoliberal government. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 46(3): 207-234.

Iles, Alastair. 2007. Identifying environmental health risks in consumer products: Non-governmental organizations and civic epistemologies. Public Understanding of Science 16(4): 371-391.

Irwin, Alan. 2001. Sociology and the environment : A critical introduction to society, nature and knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers.

Johnston, Deirdre D. and Debra H. Swanson. 2006. Constructing the "Good mother": The experience of mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles 54(7-8): 509-519.

Johnston, Josée. 2008. The citizen-consumer hybrid: Ideological tensions and the case of whole foods market. Theory and Society 37(3): 229-270.

Johnston, Josée and Michelle Szabo. In press. Reflexivity and the whole foods market consumer: The lived experience of shopping for change. Agriculture and Human Values: 1-17.

Jones-Otazo, H. A., J. P. Clarke, M. L. Diamond, J. A. Archbold, G. Ferguson, T. Harner, G. M. Richardson, J. J. Ryan, and B. Wilford. 2005. Is house dust the missing exposure pathway for PBDEs? An analysis of the urban fate and human exposure to PBDEs. Environmental science & technology 39(14): 5121-5130.

Jubas, Kaela. 2007. Conceptual con/fusion in democratic societies: Understandings and limitations of consumer-citizenship. Journal of Consumer Culture 7(2): 231-254.

Kasperson, R. E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, S. Ratick, and N. Pidgeon. 2005. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Pp. 13-46 in The social amplification of risk, edited by N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. Sterling, Va.: Earthscan.

Katz, C., Stanley Aronowitz, Heather Gautney, and Clyde W. Barrow. 2003. Implicating empire : Globalization and resistance in the 21st century world order. Pp. 255-270. New York: Basic Books.

Kitsuse, John L. and Malcolm Spector. 1973. Toward a sociology of social problems:Social conditions, value judgments, and social problems. Social problems 20(4): 407-419.

138

Kroll-Smith, J. Stephen, Phil Brown, and Valerie J. Gunter. 2000. Illness and the environment : A reader in contested medicine. New York: New York University Press.

Kymlicka, W. and W. Norman. 1994. Return of the citizen - a survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics 104(2): 352-381.

Landrigan, P. J., Herbert L Needleman, and Mary Landrigan. 2001. Raising healthy children in a toxic world : 101 smart solutions for every family. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books.

Lang, T. 1998. Food policy: Time to change course? RSA Journal 145: 109-116.

Lang, T. and Y. Gabriel. 2005. A brief history of consumer activism. Pp. 39-52 in The ethical consumer, edited by R. Harrison, T. Newholm, and D. Shaw. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Lareau, Annette. 2002. Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review 67(5): 747-776.

—.. 2003. Unequal childhoods : Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lee, Ellie J. 2008. Living with risk in the age of 'intensive motherhood': Maternal identity and infant feeding. Health Risk & Society 10(5): 467-477.

Levi, Ron. 2000. The mutuality of risk and community: The adjudication of community notification statutes. Economy and Society 29(4): 578-601.

Lister, Ruth. 2003. Citizenship : Feminist perspectives. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lockie, Stewart. 2009. Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: Assembling the "Citizen consumer". Agriculture and Human Values 26(3): 193-201.

Lupton, Deborah. 1996. Food, the body, and the self. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

—. 1999. Risk. New York: Routledge.

Luxton, Meg and Kate Bezanson. 2006. Social reproduction : Feminist political economy challenges neo-liberalism. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

MacKendrick, N. A. 2010. Media framing of body burdens: Precautionary consumption and the individualization of risk. Sociological Inquiry 80(1): 126-149.

Macnaghten, Phil. 2003. Embodying the environment in everyday life practices. The Sociological review 51: 63-84.

Macnaghten, Phil and Michael Jacobs. 1997. Public identification with sustainable development : Investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environmental Change 7(1): 5-24.

139

Macnaghten, P., G. Myers, and Clive Seale. 2004. Focus groups. Pp. 65-79 in Qualitative research practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

Maniates, Michael. 2002. Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Pp. 43-66 in Confronting consumption, edited by T. Princen, K. Conca, and M. Maniates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Mathews, T.J. and B.E. Hamilton. 2009. Childbearing: More women are having their first child later in life. Nchs data brief, no. 21. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Mazur, A. 1991. Putting radon and love canal on the public agenda. Pp. 183-204 in Communities at risk : Collective responses to technological hazards, edited by S. R. Couch and J. S. Kroll-Smith. New York: P. Lang.

McAndrew, B. 1998. Cleansers cause fears over cancer. Group thinks it’s possible there’s a link. Pp. A8 in Toronto Star.

McCormick, Sabrina, Phil Brown, and Stephen Zavestoski. 2003. The personal is scientific, the scientific is political: The public paradigm of the environmental breast cancer movement. Sociological Forum 18(4): 545-576.

McInnes, C. 1988. Chemical pollution a motherhood issue. Pp. D4 in The Globe and Mail.

Micheletti, Michele. 2003. Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism, and collective action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Micheletti, Michele, Andreas Føllesdal, and Dietlind Stolle. 2004. Politics, products, and markets: Exploring political consumerism past and present. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Miller, M. M. and B. P. Reichert. 2000. Interest group strategies and journalistic norms. Pp. 45-54 in Environmental risks and the media, edited by S. Allan, B. Adam, and C. Carter. New York: Routledge.

Miller, Peter and Nikolas S. Rose. 2008. Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Miller, Tina. 2007. "Is this what motherhood is all about?" - weaving experiences and discourse through transition to first-time motherhood. Gender & Society 21(3): 337-358.

Mittelstaedt, M. 2006. Want a full-time job? Live chemical-free; consumers bombarded by toxins are fighting back. But there's really only one way to win - ‘don't eat, don't drink and don't breathe'. Pp. A10 in The Globe and Mail.

Molotch, H. 1970. Oil in Santa Barbara and power in America. Sociological Inquiry 40(Winter): 131-144.

Moneo, M. 2006. Study examining safety of seafood eaten by natives. Pp. S1 in The Globe and Mail.

140

Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Julia Green Brody, Phil Brown, Rebecca Gasior Altman, Ruthann A. Rudel, and Carla Perez. 2009. Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: A survey of scientists and study participants. Environmental Health 8: 6.

Morphet, S. 2005. How pure can you get? Worried about how many harmful chemicals are in the food you eat and the air you breathe? There are ways to keep the toxic levels down. Pp. F4 in The Globe and Mail.

Murphy, E. 2003. Expertise and forms of knowledge in the government of families. Sociological Review 51(4): 433-462.

Murphy, R. 2004. Disaster or sustainability: The dance of human agents with nature's actants. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 41(3): 249-266.

Mythen, G. 2005. Employment, individualization and insecurity: Rethinking the risk society perspective. Sociological Review 53(1): 129-149.

Neilson, Lisa A. and Pamela Paxton. 2010. Social capital and political consumerism: A multilevel analysis. Social problems 57(1): 5-24.

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1987. Selling science : How the press covers science and technology. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Newholm, T. 1999. Relocating the ethical consumer. Pp. 162-184 in Ethics and the market edited by R. Norman. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Newholm, Terry. 2000. Consumer exit, voice, and loyalty: Indicative, legitimation, and regulatory role in agricultural and food ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12(2): 153-164.

