This is a CTP of initiative: Slow Food USA
This critical turning point refers to the decision, taken by the formers Slow Food USA’s directors, of cancelling their biodiversity projects and becoming more political in their activity. During the period 2008-2012, the American association traced a clear strategy to approach wider public and launched several campaigns advocating “food justice” and the right to access to quality food. They wanted to make Slow Food a political group for food justice aiming at being more supported for being politically active. As a result of this change of vision and the reorientation of Slow Food USA´s activities, the Slow Food USA direction abandoned or cancelled some of the traditional projects that the national association used to conduct and which were highly appreciated by the associates. Concretely, Slow Food’s iconic programs such as the Ark of Taste received much less attention at the national level and, eventually, the activity of the Slow Food USA´s Ark of Taste Committee was cancelled by the former president.
The suspension of Slow Food´s biodiversity provoked disaffection or demotivation within a sector of the Slow Food USA´s associates. Also, the former president received strong criticism from associates who had been running the Ark of Taste Committee. Such contestation ended in an internal crisis which affected the entire national association. Being asked about why this event was considered critical, the respondent explains that, as result of the cancellation of the biodiversity projects, some very relevant Slow Food USA’s activists left the initiative and with them, a number of people who used to collaborate with Slow Food USA:
I think that all these people abandoned the organization, all these people who had been running the Ark of Taste group, yes, and I think that repercussion of that is that maybe there were only 12 individuals who left, but these people had a network of people around Slow Food
Together with the cancellation of the Ark of Taste projects, the new direction adopted several decisions which were also contested by critical voices. As an example, the printed edition of the Snail publication was cancelled. This magazine had become, until that moment, an excellent tool for disseminating all the work that Slow Food USA´s Ark of Taste Committee was conducted nationwide.
They stopped the Slow publication, an international magazine for Slow Food, because it was really expensive. Carlo Petrini was an editor. It was a wonderful magazine with lots of crazy articles. After that, Slow Food USA members still received the Snail magazine four times per year. It had amazing articles about Slow Food projects. But the cost was high, so they stopped that. And the Snail gave way to a kind of once a year print publication There is a new Slow Food feed now. People can read articles there and fits the purpose. Any way. I don't know if this can be considered a critical point because everybody can read everything online
Regarding the people and circumstances that contributed to the co-production of this critical turning point, the interviewee explicitly pointed to two actors that had direct responsibilities in this negative situation. First, she alludes to the president of Slow Food USA, Josua Viertel, who had been running the initiative since 2008, under the supervision of the Slow Food USA´s Board of Directors.
The second actor mentioned by the interviewee was the Slow Food Ark of Taste Committee, an independent group of dedicated volunteers and experts, who worked at national scale. This Committee had acquired high influence within the organization as well as good reputation at national and international level.
The Ark committee selected its own members. Many of them had business dealing with heritage grains or foods, or they were academics, writers, animal breeders etc. who were Slow Food supporters. The Ark Committees are all volunteer, but a lot of these people, has been Slow Food activists, Slow Food leaders for a long time
Both president and Ark of Taste Committee had maintained a tense relationship previous to the cancellation of the Slow Food’s biodiversity projects in USA. There was a clear disagreement about the mission and direction of the Slow Food organization, and thus the use of limited funds. Personal differences and egos seem to be also involved:
According to my experience as an Ark of Taste Committee member at that time, I remember that there was some personality conflicts between the American Ark Committee and the direction of Slow Food USA. There was also disagreement between the American Ark Committee and the Slow Food International. There were a lot of big personalities. Usually, the members of the Ark of Taste Committee tend to be organizers, University professors...business owners. And the USA Slow Food fired them over this conflict
A number of events seem to relate to this critical turning point. The first of them is related to the RAFT project, which Slow Food USA conducted from 2003 to 2010, with the object of identifying and recovering wild foods in risk of disappearance. The RAFT project was led by Slow Food USA in collaboration with several national associations related to environmental protection, native food activists, and chefs. Such project contributed to the acknowledgment of Slow Food USA across the country and strengthened ties with other community-based initiatives who shared common values. Besides, the RAFT project permitted Slow Food USA to raise external funds for the Art of Taste and the Presidia biodiversity projects.
The second related event was the election of the new president of Slow Food USA, Joshua Viertel, in 2008, who took the legacy of the former executive director. The new president introduced several changes within the internal organization, hiring more personnel for the New York headquarters. The new team also defined new strategic lines for the national association in order to approach the wider society, not only foodies but wider public. The new direction tried to lead the movement towards a broader-based and more politically active organization. Concretely, in the second part of 2009 and 2010, the initiative endorsed the “Eat-In” action across the country, pursuing changes in the Child Nutrition Act which govern the National School Lunch Program.
Besides, in the same period, Slow Food USA launched the “Time for Lunch” campaign aiming to get real food into schools; asking the American Congress for financial incentives to encourage schools to purchase local products in school kitchens. As a consequence of the cancelation of Slow Food USA´s biodiversity projects and the political activism of the new direction, some of the principal funders of Slow Food decided to retire their financial support. This situation produced a financial crisis within the North-American Association, which the entire national association had to deal with, as the respondent mentions:
I think that in 2010, when Josh was president, there were 12 o 13 people working in the headquarters office. They had big funders. But as I understood, talking with other people, that the funders watched if the money was dedicated in a good way, but some trouble existed and they didn’t continue. I don't know the details. But this was one of the problems coming around. The lack of funding and loss of faith of the funders
The Executive Director of Slow Food USA presented his resignation in June 2012 and, following, a new national Board of Directors was elected and new members assumed the responsibility to reorganize the American association. Following, Slow Food USA hired (in January 2013) Richard McCarthy as the new executive director of the initiative, starting a new stage in the history of the initiative. As a result of this last event, the Slow Food USA´s Ark of Taste project starts again in 2013.
