Sasson, 1

Camille Sasson
4/11/16
Research Question

Quinoa, a grain-like crop native to the Andes, has been cultivated by the Andean peoples

for thousands of years. Until recently, it was largely unknown to the world beyond the Andean

region, where it was seen primarily as a peasant food1. In the past few decades, quinoa has

rapidly gained the attention of nutritionists, Western consumers, development programs and fair

trade organizations alike. International demand for this Andean crop has boomed as its high

nutritional value has been discovered and extolled2. The resulting opportunities, pressures, and

adaptations manifesting in the lives of quinoa producers have been the source of much

controversy. In the United States, a heated ideological battle has begun over the ethicality of

Western consumption of quinoa, arising in blog posts and articles from popular sources such as

the New York Times and Slate (Romero and Shahriari 2011; LeVaux 2013), as well as within

scholarly circles.

The realities playing out in the highlands of Bolivia, Peru, and other quinoa-producing

Andean countries have indeed been complicated and contradictory. While new economic

opportunities for Andean farmers have arisen as they are spotlighted by the international market,

1 Under Spanish colonization, quinoa cultivation was deliberately suppressed in favor of Old
World grains, like wheat, in what historians Hellin and Higman term a culinary colonialism
(2005). Stereotypes associating quinoa and other traditional crops with peasantry and
backwardness have persisted in pace with broader discrimination against indigenous lifestyles.
This can be seen in the tendency of urban poor to consume other grains such as pasta and rice,
which are less nutritious though of more consistent quality (Ibid).

2 Quinoa has been found to be an excellent source of protein and amino acids, making it
particularly popular among vegetarians and vegans in the West, as well as in domestic campaigns
against malnutrition. At the international level, demand for quinoa has boomed since the 1990s;
it has become part of a trend, among those who can afford it, toward organic whole foods.
Similarly, among urban elite in Peru and Bolivia, quinoa has become a food fashionable for elite
consumption.
 Sasson, 2

as is the way of globalization, not all have benefitted equally. The increased international

demand for quinoa and the subsequent raise in prices have brought relative prosperity to many

farmers. At the same time, many researchers and scholars of development and globalization

argue that quinoas high prices have made it inaccessible to farmers and urban-based domestic

consumers. Additionally, in their efforts to increase production, many farmers have moved away

from traditional, sustainable methods toward mechanized production and reduced crop diversity

to the potential detriment of long-term production capabilities, indigenous lifestyles, and

livelihood security (Jacobson 2011; Hellin and Higman 2005; Hogan and Joyce 2014).

As international demand has grown, quinoa has become a profitable export crop. A result

has been that many farmers have begun to produce more quinoa for export and less quinoa and

other foods for themselves, using their income to instead purchase subsidized wheat and other

products that are of less nutritious value but can provide sufficient calories at less cost (Hellin

and Higman 2005; Healy 2004). Thus, even as the land dedicated to the production of quinoa has

expanded, domestic consumption among certain spheres of the population appears to be

decreasing. Meanwhile, the governments of Bolivia and Peru have become major purchasers of

quinoa for use in welfare programs3, making quinoa more accessible to other parts of the

population.

In response to increasing demand, farmers have adapted their methods of production

differently. Those who can afford to do so have turned to mechanization in order to maximize

3 For example, Perus Programa Nacional de Apoyo Alimentaria, which has programs for school
breakfasts and comedores populares, is increasingly transitioning away from the use of imported
wheat in favor of quinoa and other Andean grains which it purchases directly from farmers
(Hellin and Higman 2005). In Bolivia, President Morales has similarly encouraged the
consumption of quinoa through government-sponsored nutrition campaigns (Lundberg 2010).
 Sasson, 3

production. Reduced crop diversity and constant cultivation of land have caused

environmentalists to worry about soil degradation and the long-term sustainability of production,

while others have worried about economic and food security (Jacobson 2011; Hellin and Higman

2005; Hogan and Joyce 2014). As traditional versus mechanized methods of production have

been contested, the potential for profitability in quinoa production has caused another interesting

disturbance the lifestyle of Andean peasants: many who had previously moved to urban areas

have returned to their or their families land (Kerssen 2015).

An issue here is the disjunction between increased economic prosperity and overall quality

of life and wellbeing. Emblematic of this are the starkly different approaches of types of Western

aid and development programs in Andean countries. Where one approach emphasizes food aid,

the other focuses on economic development. As argued by Brett (2010), these two approaches

counteract each other. While economic development programs encourage production of quinoa

for export in order to increase farmers economic profits under the assumption that this will lead

to improved qualities of life, programs aimed at food security have supplied countries such as

Bolivia with US surplus wheat which, because of its low cost, has become a major source of

calories for Bolivias poor. The result of the pairing of these two approaches to development has

been, Brett argues, decreased access to quinoa and foods with real nutritious and cultural value.