Nye, R. A. 2003. The evolution of the concept of medicalization in the late twentieth century. Journal of the history of the behavioral sciences 39(2): 115-129.

(NYSDH) New York State Department of Health. 2003. The seven best kid-friendly practices. Troy: New York State Department of Health.

Oliver, Pamela and Hank Johnston. 1999. What a good idea! Ideology and frames in social movement research. Mobilization 5(1): 37-54.

O'Malley, Pat. 1992. Risk, power and crime prevention. Economy and Society 21: 252-275.

—. 2004. Risk, uncertainty and government. London: GlassHouse.

O'Riordan, Timothy, James Cameron, and Andrew Jordan. 2001. Reinterpreting the precautionary principle. London: Cameron May.

Osborne, T., Robin Bunton, and Alan R. Petersen. 1997. Of health and statecraft. Pp. 173-188 in Foucault, health and medicine. New York: Routledge.

Paehlke, Robert. 2000. Environmentalism in one country: Canadian environmental policy in an era of globalization. Policy Studies Journal 28(1): 160-175.

141

Perrons, D. 2000. Living with risk: Labour market transformation, employment policies and social reproduction in the UK. Economic and Industrial Democracy 21(3): 283-310.

Perrow, Charles. 1984. Normal accidents : Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.

Policy, Institute for Agriculture and Trade. 2008. Healthy legacy: Guide to safer children's products. Minnesota: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Prasad, Monica. 2006. The politics of free markets : The rise of neoliberal economic policies in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Press, Canadian. 1989. Inuit told food supply shows safe PCB levels. Pp. A.9 in The Vancouver Sun.

Responsibility, Greater Boston Physicians for Social. 2001. Out of harm's way: Reducing threats to child development. Boston: Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Roberts, Jody A. and Nancy Langston. 2008. Toxic bodies/toxic environments: An interdisciplinary forum. Environmental History 13(4): 629-635.

Rose, N. 1999. Powers of freedom : Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sandilands, C. 1993. On “green” consumerism: Environmental privatization and “family values”. Canadian Woman Studies 13(3): 45-47.

Sassatelli, Roberta. 2006. Virtue, responsibility and consumer choice : Framing critical consumerism. Pp. 219-250 in Consuming cultures, global perspectives : Historical trajectories, transnational exchanges, edited by J. Brewer and F. Trentmann. N.Y., NY: Berg.

—. 2007. Consumer culture: History, theory and politics. London: SAGE.

Scanlon, Jennifer. 2000. The gender and consumer culture reader. New York: New York University Press.

Scheufele, D. A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49(1): 103-122.

Scheufele, D. A. and D. Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57(1): 9-20.

Schmidt, C. 2004. The analysis of semi-structured interviews. Pp. 253-258 in A companion to qualitative research, edited by U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, and I. Steinke. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

Schudson, Michael. 2007. Citizens, consumers, and the good society. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611(1): 236-249.

Scott, D. N. 2007. Risk as a technique of governance in an era of biotechnological innovation: Implications for democratic citizenship and strategies of resistance.

142

Pp. 23-56 in Risk and trust : Including or excluding citizens?, edited by L. C. o. Canada. Black Point, N.S.: Fernwood Pub.

Seale, C. 2003. Health and media: An overview. Sociology of Health & Illness 25(6): 513-531.

Sexton, K., L. L. Needham, and J. L. Pirkle. 2004. Human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals. American Scientist 92(1): 38-45.

Seyfang, Gill. 2009. The new economics of sustainable consumption: Seeds of change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shaw, Deirdre, Terry Newholm, and Roger Dickinson. 2006. Consumption as voting: An exploration of consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing.Special Issue: Consumer empowerment 40: 1049-1067.

Shaw, D. L., E Grehan, E. Shiu, L Hassan, and J Thomson. 2005. An exploration of values in ethical consumer decision making. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27(3): 185-200.

Simpson, S. 2001. Flushing is start of toxic journey: No escaping daily load of chemicals entering strait of georgia, scientist discovers. in The Vancouver Sun.

Slocum, R. 2004. Consumer citizens and the cities for climate protection campaign. Environment and Planning A 36(5): 763-782.

—. 2004. Polar bears and energy-efficient light bulbs: Strategies to bring climate change home. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space 22(3): 413-438.

Smith, C. 1996. Of estrogen mimics and breast cancer. in Toronto Star.

Smith, Rick and Bruce Lourie. 2009. Slow death by rubber duck : How the toxic chemistry of everyday life affects our health. Toronto: A.A. Knopf Canada.

Smith, Toby Maureen. 1998. The myth of green marketing : Tending our goats at the edge of apocalypse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Solomon, G. M. and P. M. Weiss. 2002. Chemical contaminants in breast milk: Time trends and regional variability. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(6): A339.

Somers, Margaret R. 2008. Genealogies of citizenship : Markets, statelessness, and the right to have rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Somers, Margaret R. and Fred Block. 2005. From poverty to perversity: Ideas, markets,

and institutions over 200 years of welfare debate. American Sociological Review 70(2): 260-287.

Stallings, R. A. 1990. Media discourse and the social construction of risk. Social problems 37(1): 80-95.

Steinemann, A. 2004. Human exposure, health hazards, and environmental regulations. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 695-710.

Stolle, D. and Marc Hooghe. 2004. Consumers as political participants? Shifts in political action repertoires in western societies. in Politics, products, and markets :

143

Exploring political consumerism past and present, edited by M. Micheletti, A. Føllesdal, and D. Stolle. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

—. 2004. Review article: Inaccurate, exceptional, one-sided or irrelevant? The debate about the alleged decline of social capital and civic engagement in western societies. British Journal of Sociology 35: 149-167.

Sutton, Philip W. 2004. Nature, environment, and society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Szasz, Andrew. 1994. Ecopopulism : Toxic waste and the movement for environmental justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

—. 2007. Shopping our way to safety: How we changed from protecting the environment to protecting ourselves. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Taylor, D. E. 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm. American Behavioral Scientist 43: 508-580.

Taylor-Gooby, Peter. 2004. New risks, new welfare: The transformation of the European welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teghtsoonian, K. 2009. Depression and mental health in neoliberal times: A critical analysis of policy and discourse. Social Science & Medicine 69(1): 28-35.

(TPH) Toronto Public Health. 2003. Hidden exposures: Informing pregnant women and families about harmful environmental exposures. Toronto: South Riverdale Community Health Centre and Toronto Public Health.

Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. Making news : A study in the construction of reality. London: Collier Macmillan.

Tulloch, John and Deborah Lupton. 2003. Risk and everyday life. London: SAGE.

Ubelacker, S. 2005. Reheating leftovers? Make sure plastic containers are microwave-safe. in The Calgary Herald.

Vickerstaff, S. and J. Cox. 2005. Retirement and risk: The individualisation of retirement experiences? Sociological Review 53(1): 77-95.

Wall, Glenda. 2001. Moral constructions of motherhood in breastfeeding discourse. Gender & Society 15(4): 590-608.

—. 2005. Is your child's brain potential maximized?: Mothering in an age of new brain research. Atlantis 28(2): 41-50.