As explained in the previous sections, the President´s decision of suspending the activities of the Slow Food USA´s Ark of Taste Committee caused a profound crisis in Slow Food USA. Some relevant Slow Food activists clearly manifested their opposition to the cancelation of the biodiversity projects like The Ark of Taste and Presidia. Because of this negative confrontation, some of the most relevant Slow Food USA leaders and spokespersons abandoned the movement. The Slow Food USA executive direction did not respond appropriately to emerging contestation. The leaders did not try to reduce the level of confrontation or were not able to find a solution to this negative environment. Contestation was overcome after several months of internal crisis. As explained above, the former president resigned and, after few months of internal reflection, the Board of Directors hired a new executive director.
The first responsibility of this person was to reunite the national association, with the help of only two or three people working in the New York’s headquarters
Then, the new team started the elaboration of a new strategic planning. Discussions were maintained at the national level, through the board of directors with contributions of chapter leaders and governors. They also were able to engage former leaders and members in the Slow Food biodiversity projects:
In my Ark group, there were a lot of emails about the loss of the Ark of Taste, and how to rebuild the project. I had a lot of emails about how to re-establish the Ark of Taste and about how it should be structured. It was a group of people who have been involved all of these years, farmers, leaders of groups, and Richard McCarthy and Megan Larmer
The situation was finally resolved. Even, some members who have left the organization during the period of this critical turning point decided to come back and rebuild the Slow Food USA biodiversity projects:
There was a change in the board, and people who have been leading this project from the beginning decided to come back and take the challenge to re-start the project. It was a sense of regeneration, reviving the momentum to work again together”
This Critical Turning Point came as a surprise for the entire association, including many of the most engaged people in the Slow Food USA biodiversity projects. Notwithstanding, the Ark of Taste project and the RAFT project (formed by a consortium of 6 national entities), coordinated by Slow Food from 2003 to 2010, had strongly contributed to the visibility and the reputation of the Slow Food movement along the United States.
Furthermore, thanks to the good work conducted by the Slow Food USA´s Ark of Taste Committee, Slow Food USA was able to get external funds to advance its biodiversity projects. Then, there was not any objective reason that pointed to the neediness of taking the difficult decision to cancel the ongoing biodiversity projects. Indeed, the respondent has the feeling that this critical turning point occurs because of previous disagreement and personal conflicts between the coordinator of the American Ark Committee and the new president of Slow Food USA. Personal issues contributed to a critical moment that transcended to the national context as she explains in the previous section.
Several lessons have been mentioned regarding this critical turning point. First, the respondent reflects about the critical situation that sometimes occurs when a new leader arrives at any association or institution and – acting in good faith- decide to introduce radical changes or give a new orientation to the organization. Such changes might be perceived by the associates -particularly, by experienced practitioners- as controversial decisions, which might put at risk the core values or the sense of identity built within the organization for a long time. In this context, conflict usually arises, creating a bad atmosphere that could demotivate or force some associates to leave the initiative.
According to the interviewee, avoiding this kind of conflict is needed for keeping people engaged and committed to the objectives of the initiative, especially if consist on a voluntary-based organization. Despite the fact that all projects should be updated and re-oriented at certain times, in order to be able to deal with new situations (e.g. social issues and contextual changes), continuity is also important. The respondent refers to the continuity of projects - which associates feel identified with or are proud of- as well as the continuity of key persons within the organization. She mentions the need of count on the experience of employees or people who had been involved in the board of directors, who have gained important expertise and know-how to be transferred to the new ones.
“Continuity is important. And sometimes there was a lack of continuity in Slow Food USA. Because there was a group working, and it goes very well for a group, and then a few new people come and everything collapses
A second lesson that the interviewee draws from this critical turning point relates to the Slow Food´s capacity of resilience at the grassroots level. Despite the conflict and hard times that the North-American branch struggle in this period, high-committed activists continued working, developing biodiversity projects at the local scale and engaging more people:
The good news is that, at the grassroots level, we have schools gardens and it is a lovely program, and the school gardens work with the Ark of Taste. The Ark of Taste encourages school gardens to grow traditional food, to adapt it and tell the story of food. I think that despite the problems, the local leaders were able to engage the community around the school gardens, and the Ark of Taste around the school gardens. I think there is still large potential for this kind of work
Even if associates formally abandoned the organization, they remained connected to their local chapter or any food community grounded on the Slow Food’s philosophy:
I would say that administrations come and go, policies change but I think that Slow Food engages a certain kind of person who believes in the cause and there is a kind of nice community about Slow Food. It is a big idea; it is a spirit of engagement that comes from individuals. Even if you only grown things in your garden, and cook your own food and share with your neighbours, that is the spirit of Slow Food that survived, not matter what is going on with the leadership
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