The issue of the shifting demand for and production of quinoa draws attention to the ways

in which the pressures of the international market and development programs, as well as

domestic campaigns, play out on the ground. Farmers have responded in a myriad of ways, the

specifics of which are certainly worth further investigation and which raises the question of why

there has been such variation. While at first glance increased demand for quinoa seems to have
 Sasson, 4

increased farmers incomes, the results have been much more complicated. Given that

international prices for quinoa have risen, why have inequalities in access to well-being in

Andean countries increased?

Comments 4/13
Too much information trying to explain too much
o Some could be in footnotes
o Repetitive in middle middle section could be integrated
o How does information relate to each other? Hierarchy of information
Question
o Established that it is warranted by contemporary scholarship
What type of argument?
o Historical? Cultural studies? Development critique?
o Implications of inquiry associate with similar types of inquiry
easy command of integrating scholarship
o Framed around what I think is important
 Sasson, 5

Camille Sasson
4/24/16
Literature Review

Research Question: While at first glance increased demand for quinoa seems to have increased
farmers incomes, the results have been much more complicated. Given that international prices
for quinoa have risen, why have inequalities in access to well-being in Andean countries
increased?

As consumption and production of quinoa has shifted in recent years there has been a great

variation in the types of response by Andean farmers and in the distribution of the benefits from

the increased attention quinoa has received. The relevant scholarship is full of competing

viewpoints on the effects of the increased demand for quinoa. Anthropologist Andrew Ofstehage

(2012) summarizes this well, saying: "The quinoa boom has been posed as a saving grace for

poor farmers, a threat forcing Bolivian consumers to abandon quinoa for rice and quinoa milk for

Coca-Cola, and a pressure forcing farmers to adopt modern industrial farming practices" (442-

443).

Fair Trade and organic certification networks have been main drivers in the production of

quinoa for export while government initiatives and national actors have encouraged its domestic

consumption (Hellin and Higman 2003). Many small-scale farmers belong to producer

organizations which are responsible for a majority of Andean nations quinoa exports (Healy

2004). While such organizations have been able to negotiate higher prices for quinoa

internationally and domestically, to the economic benefit of the farmers who are associated with

it, they have also been exclusionary to many of the poorer farmers who are unable to meet the

standards for certification of organic production that they demand (Carimentrand and Ballet

2010). Many farmers would rather access the market directly or through local producer

organizations (Ballv 2007). Other organizations are seeking to fill a gap in processing quinoa to
 Sasson, 6

make finished goods for export to Western markets and incorporation into domestic nutrition

programs4. As methods of production have adapted in order to create sufficient quality and

quantity of quinoa for export, government programs and domestic organizations have sought to

increase national consumption in development initiatives aimed at increasing food security

(Hellin and Higman 2005).

The literature related to the changing quinoa market takes many different approaches to the

topic, which can be grouped into several general categories ranging from a lens critiquing

models of development and their impact on food security to a focus on grassroots organization or

the contradictions within the Fair Trade food system. Scholars tend to focus on the organizational

level, analyzing the actors that have entered the production and market chain of quinoa and the

impacts on and responses of Andean peoples only in general/collective terms. Though there is a

lack of consensus on whether increased demand for quinoa is overall positive or negative, the

variety of areas of focus has created a literature with little overlap such that, while there is little

consensus, there is also little direct contradiction of opinion.

Beginning in the 1970s, quinoa farmers organized in cooperatives in response to changing

markets to represent farmers interests and maximize economic returns; these continue to play an

important role at local and national levels of quinoa production (Ofstehage 2012). Several bodies

of scholarship focus on the organizational structures of rural actors, arguing that the producer

organizations that have formed in response to the changing market are a form of grassroots

development. Healy (2004) praises producer organizations as a reiteration of the equitable

structures of the native resource economy, finding that they have been effective at negotiating in

4 One example is Irupana Andean Organic Food, which is making value-added cereal bars and
breads (Healy 2005).
 Sasson, 7

defense of common interests in creating new paths to the marketplace. In Healys analysis,

producer organizations are imbued with an anti-colonial essence; as collective grassroots

organization by historically marginalized Andean farmers, using Andean products to use the

market to their advantage, thus rebuilding agrarian livelihoods and defending against Northern

market pressures and histories of colonialism. While this approach recognizes the agency of

farmers in collectively crafting responses and resistance to market pressures, Healy fails to

acknowledge the ways that these cooperatives are still inherently beholden to the whims and

specificities of Western demand. While producer organizations may have had success in

maximizing their gains from increased international demand for this historically marginalized

crop and have been able to take some degree of control in shaping market systems such as Fair

Trade networks, they still must adapt production systems to cater to the desires of the

international market. Thus, Healy tends to glorify and oversimplify both the efficacy of producer

organizations and their anti-colonial nature.