Walzer, Susan. 1998. Thinking about the baby : Gender and transitions into parenthood. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press.

Weintraub, J. 1997. The theory and the politics of the private/public distinction. Pp. 1-42 in Public and private in thought and practice: Perspectives on a grand dichotomy, edited by J. Weintraub and K. Kumar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wigod, R. 1998. Cosmetics crusader urges users to think critically about products. in The Vancouver Sun.

144

Young, Mary Lynn. 1990. High dioxin found in mothers' breast milk. Pp. B.2 in The Vancouver Sun.

145

Appendix A. Sample: Interviews and Focus Groups

Table 4. Description of focus group participant sample^

Focus Group Pseudonym Sex Parent? Age Occupation

Children at home*

Marital Status**

Employment Status Student? Education HH

Income

1 1-A F N 33 Non-profit employee 0 M/CL Self-employed (Full-time)

N Graduate degree $100k+

1 1-B F N 25 Sales/retail 0 S Employed (Part-time) N Bachelor’s

degree $<50K

1 1-C F N 45 Civil servant 0 S Employed (Full-time) N Bachelor’s

degree $50-100K

1 1-D F N 31 Freelance worker 0 M/CL Self-employed (Full-time)

N Bachelor’s degree

$50-100K

1 1-E F N 36 Non-profit employee 0 M/CL Employed (Part-time) N Bachelor’s

degree $<50K

1 1-F F Y 41 Health consultant 2 M/CL Self-employed (Full-time)

N Bachelor’s degree $<50K

2 2-A M N 30 Sales/retail 0 S Employed (Full-time) N Bachelor’s

degree $100k+

2 2-B M N 24 Student 0 S Unemployed Y Bachelor’s degree $<50K

2 2-C F N 28 Social services 0 M/CL Employed (Full-time) N Bachelor’s

degree $100k+

2 2-D M N 28 Engineering 0 M/CL Employed (Full-time) N Bachelor’s

degree $100k+

2 2-E M N 36 0 S Unemployed N Bachelor’s degree $<50K

2 2-F M N 35 PhD student 1 M/CL Employed (Full-time) Y Graduate

degree $50-100K

2 2-G M N 23 Natural resources/landscaping 0 S Employed

(Full-time) N High school diploma $<50K

146

Focus Group Pseudonym Sex Parent? Age Occupation

Children at home*

Marital Status**

Employment Status Student? Education HH

Income

2 2-H M N 45 Unemployed 0 S Unemployed N Graduate degree $<50K

3 3-A F Y 53 Homemaker 0 M/CL Unemployed N Graduate degree

$50-100K

3 3-B F Y 46 Natural medicine 0 M/CL Employed (Part-time) Y Trade/college

certification $50-100K

3 3-C F N 20 Student 0 S Employed (Part-time) Y High school

diploma $<50K

3 3-D F N 26 Environmental consultant 0 S Employed

(Full-time) N Bachelor's degree $<50K

3 3-E F N 33 PhD student 0 M/CL Employed (Part-time) Y Graduate

degree $<50K

** M/CL: Married or Common-Law *Under the age of 18 ^ Did not collect data on number of members of the household and thus cannot indicate with focus group sample whether respondents are low-income.

147

Table 5. Description of interview participant sample

Name* Sex Age Marital Status **

No. of childr-

en∞ Employment

Status Occupation Education Ethnicity HH Income

Low-income

Audrey F 27 M/CL 2 Unemployed At home with children

Bachelor’s degree Caucasian $50-

100K

Brenda F 41 M/CL 1 Maternity leave

Mental health professional

Bachelor’s degree

South Asian

$50-100K

Cara F 35 M/CL 3 Unemployed At home with children

Some post-secondary Caucasian $50-

100K

Carla F 25 Single 1 Unemployed At home with children

Some post-secondary Caribbean >$25K Yes

David^ M 34 M/CL 2 Employed (Full-time)

Service sector

Bachelor’s degree Caucasian $50-

100K

Delores F 20 Single 2 At home At home with children

High school diploma

Hispanic $25-50K Yes

Diane F 33 M/CL 1 Employed (Part-time) Marketing Some post-

secondary Caucasian $50-100K

Faye F 35 M/CL 1 Unemployed At home with children

Some post-secondary Caucasian >$25K Yes

148

Name* Sex Age Marital Status **

No. of child-ren∞

Employment Status Occupation Education Ethnicity HH

Income Low-

income

Karen F 36 M/CL 2 Unemployed At home with children

Some post-secondary Korean $50-

100K Yes

Kerri F 29 M/CL P Maternity leave

Program leader with advocacy organization

Bachelor’s degree Caucasian $50-

100K

Linda F 35 M/CL 1 Maternity leave Teacher Bachelor’s

degree Canadian $100-150K

Lori F 35 Divorced 2 Unemployed At home with children

Some post-secondary Caucasian >$25K Yes

Maaren F 30 M/CL P Unemployed Graduate degree Caucasian $50-

100K

Marie F 38 M/CL 2 Employed (Full-time) Marketing Bachelor’s

degree Caucasian $100-150K

Megan F 31 M/CL 1 Unemployed At home with children

Bachelor’s degree Caucasian $100-

150K

Moira F 35 M/CL 1 Unemployed At home with children

Bachelor’s degree Caucasian $25-

50K Yes

Nancy F 37 M/CL 1 Unemployed At home with children

Bachelor’s degree Caucasian $100-

150K

149

Name* Sex Age Marital Status **

No. of child-ren∞

Employment Status Occupation Education Ethnicity HH

Income Low-

income

Nasiha F 35 M/CL 6 Unemployed At home with children

Less than high school

South Asian >$25K Yes

Olivia F 40 M/CL 1 Maternity leave Teacher Bachelor’s

degree Hispanic $100-150K

Phillippe^ M 33 M/CL 1 Employed (Full-time) Finance Some post-

secondary Caucasian $50-100K

Rachel F 38 M/CL 1 Maternity leave

Health professional

Some post-secondary Caucasian $50-

100K

Samantha F 25 M/CL 1 Unemployed At home with children

Bachelor’s degree Hispanic $50-

100K

Sandra F 26 Divorced 1 Unemployed At home with children

Some post-secondary Caucasian >$25K Yes

Tamara F 36 M/CL 1 Employed (Full-time) Teacher Graduate

degree Caucasian $150K+

Tracy F 31 Single 1 Self-employed (Full-time)

Runs own business

Bachelor’s degree ~ Caucasian >$25K Yes

Trina F 33 M/CL P Employed (Full-time)

Public policy

Bachelor’s degree South

Asian $50-100K

Vance^ M 45 M/CL 2 Self-employed (Full-time)

Marketing

Bachelor’s degree

Caucasian $50-100K

150

Name* Sex Age Marital Status **

No. of child-ren∞

Employment Status Occupation Education Ethnicity HH

Income Low-

income

Zhen F 40 Widowed 1 Self-employed (part-time)

Computer technician

Graduate degree Chinese >$25K Yes

*Pseudonym ** M/CL: Married or Common-Law ∞ Under the age of 18 and living at home P: Pregnant with first child ~ Degree almost complete ^ Excluded from analysis in chapter 3

151

Appendix B: Examples of Materials Providing Advice on Chemical Mediation Table 6. Materials produced by advocacy organizations

Document Title Publication Type

Publication Date Organization Name Location

The Dirt on Cleaners:Toxic Ingredients in Cleaning products Guide/handbook 2007 Breast Cancer Action Montreal Montreal, Canada

Playing it Safe: Childproofing for Environmental Health Guide/handbook 2008

Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and the Environment

Toronto, Canada

Top Ten Ways to Detoxify your Life Guide/handbook 2007 Environmental Defense Toronto, Canada

Toxic Nation Guide to Bisphenol A Guide/handbook 2010 Environmental Defense Toronto, Canada

Spic and Span? Household Cleaning Products and Your Child's Health

Information sheet 2003

Canadian Institute of Child Health and Canadian Child Care Federation

Ottawa, Canada

Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database

Consumer database 2010 Environmental Working Group Washington, DC,

U.S.A Parent's Buying Guide: Safety Guide to Children's Personal Care Products

Guide/handbook 2010 Environmental Working Group Washington, DC, U.S.A

EWG's Guide to Infant Formula and Baby Bottles: Safe Baby Bottle and Formula Guide

Guide/handbook 2007 Environmental Working Group Washington, DC, U.S.A

Out of Harm's Way: Reducing Threats to Child Development Guide/handbook 2001 Greater Boston Physicians for

Social Responsibility Boston, U.S.A

Healthy Legacy: Guide to Safer Children's Products Guide/handbook 2008 Institute for Agriculture and Trade

Policy Minnesota, U.S.A.

152

Table 7. Materials produced by public health agencies

Document Title Publication Type

Publication Date Organization Name Location

Bisphenol A Fact Sheet Pamphlet 2008 Health Canada Ottawa, Canada

Mercury in Fish: Health Canada Consumption Advice Pamphlet 2007 Health Canada Ottawa, Canada

Hidden Exposures, Reproduction and the Environment Pamphlet 2001 Toronto Public Health Toronto, Canada

Bisphenol-A (BPA): How to Reduce Exposure Pamphlet 2010 Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment Denver, Colorado

Keeping Kids Safe from Toys Contaminated with Lead Pamphlet 2010 Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment Denver, Colorado

How to Protect your Baby from BPA Pamphlet 2009

Massachusetts Department of Public Health: Bureau of Environmental Health

Boston, U.S.A

A Guide to Eating Fish Safely in Massachusetts Pamphlet 2007

Massachusetts Department of Public Health: Bureau of Environmental Health

Boston, U.S.A

Bisphenol A (BPA) Pamphlet 2010 National Toxicology Program Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S.A

The Seven Best Kid-Friendly Practices Pamphlet 2003 New York State Department of

Health Troy, NY, U.S.A.

Health Care Provider Guide to Safer Plastics Guide/handbook 2008 Pediatric Environmental Health

Specialty Units Washington, DC, U.S.A

Check the Kind of Plastic You Use Guide/handbook 2008 Pediatric Environmental Health

Specialty Units Washington, DC, U.S.A

Bisphenol A (BPA) Information for Parents Pamphlet 2010 US Department of Health and

Human Services Washington, DC, U.S.A

153

Appendix C: Focus Group and Interview Guides

FOCUS GROUP GUIDE 0.0 Introductions

0.1 Moderator introduces herself (also stating that she is the main researcher for this project). Moderator reminds the group of the purpose of the session and that participation is voluntary (i.e. a summary of information from the consent form, which participants will have already signed.)

0.2 Moderator describes what participants can expect from this session (A focus group is an open discussion that is moderated. Questions are directed by a moderator, so I may interrupt at times and ask people to clarify their answers, and I may interrupt to move things along to new questions in the interest of time. Everyone is encouraged to participate but no one is required to answer a question that they do not wish to. There are no right or wrong answers, nor are we as researchers looking for a specific answer. Also, focus groups are not about generating consensus, so it’s important that everyone express their own view, and not be afraid that your view isn’t going to be acceptable to or in agreement with the other people here.

0.3 Moderator explains how she became interested in the project. (Saw increasing news coverage on environmental contaminants, saw proliferation of non-toxic alternatives, and growing interest among the public in buying these alternatives, rejecting conventional products (like plastic, Teflon frying pans, conventional produce).

0.4 Then ask participants to briefly introduce themselves (only by first name, how they learned about the focus group, and why they were interested in participating).

0.5 Moderator explains that the discussion will cover everyday exposure to chemicals, and that if people have specific health questions or concerns about specific chemicals, that they not rely on this session as a form of information. Instead, moderator recommends that consult web sites/health professional for further information.

1.0 Focusing exercise Moderator places photos in front of participants and hands out

paper and pencils to the group. Moderator asks the following two questions: (letting participants know that they will be sharing their answers with the group and it will form the basis for a longer discussion. Gives participants two or three minutes)

1.1 For each item, indicate whether you see this item posing a risk (causes worry or concern) to human or environmental health, in terms of chemical exposure. If you do believe that an item poses a risk, list the risks (again, in terms of chemicals/environmental contaminants) that immediately come to mind.

154

Don’t try to come up with a long list, just whatever pops into your head. Of course, if no risks come to mind, please note that as well.

1.2 And, looking at these objects together, do you see any of these items posing more risk than others? Being more worrisome than others?

1.3 Do you think that we had to worry about these things in the past? Did our parent or grandparents face these same risks?

2.0 Relative Risk Discussion

2.1 Moderator asks participants to share their answers.

2.2 At the end of the round, moderator asks: Did anyone hear anything that surprised them? Are there things that were brought up that you hadn’t thought of or disagree with?

2.3 Where there is divergence among answers (e.g. one person believes an item poses a risk while another doesn’t), the moderator will focus on this divergence and ask the participants to respond. For example, “Susan has said that she is most concerned about the cosmetics, does anyone else agree with this?”

3.0 Body burdens

3.1 How many of you are aware of what a body burden is? Do you think most people are aware of this?

3.2 To what extent do you think you can control your body burden?

4.0 Shopping behaviour and family exposure

Moderator asks the following questions in sequence, allowing for discussion between each question.

4.1 How many of you shop for other members of your family (spouse, children, parents)? For those of you who do, how much does their exposure to potentially harmful chemicals factor into your shopping decisions? In other words, if you were only shopping for yourself, do you think your decisions would change?

4.2 When it comes to shopping for these items and avoiding potentially harmful chemicals, how would you describe this task? [Prompt: What kind of experience is it for you, when trying to keep track of which items are ‘good’ or ‘bad’?]

4.3 Does this experience vary depending on where you shop? [trying to get at trust in the decision of their local health food store that has chosen to sell a particular product]

4.4 How important is choice?

155

4.5 What are some factors (if any) that limit your ability to buy the green or non-toxic alternative? (e.g. finances, access to products, time). To what extent is income or education important? [Probe: For most of us there are times when we don’t buy the alternative product, but buy the conventional product instead. What are some reasons for this?]

5.0 Boundaries

4.6 Now let’s move beyond our own behaviour to discuss what is happening more generally with respect to other people. In your view, who are the kinds of people who shop like you do? Who are the kinds of people who care about these things?