Taking a similar approach focusing on the organization of rural actors, Walsh-Dilley

(2013) argues that in contrast to claims that the spread of modern markets and technologies will

weaken and ultimately replace cooperative strategies reciprocity practices are important

components in the construction of a new, hybrid economic space (659). While the creation of

such a hybrid economic space is of course not necessarily what is happening in every case,

Walsh-Dilleys analysis, similar to that of Healy (2004), shows that it is possible for the growing

market for quinoa to create real benefits for producers by enabling grassroots development.

Carimentrand and Ballet (201) take a different approach, focusing on the inequalities that

have been exacerbated between and within quinoa-producing communities as a result of

 Sasson, 8

involvement in Fair Trade networks. They cite numerous impact studies that find that

certification in general does not necessarily assist the most marginalized producers, and can in

fact actually exclude them due to the high costs associated with certification and that Fair Trade

networks can affect the balance of producers to the disadvantage of the smallest producers (3).

Using these findings and their own analysis of the context of international quinoa trade and the

socioeconomic differentiation associated with the mechanization of the cultivation of quinoa,

Carimentrand and Ballet argue that Fair Trade in quinoa is actually increasing inequalities

between Bolivian producers (4). Additionally, they argue that there is a mismatch between the

principles of Fair Trade and the practices of organizations of producers" (11) as the standards of

Fair Trade are applied in different contexts. Their analysis looks at both the on-the-ground

impacts of market systems as well as at organizations within the market system, pointing to the

disjunction between these levels of action.

In more a macro-level critique, Brett (2010) points to the impacts of Western policies and

demand on food systems. Brett analyzes the conflicting nature of international food aid policy

and economic development using nutrition in Bolivia as a case study (28). On the one hand,

U.S. food aid makes wheat accessible at subsidized prices, thus providing poor Bolivians with a

cheap source of calories. On the other hand, policies aimed at economic development and

generating income for poor sectors of Bolivian society have targeted the development of quinoa

as an export crop. Brett argues that the combined result of these two approaches to development

has been that people in developing countries such as Bolivia have experienced reduced access to

nutrient-rich foods. This analysis highlights how different approaches to development, created by

outside actors such as the U.S. government, can play out in unexpected ways on the ground.
 Sasson, 9

Hellin and Higman (2003; 2005) also focus on the impacts on food security of changing

demand for quinoa, though with a focus more on the production of quinoa for export versus

domestic consumption, taking into account the challenges and opportunities that smallholder

quinoa farmers face. More specifically, in Feeding the Market (2003), they look at the extent to

which quinoa can contribute to food security in the Andes and whether its potential can best be

realized through production for export, as a contribution to diets locally and nationally, or both

(90). One part of their analysis focuses on the obstacles to boosting domestic consumption of the

highly-nutritional quinoa, including urbanization, increasingly busy lifestyles, and the high cost

of quinoa. Linking the Andean experience of reduced access to and consumption of quinoa to

broader trends, Hellin and Higman state that increasing trade liberalization has reduced the

ability of countries to favor food production within their own borders (93). They identify the

increased risks and threats to food security created by changes such as the intensification of

production methods and focus on monocultures prompted by a focus on production for the export

market (104). However, they argue that it is possible to both encourage the production and

national consumption of quinoa within Andean countries and its production for export,

providing a much-needed cash income to rural families (97) through a two-part approach to

food security. With a focus on these two broad types of quinoa production, Hellin and Higmans

argument skims over the complexities taking place on the ground as farmers and consumers, both

domestic and international, respond to and shape the quinoa market. In doing so, they overlook

the agency of quinoa producers to shape their own livelihoods within and in resistance to the

market.

Overall, the literature on the effects of the changing quinoa market seems to be focused at

the organizational level. On-the-ground experiences are used as supporting data, but there is a
 Sasson, 10

lack of literature highlighting the agency of farmers within the global food system. Additionally,

there is little scholarship highlighting the neo-colonial elements of the quinoa market, although

there are critiques of the Fair Trade movement from this lens. The approaches to development

that are discussed are often as top-down, though some scholars, such as Healy (2004) do identify

the potential for the quinoa market to act as a platform for grassroots development. While many

scholars recognize that the development policies and market pressures of the international level

often do not have the intended impacts on the ground, there is a lack of discussion situating

micro-level actors within these macro-level trends or acknowledgment of how supply and

production methods can shape the market (rather than how demand forces producers to adapt).