4.7 There are people out there who don’t shop for these kinds of products. What kind of people don’t do this?

4.8 Do you see these decisions to buy non-toxic products as part of who you are? [Probe: Do you see these decisions as something that sets you apart from the rest of the general public? As something that helps to identify you as a particular kind of person]

6.0 Regulation and institutionalized risk assessments. Moderator opens discussion with: “In our discussion so far, we have been talking about items that are available in conventional grocery stores across the country, and that are likely purchased by millions of people. And yet many of you have expressed concerns about these products and have actively chosen to avoid some of them or buy only their ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ equivalents.” Moderator then asks the following questions in sequence, allowing for discussion between each question:

6.1 Many of these items have passed various safety assessments. For example, many of the food items in our grocery stores are regulated by food and drug policies, and many of the chemicals used in manufacturing processes undergo safety testing. I’m wondering how would you describe your level of trust in these assessments?

6.2 How would you compare this level of trust to your level of trust in your local health food store to choose safe products to sell? To you level of trust in organic certification schemes?

7.0 Ethical consumerism as political action

Moderator stops discussion and redirects it toward a discussion of consumerism as political action. Moderator asks the group:

7.1 In my field of research, there is a debate around whether “green” shopping is really a form a political action—the same as voting or participating in a letter-writing campaign, for example. I want to open this up to discussion. Do you see it as form of political action? [Prompts: Can shopping in this way be considered an example of political action? Why or why not? ]

156

7.2 Do you see your own actions as a consumer—or of all consumers together—eventually prompting regulatory change when it comes to chemical regulation in Canada? Are green consumer movements part of a social movement?

7.3 Is green consumerism more or less effective than what we might call ‘traditional’ political action (e.g. writing a letter, attending a protest, voting, or supporting a non-profit group that is lobbying for regulatory change)?

7.4 So, given our discussion so far, ideally should be responsible for dealing with chemicals in the environment (government, individuals, corporations, non-profit groups)?

7.5 To deal with chemicals in the environment, do we need better regulation or more individual choice and control over what we buy? [Could ask about labelling initiatives vs. more strict standards when it comes to safety testing]

8.0 Gender

8.1. As you may have noticed by looking around the room, most of the participants here are women. In fact, almost all of the people who responded to the call for participants are women. How would you explain this?

What about when people have children? Do women get more involved?

Conclusion. Moderator stops discussion. Provides a 2 to 3 minute summary of the session’s discussion. Thanks participants. Distributes gift cards.

157

INTERVIEW GUIDE Opening questions

1. How did you hear about the study?

2. Introductions

a. To start with, can you tell me a bit about yourself and your living situation?

b. Occupation?

c. Education?

d. Who do you live with? What is their occupation?

e. Children?

f. How long have you been in your current living situation?

g. Car?

3. Can you tell me a bit about how grocery shopping and the preparation of meals get done in your household?

a. How are tasks divided up? [probe to establish gender division of labor to provide family context]

b. How many meals a day, if any, are produced or prepared at home?

c. Can you give me an example of a relatively simple meal you might serve? What about a relatively complex meal?

d. In your mind, what is an ideal meal?

e. Do you like cooking? Why? Or Why not?

4. Describe where food is usually purchased, and why.

a. How many different venues does your household access in a typical month? (e.g., conventional grocery store, a food box program, CSA share, farmer’s market).

b. How often do you shop at these venues?

c. Who decides what should be purchased, or what meals are made?

d. For farmer’s markets of specialty stores: Are there times Are there times when you’re not able to buy your food through these venues? If so, why does this happen? (Probes: Is it a lack of time? A decision to limit expenses? Is access to these venues ever inconvenient for some reason?)**

e. Overall, what proportion (or percentage) of your groceries in a typical week would be certified organic? And thinking of things that are labeled as ‘green’ or natural, what proportion of your cleaning products or cosmetics would fall

158

into this category? Are there certain items you always buy organic, natural or ‘green’?

f. Where do you typically go to buy organic products?

Questions for respondents who use food boxes and farmers markets**

5. a. Tell me about when you started shopping at these venues/receiving a food box and why you chose to do this.

b. Describe to me a typical experience shopping at one of these venues [What is it like?]/Tell me what it’s like to get a food box. [Do you enjoy it? Does it seem like a chore like any other?]

c. How does it compare to a conventional grocery store?

d. (not applicable)

Question for respondents who use only conventional venues**

5. a. (not applicable)

b. Describe to me a typical experience shopping at your grocery store [What is it like?] [Do you enjoy it? Does it seem like a chore like any other?]

c. (not applicable)

d. Have you ever shopped at a Farmer’s Market or received a Food Box? Do you have friends who do? Have you ever thought of shopping there/receiving one?

6. Now I’d like to ask you a few questions about the kinds of concerns or issues that influence your grocery shopping decisions. First, tell me about what kinds of things are most important to you and have the biggest impact on the way you shop. {Let participant provide an answer and use these as probes}

a. Are there issues related to health, the environment, or ethics?

b. How important are considerations of price, convenience, and quality compared to these issues that you mention? (How do you balance these issues with those of price/convenience?)

c. Of these issues, which ones have the greatest impact on your grocery shopping [this might be obvious at this point, but if not, ask the question]

d. Where do you go to buy products that match the priorities you mention? (Does it vary depending on whether you’re looking for organic, local, ethical, etc. How specifically?)

e. Where is the best place to find/buy local products? (in grocery stores or at Farmer’s Markets?)

7. [If participant does raise issues beyond price/convenience]

a. Do you feel like you’re doing a good job of addressing these issues and concerns? How often do you feel like there’s a contradiction between your beliefs and your food choices? Or do you feel like most of the time they match up?

159

b. Can you think of an example of when this happens? (a particular constraint on shopping location, product choice by a family member?)

8. When did these things become important to you?

9. Are people ever skeptical of your concerns and beliefs? What’s your response to their skepticism?

10. Will your spouse put in a similar amount of effort to buy foods to meet the kinds of standards that you just described?

11.

a. How would you compare your level of concern about these issues related to food to that of your spouse? Your close friends? Your immediate family (siblings, parents)?

b. In general, what kinds of people tend to care about these things?

c. What kinds of people don’t care?

d. Does gender matter? (Do women care more than men?)

e. How much does education and income matter? (In what ways?)

12. How much is food part of your identity (or outlook on life)? Does the way you shop say anything about who you are?

13. How much do you trust that the food & other household items (e.g., cleaning products, shampoo) that you buy are safe and healthy? (might have to ask for separate answers for food & HH items)

a. Are there certain food safety issues that are on your mind when shopping? [Probe: Related to, for example, E. Coli, Salmonella, or other issues related to recent recalls or chemicals, related to pesticides, plastics, lead]

b. Can you give me an example of something that you might not trust or would never buy?

c. Do you think products from alternative venues (like a health food store, or [alternative venue participant uses]) are safer or healthier? Explain. How do their products compare to other shopping venues, such as a conventional grocery store?

d. [If participant does express concern] Do you think that we had similar worries about food safety/chemicals in the past? For example, do you think our parents or grandparents faced these same concerns about their food, or the products in their home? (Was their awareness different or was food safer?)

14. Think about the actual shopping process for a moment. Picture yourself on a typical shopping trip where you are going to pick up food items, as well as other household products like soap, shampoo, and cleaning products.