Comments 4/27
Includes how conclusions were drawn
Could be shaped more
o Not sure where I stand
o Will be shaped more when hypothesis is established
o Will need to justify why my approach is more complete in making critiques
create my own space to speak
o Narrow conceptualization
o Make position clear
Information is there sufficient bibliography
Need to consider what data is available
o Dont want to set up line of inquiry that cant be supported
o NGOs as source of data
Research question
o Notwithstanding the inequality, x is still happening why? How is inequity felt?
o Not why is there growing inequality? intellectual dead end
o What are the strategies conceived by these farmers? Goal is money? Money to do
what?

*Thesis on Nicaragua Alice Butterfield

 Sasson, 11

Camille Sasson
5/8/16
Hypothesis

Research Question: While at first glance increased demand for quinoa seems to have increased
farmers incomes, the results have been much more complicated. Given that demand has
connected farmers to the domestic and global markets, why have inequalities increased among
quinoa producers in Andean countries?

I argue that inequalities in access to food security among quinoa producers in Andean

countries is a result of a juxtaposition of different conceptions of progress and priorities of

development that are intermixing and contradicting as historically marginalized Andean farmers

are increasingly participating in domestic and international market systems. These conceptions of

progress come from a myriad of actors and programs, from internationally- and domestically-

located, health-conscious foodies, to government development initiatives and NGOS, to quinoa

producers themselves. In the context of quinoa production, each of these actors actions based on

their conceptions of progress converge and manifest in the lived experience of quinoa producers,

resulting in the exacerbation of inequalities as some are able to take advantage of market

opportunities while others are further marginalized.

Even in the perception of quinoa and its usefulness, we can see different priorities of

development and conceptions of progress. Quinoa is widely lauded by governments and

development organizations as a super food, capable of combatting global food insecurity, and as

a rising niche market capable of bringing the benefits of the global market to marginalized

Andean farmers. Emblematic of this, the United Nations declared 2013 the International Year of

Quinoa with programs aimed at focusing world attention on the role of quinoa biodiversity and

nutritional value for food security and the eradication of poverty (FAQs- International Year of
 Sasson, 12

Quinoa 2013 2016). Government initiatives, such as PRONAA5 are using the grain in initiatives

to combat malnutrition (Hellin and Higman 2005). Farmers are responding to its increasing

popularity and rising prices by expanding quinoa production as a way to make a living in

agriculture (Walsh-Dilley 2013).

Quinoa has not always experienced this degree of admiration. For centuries it was

cultivated by Andean peoples serving as a dietary staple and a feature in Andean traditions and

ceremonies. During Spanish colonization, its cultivation was repressed and it was replaced as a

staple in Andean diets by European crops. As has been the case with many other signs of

indigeneity, many sectors of society in these now-independent countries have continued to scorn

quinoa as a third-rate Indian or rural food (Ballv 2007). Meanwhile, it has increasingly

become an item of elite consumption through its domestic use in gourmet cuisine and its craze

among international health-foodies.

Thus, there are many competing perceptions and utilizations of quinoa itself. Its

association to indigeneity makes it for some an important feature of cultural heritage, while for

others earns it negative connotations of backwardness. Its nutritional value has made it the

darling of domestic and international food security initiatives and Western health-foodies. Its

rising market price has made it a tool of economic development. Each of these perceptions of the

value of quinoa points to a different conceptualization of progress, whether its preservation of

culture, nutritional well-being, or rising incomes.

Motivated by what I argue are different priorities of development, these competing ideas

of the utility of quinoa to achieve goals of progress have manifested in policies and initiatives

that have, on the ground, exacerbated inequalities. Similarly looking at development policies,

5 The Programa Nacional de Apoyo Alimentaria, which purchases quinoa and other native crops
directly from farmers for use in government food programs (Hellin and Higman 2005).
 Sasson, 13

Brett (2010) argues that international food aid policy and economic development have a

conflicting nature that furthers inequalities between the countries giving aid and those

receiving it. This critical view of the contradictions between different development policies

serves to show how the different priorities of development initiatives play out on the ground.

However, this argument is more focused on how these aid policies are another iteration of

Northern exploitation of the global South, exacerbating international inequalities rather than the

inequalities within quinoa-producing countries and communities.