160

a. Do you have any kinds of “rules” or “guidelines” that you keep in the back of your mind when it comes to making up your mind about what you will put in your grocery cart? What are these? (Are there certain kinds of products/foods that you always buy and certain ones that you will never buy? What are these, respectively?)

b. Do you keep a list of “good” or “bad” choices with you? [Could probe specifically for organic produce]

c. How often do you read the labels (especially with a new product)? Does it depend on where you’re shopping? (e.g. alternative venue vs. conventional grocery store?)

d. Can you think of a time recently when you felt like a decision about what to buy was complicated or emotional in some way (e.g. trying to decide between two products, maybe became aware of some ingredient that you wanted to avoid)

15. [If not obvious] Are you the kind of person who thinks about shopping choices beforehand (e.g. by making a list or doing some research)—or do you prefer to make choices while you shop?

16. How do you inform yourself about what to buy? What resources do you use?[Probe: websites, newspapers, friends, store information.]

17. Can you think of a time when you made a significant change to your shopping practices? For instance, was there a time when you decided to stop buying a product that used to be a staple in your household? Or stopped shopping at a particular venue? Tell me about this…Does this happen frequently? [in certain cases, this may be a repeat of question 8]

18. Are you shopping for children?

a. If yes To what extent does your family influence your choice to shop a certain way? In other words, if you were only shopping for yourself, do you think your decisions would change?

b. Do you think people with/without children shop differently? (does having children affect how they think about food?)

19. Now I’d like to move our discussion onto a separate topic related to food and shopping. I’d to talk about chemicals in our environment, and in our bodies, from exposure to pesticides, chemicals in household products (like furniture, toys or cleaning products).

a. Have you heard of this before? (If yes): Tell me about how you heard about this.

b. What was/is your reaction to hearing about this kind of issue (Probe: how does it make you feel to think about this)?

161

20. How much would say that knowing about this affects your day-to-day life? Do you think knowing about this has affected how you shop or the kinds of things you’ll buy and won’t buy?

a. Can you give some examples of things you might have changed in your home or in your shopping habits?

b. Were these changes easy or difficult? Frustrating or routine? Why? [Think back especially to a period when you were first trying to make these changes]

c. (If yes) How involved was your spouse/partner in deciding to make these changes? What is your spouse/partner reaction to these changes, or is s/he concerned with these issues?

21.

a. Do you feel like you’re doing a good job of controlling your exposure to chemicals? Your children?

b. Have you considered making any (other) changes ? (e.g. certain things that are hard to do or you haven’t gotten around to doing. Or ask: Ideally, if you could do anything to your home to lessen your exposure to chemicals, what would you do?) Tell me about these.

22.

a. Do you think having children changes how people think of chemicals in their home or in the environment?

b. [If applicable] Do you talk about these kinds of things with other parents? What about food issues? (At playgroups or soccer practices? Have you ever had another parent bring up this topic?)

c. How do you think your level of concern compares with other parents around you?

23. Thinking again about the body burden issue,

a. How much can we control our exposure to chemicals by consuming these specialty non-toxic products or making specific changes in the home?

b. Ideally, what is the best way to control our exposure?

24. Keeping this discussion in mind, but also going back to what we discussed earlier [provide an example], I want to talk about what you think is the best way to make change in the world when it comes to these issues?

a. Who is responsible for the problems we have talked about? Who do you think should be responsible for ensuring the safety of our environment and food? [probe for corporate responsibility, state responsibility, personal responsibility]

b. How can people have the most influence?

c. What is government’s role in all of this? What should be their role? [probe]

162

25. How much can our shopping decisions (our actions as consumers) make a difference? [Do you think shopping can be political]

a. Are they more or less effective than what we might call ‘traditional’ political action aimed at regulatory change (e.g. writing a letter, attending a protest, voting, or supporting a non-profit group that is lobbying for regulatory change that would prevent these products from being sold)?

b. Do you see your own actions as a consumer as promoting change—in the form of social justice, environment, health, etc. [Do you see your actions as political?]

c. What other actions might affect change?

Thank you, we’ve come to the end of the interview. Do you have any questions for me? Anything I didn’t ask that you wish I had? Any other comments?

(** Questions asked as part of separate objective related to a different study. Not included in the analysis for this dissertation)

163

Appendix D: Participant Surveys

FOCUS GROUP SURVEYS We are asking participants to complete the following survey before the focus group begins. It should take about 10 minutes to complete. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the moderator.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You may choose not to answer certain questions, and if you do not wish to complete the survey, please return it to the survey envelope.

Answers from this survey will not be shared with other participants in the focus group. Results from the survey remain confidential and survey answers will be reported anonymously. Please do not write your name on this survey.

Once you have completed the survey, please place it in the survey envelope.

164

Q1. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Environmental chemicals are everywhere and are unavoidable 1 2 3 4 5

I am concerned about my own exposure to environmental chemicals. 1 2 3 4 5

I am concerned about my children’s exposure to environmental chemicals. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

I cannot control my exposure to environmental chemicals. 1 2 3 4 5

I have control over my exposure to environmental chemicals through what I buy.

1 2 3 4 5

I have control over my exposure to environmental chemicals through what I eat or drink.

1 2 3 4 5

I can rid my body of chemicals through diet or cleansing. 1 2 3 4 5

165

Q2. Would you say that you are primarily responsible for your household’s day-to-day consumption decisions (e.g. groceries, toiletries, cleaning products)? (NB. If you share this duty equally with another household member, then please circle ‘Yes’)

Circle: YES NO

If No. Who would you say is primarily responsible?

a. Spouse or partner

b. Parent

c. Roommate

d. Other household member

Q3. On the following two pages is a table of items that a Canadian household might purchase in a typical month. For each category of item, indicate whether i) this item is purchased for your household in a typical month and ii) how often you (or the person in your household who does most of the shopping) buy the ‘organic’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ equivalent of this item. Please circle your responses.

166

Category Items Purchased in your

household in a typical month?

How often do you (or the shopper in your household) purchase the 'organic'

/'environmentally friendly' equivalent of this item?

GROCERIES Almost never Occasionally Almost always

^Fresh or frozen fruit No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Fresh or frozen vegetables No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Cows milk No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Cheese (cow's milk) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Yogurt (cow's milk) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Milk alternatives (e.g. soy or rice milk) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Nut butters (e.g. peanut, almond) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Pasta No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Rice No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Bread No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Breakfast cereal No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Beef No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Pork No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Chicken No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Fish (fresh) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Beans (dry or canned) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Tofu No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Baby food No Yes If yes 1 2 3

167

SNACK FOODS

^Chips (potato or corn or rice) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Crackers No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Carbonated beverages No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Cookies No Yes If yes 1 2 3

COSMETICS AND TOILETRIES

^Deodorant No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Soap No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Toothpaste No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Shampoo, conditioner or hair styling products No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Moisturizer/creams No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Make-up (e.g. powder, eye shadow, lipstick, nail polish)

^Hair dye No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Anti-aging products No Yes If yes 1 2 3

CLEANING PRODUCTS

^Laundry soap No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Dish soap No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^All purpose cleaning products (e.g. for kitchen or bathroom) No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Deodorizers or air fresheners No Yes If yes 1 2 3

^Window/glass cleaner No Yes If yes 1 2 3

168

Q4. The following is a list of items that a Canadian household might purchase in a typical year. For each category of item, indicate whether i) this kind of product has been purchased in the last year for your household, and whether ii) the purchased item was branded as ‘environmentally friendly’ , ‘natural’ or ‘organic’. Please circle your responses.

Category Items

Purchased in your household in the last year?

Was it branded as an 'environmentally

friendly' /'natural' or 'organic' product ?

HOUSEHOLD GOODS

^Stove No Yes If yes No Yes

^Refrigerator No Yes If yes No Yes

^Dishwasher No Yes If yes No Yes

^Washing machine No Yes If yes No Yes

^Clothes dryer No Yes If yes No Yes

^Television No Yes If yes No Yes

^Living room furniture (e.g. couch or chair)

No Yes If yes No Yes

^Bed or mattress No Yes If yes No Yes

^Area rug No Yes If yes No Yes

^Flooring No Yes If yes No Yes

^Paint (walls or furniture) No Yes If yes No Yes

Baby/children’s furniture (e.g. crib)

No Yes If yes No Yes

Baby toys No Yes If yes No Yes

OTHER ^Motor Vehicle No Yes If yes No Yes

Q5a. If ‘natural,’ ‘organic’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ items are purchased in your household, please indicate the reasons why these items are purchased. Circle as many as apply to your household.

1. Health concerns (i.e. seeking a healthy alternative and/or concerned about effect of pollution on health)

2. Diagnosed health condition (e.g. heart condition, Diabetes, Celiac Disease)

3. Dietary restriction by choice (e.g. vegan or vegetarian)

4. Multiple chemical sensitivity (extremely sensitive to chemicals, artificial scents)

5. Environmental concern (i.e. concerned about the environment, wildlife, etc.)

169

Q.5b. From this list, what would you say are the two most important reasons?

1.________________________

2.________________________

Q6a. How do you inform yourself about the health and environmental concerns or benefits associated with various food products, cosmetics or household goods? (Please circle as many as apply):

1. Books

2. Government web sites

3. Web sites from non-profit groups (e.g. Greenpeace or Environmental Working Group)

4. Other web sites. Please give an example:______________________________________

5. Magazine articles

6. Newspaper articles (print)

7. Newspaper articles (on-line)

8. Friends or family

9. Product packaging

10. Information provided at the store where you shop

11. Doctor (or midwife if applicable)

12. Naturopathic doctor

13. Alternative health professional (e.g. Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner, yoga teacher, massage therapist, herbalist)

14. Other. Please list_________________________________________________________

Q6b.Of these sources of information, what would you say is the source you use the most? _______________________________________________________________

170

Q6c.Of these sources of information, what would you say is the source you trust the most? _______________________________________________________________

Q7a. Do you consider yourself to be a politically active person?

(Circle your response): YES NO

Q7b. In the past year, have you: (Circle all that apply)

1. Voted in a municipal, provincial or federal election?

2. Signed a petition? (Includes Internet petitions)

3. Contacted an elected official regarding an issue of concern to you? (includes letter-writing, email or phone)

4. Participated in a consumer boycott? (i.e. Avoided purchasing specific consumer goods (including food) for political or social reasons)

5. Participated in an organized demonstration or protest?

6. Joined a political party, renewed your membership in one, or attended activities organized by a political party?

7. Donated to a charity?

Q7c. How much would you say that your political or social concerns influence your buying decisions? (Circle your response)

1. Weakly influence 2. Moderately influence 3. Strongly influence

Q8. To provide some information on the demographics of our participants we would like to know a few details about you. Please circle the appropriate response or fill in the blank.

i) Are you: MALE FEMALE

ii) What is your age? _________

iii) How many children are in your household? _____. How many are under the

age of 6? _______

iv) What is your marital status?

1. Married or common-law

2. Single

3. Divorced or Separated

171

4. Widowed

v) What is your employment status:

1. Employed Full-time

2. Employed Part-time

3. Self-employed

4. Unemployed

5. At home caring for children/family members

6. Retired

vii) Are you a full or part-time student at a college/university? YES NO

vii) What is your highest level of education?

1. High school diploma

2. Trade school certification or college diploma

3. Undergraduate degree (Bachelor’s degree)

4. Postgraduate degree (Masters or PhD)

viii) What is the income category for your household (combined income for all adult members of the household that contribute to household expenses):

1. Under $50, 000

2. Between $50,000 and $100,000

3. Over $100,000

172

INTERVIEW SURVEYS To provide some information on the demographics of our participants we would like to know a few details about you. Please circle the appropriate response or fill in the blank.

1. Are you: Male Female 2. What is your age? _________ years 3. What is your marital status?

1. Married or common-law 2. Single 3. Divorced or Separated 4. Widowed

4. Who else is in the family/household? Please list them according to their relationship to you (e.g. child, friend, parent, spouse) (Write more on reverse if necessary)

Other Household Members Age

5a. What is your employment status?

7. Employed

8. Self-employed

9. Unemployed (Go to question 6)

10. At home caring for children/family members (Go to question 6)

11. Retired (Go to question 6)

12. Student at a college/university

173

5b. If employed, are you employed: Full time or Part Time

5c.If a student, are you studying: Full time or Part Time

5d. What is your occupation or area of study:

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

6. What is your highest level of education?

1. Less than high school

2. High school completion

3. Some post-secondary (e.g. college diploma or a few years of university studies)

4. University degree

5. Graduate degree (Masters, MBA, PhD)

6. No answer/does not apply 7. What is your parents’ education?

a. Highest level of education of your mother?

b. Highest level of education of your father?

1. Less than high school 1. Less than high school

2. High school completion 2. High school completion

3. Some post-secondary 3. Some post-secondary

4. University degree 4. University degree

5. Graduate degree 5. Graduate degree

6. No answer/does not apply 6. No answer/does not apply

8. Self-identified ethnicity: ___________________________ 9. Residence in Canada: _____ years or _____ generations

174

10. Does anyone in the family have diet-related health concerns? 1. No

2. Yes (Please list:)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________

11. Estimated Personal Income

1. Less than $25,000

2. $25,000 - $49,999

3. $50,000 - $99,999

4. $100,000-$149,999

5. $150,000+

12. Estimated Household Income

1. Less than $25,000

2. $25,000 - $49,999

3. $50,000 - $99,999

4. $100,000-$149,999

5. $150,000+

13. Approximately what percentage of total household food purchases are certified organic?

______%

14. How often do you use ‘environmentally friendly’ cleaning products in your home?

1. Almost always

2. Occasionally

3. Almost never

175

Appendix E: Information Sheets and Consent Forms

FOCUS GROUPS

INFORMATION SHEET [[on letterhead]]

Title of the project: Chemical concerns: Green consumerism and environmental health Researchers:

Norah MacKendrick, Graduate Student (PhD) Department of Sociology, University of Toronto

Dr. Josée Johnston, Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology, University of Toronto Description of research project: This research project will examine how individuals seek to protect themselves, their families, and their environment from exposure to potentially harmful chemicals through their shopping decisions. More specifically, it will look at how individuals use their power as consumers to address their concerns about personal health and environmental quality. We are seeking to talk to people who are concerned about chemicals in their environment and deliberately modify what they buy in order to avoid certain chemicals. This may include, for example, the decision to eat organic foods, undertake a dietary ‘cleanse’ or buy ‘natural’ cosmetics. We will be holding several focus groups consisting of four to six people where participants will be asked to discuss how their shopping and lifestyle decisions reflect their concerns around environmental contaminants. A group discussion of these issues will allow us to learn more about ‘green’ consumerism as a way to avoid potentially harmful chemicals. Groups will be scheduled at a convenient time and location for participants and all participants will receive a $25 gift certificate to be used at a health food store of their choice (e.g. The Big Carrot, Grassroots, Karma Co-op). Note that this is not a marketing study. Information from focus groups will be used to further our understanding of consumerism as a mechanism for improving personal health and environmental quality, as well as to examine the potential of consumer movements in effecting broader political change related to chemical use in Canada. Results from this study will also be included as part of a policy brief presented to the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health and Health Canada. Further Information:

Norah MacKendrick Email: norah.mackendrick@utoronto.ca. Tel: (416) 946-5883. Dr. Josée Johnston Email: josee.johnston@utoronto.ca

176

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

[[on letterhead]]

Chemical concerns: Green consumerism and environmental health

Norah MacKendrick and Dr. Josée Johnston Department of Sociology

University of Toronto Toronto, ON M5S 2J4

Phone #: 416-946-5883, Fax #: 416-978-3963 Email: norah.mackendrick@utoronto.ca , josee.johnston@utoronto.ca,

We are researchers with the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto who are leading a study examining how individuals seek to protect themselves, their families, and their environment from exposure to potentially harmful chemicals through their shopping decisions. We are inviting you to participate in a focus group as part of this study. We are conducting approximately four to five focus groups with willing participants in order to learn more about how people concerned about chemicals in their environment deliberately modify what they buy in order to avoid certain chemicals. This may include, for example, the decision to eat organic foods, engage in a dietary ‘cleanse’ or buy ‘natural’ cosmetics. Each focus group session will include up to six people, and last approximately two hours. With your permission, we will be digitally recording and later transcribing this session. No information from this study will be released that could disclose your identity. All information from the focus groups will be kept anonymous, as your name will never be associated with comments you express during this session. We would, however, like to use the information from the focus group in publications stemming from this research. If we do use this information, we will not refer to you or any other participant by your real names, but by a pseudonym. In addition, this consent form, along with all other research data (audio-recordings, transcriptions, and surveys) will be stored in a secure location, with no one outside the study having access to this information. Information from the survey will be kept confidential and survey answers will be reported anonymously. You will not be asked to identify yourself on the survey, and we will report results from the survey in an aggregate form (i.e. grouping everyone’s responses together). We will also ask you and other participants in the study to maintain confidentiality by not sharing information from the discussion with outside people. We cannot, of course, guarantee this confidentiality. There is still the potential risk that someone in the focus group could break confidentiality by discussing things that are said inside the group with other people. To minimize this risk, we would ask that you and other participants share only a first name at the beginning of the session and do not share information that you would rather keep private. To thank participants for their time, we are offering a $25 gift certificate for use at either The Big Carrot, Grassroots, Karma Co-op or Noah’s (please let the moderator know your preference). If you would like

177

to receive a summary of the research results, please inform the moderator of your email address or mailing address. This project is part of a PhD dissertation and therefore a summary of results will not be distributed immediately, but is expected to be released sometime before September 2010. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If at any point you feel uncomfortable with session or no longer wish to participate, you are free to leave at any time, and this will not affect compensation. If you have any questions about this project, please contact Norah MacKendrick at (416) 946-5883/ norah.mackendrick@utoronto.ca or Dr. Josée Johnston at josee.johnston@utoronto.ca. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact the Ethics Review Office at 416-946-3273 or email: ethics.review@utoronto.ca I have read and understand the above statements and I give my consent to be a participant. Participant’s Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________ Investigator’s Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________

Please keep a copy of this for your own records

178

INTERVIEWS

INFORMATION SHEET [[on letterhead]]

“Eating off-the-grid.” A Study of Food Choices and Food Sources in the GTA. Researchers: Dr. Josée Johnston, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto Norah MacKendrick, Graduate Student, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto Description of research and interviews: This research project examines how people structure their food choices and everyday shopping routines around concerns about personal health, environmental sustainability, and social justice. We will be interviewing people with families whose food choices are affected by time pressures, the need for convenience and other household demands. Our study looks at two groups of people: those who shop mainly at major grocery stores, and those who get their food through alternative sources, such as farmers’ markets, Community Supported Agriculture shares or Food Box programs. Interviews last about 90 minutes and all participants will receive a $25 grocery coupon. Scheduling is flexible and can be arranged for a convenient time and location. Note that this is not a marketing study. Findings from this study will further our understanding of the range of factors that influence people’s food choices and what influences the decision to buy food through alternative sources. For further information:

Norah MacKendrick Email: norah.mackendrick@gmail.com

Tel: (416) 946.5890 Dr. Josée Johnston

Email: josee.johnston@utoronto.ca

179

INFORMED CONSENT FORM [[on letterhead]] “Eating off-the-grid.” A Study of Food and Grocery Shopping in the GTA.

Dr. Josée Johnston and Norah MacKendrick Department of Sociology

University of Toronto Toronto, ON M5S 2J4

Phone #: (416) 946-5883., Fax #: 416-978-3963 Email: norah.mackendrick@utoronto.ca , josee.johnston@utoronto.ca,

We are researchers with the Department of Sociology at the University of Toronto who are leading a study examining how people’s food decisions reflect concerns about personal health, environmental sustainability, and social justice. We are conducting interviews with willing participants to discuss the factors that go into food buying decisions. The interview will last about 90 minutes and involves a short survey asking about your socio-economic background. If you choose to participate in an interview, no information from this study will be released that could disclose your identity. Information from the interview and survey will be kept anonymous. We may like to use the information from the interview in publications stemming from this research, but will refer to you by a pseudonym rather than your real name. Survey answers will be kept confidential and will be reported anonymously. You will not be asked to identify yourself on the survey, and we will report survey results in an aggregate form (i.e. grouping everyone’s responses together). In addition, this consent form, along with all other research data (digital recordings, transcriptions and surveys) will be stored in a secure location, with no one outside the study having access to this information. To thank participants for their time, we are offering a $25 grocery gift certificate. If you would like to receive a summary of the research results, please provide the interviewer with your email or mailing address. This project is part of a PhD dissertation and a longer-term research project. A summary of results will not be distributed immediately, but is expected to be released sometime before September 2011. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If at any point you feel uncomfortable with the interview or survey or no longer wish to participate, you are free to end the interview or request a break. If you have any questions about this project, please contact Norah MacKendrick at (416) 946-5890 or norah.mackendrick@gmail.com or Dr. Josée Johnston at josee.johnston@utoronto.ca. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subject, please contact the Ethics Review Office at 416-946-3273 or email: ethics.review@utoronto.ca I have read and understand the above statements and I give my consent to be a participant. Participant’s Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________

180

Investigator’s Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________

Please keep a copy of this for your own records