Another explanation for growing inequalities within quinoa-producing communities is

that sharpening inequality is an inherent effect of the international market, and the Fair Trade

market specifically. Carimentrand and Ballet (2010) focus on the exclusionary nature of the

certification process upon which Fair Trade is based, finding that the smallest producers are

unable to meet the requirements. They are thus further marginalized as those who are able to join

the Fair Trade network reap the benefits of their access international markets. While the

exclusionary nature of the international food system and Fair Trade certification in particular, is

certainly an element in explaining the inequalities arising from the changing market for quinoa, it

does not account for the ways farmers have organized collectively to access the international

market or other, more long-term sources of inequality.

Taking a more conceptual approach to understanding the conflicting priorities of

development initiatives and farmer responses can bridge the divide between these macro-level

forces and micro-level responses. Walsh-Dilley (2013) conceptualizes the hybrid economic

space that has been created through the continuation and adaptation of traditional reciprocity

practices in response to market opportunities. Similarly, I argue that, in context of quinoa

 Sasson, 14

production, these forces overlap and juxtapose to play out on the ground in a multitude of

pressures and responses that have sharpened inequalities.

 Sasson, 15

Anonymous. 2012. Quinoa Selection; The Andes New Cash Crop. The Economist, May 12.
Aragn, Fernando M., and Juan Pablo Rud. 2013. Natural Resources and Local Communities:
Evidence from a Peruvian Gold Mine. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5
(2): 125.
Are You a Terrible Person for Eating Quinoa? 2013. Grist. January 29.
http://grist.org/food/are-you-a-terrible-person-for-eating-quinoa/.
Aubrey, Allison. 2016. Your Love Of Quinoa Is Good News For Andean Farmers. NPR.org.
Accessed April 15. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/07/16/202737139/is-our-love-
of-quinoa-hurting-or-helping-farmers-who-grow-it.
Ballv, Teo. 2007. Pachamama Goes Organic: Bolivias Quinoa Farmers; Part One of a Two-
Part Series. NACLA Report on the Americas 40 (4): 1518.
Bellemare, Marc F., Johanna Fajardo-Gonzales, and Seth R. Gitter. 2016. Foods and Fads: The
Welfare Impacts of Rising Quinoa Prices in Peru. Working Paper No. 2016-06, Townson
University. http://webapps.towson.edu/cbe/economics/workingpapers/2016-06.pdf.
Benjamin, Craig. 1997. The Pirating of Quinoa? Native Americas XIV (2): 24.
Bhabha, Homi K. 2012. The Location of Culture. Routledge.
http://site.ebrary.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/lib/uwash/reader.action?
docID=10617572.
Blythman, Joanna. 2013. Can Vegans Stomach the Unpalatable Truth about Quinoa? The
Guardian, January 16, sec. Opinion.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-
truth-quinoa.
Bolivia. 2016. Accessed April 12. https://www.usaid.gov/where-we-work/latin-american-and-
caribbean/bolivia.
Brett, John A. 2010. The Political-Economics of Developing Markets versus Satisfying Food
Needs. Food and Foodways 18 (1-2): 2842. doi:10.1080/07409711003708249.
Caceres, Zina, Aurelie Carimentrand, and John Wilkinson. 2008. Fair Trade and Quinoa from
Teh Southern Bolivian Altiplano. In Fair Trade: The Challenges of Transforming
Globalization, 18099. New York: Routledge.
Cagle, Susie. 2016. ANAPQUI - Asociacin Nacional de Productores de Quinua | Fair Trade
USA. Accessed April 12. https://fairtradeusa.org/producer-profiles/anapqui-asociaci-n-
nacional-de-productores-de-quinua.
Carimentrand, Aurelie, and Jerome Ballet. 2010. When Fair Trade Increases Unfaireness: The
Case of Quinoa from Bolivia. IDEAS Working Paper Series.
https://duwamish.lib.washington.edu/uwnetid/illiad.dll?
Action=10&Form=75&Value=1316793.
Chelleri, Lorenzo, James J. Waters, Marta Olazabal, and Guido Minucci. 2015. Resilience
Trade-Offs: Addressing Multiple Scales and Temporal Aspects of Urban Resilience.
Environment and Urbanization 27 (1): 18198. doi:10.1177/0956247814550780.
Cherfas, Jeremy. 2016. Home Page Top Stories. NPR.org. Accessed April 15.
http://www.npr.org/.
DePillis, Lydia. 2013. Quinoa Should Be Taking over the World. This Is Why It Isnt. The
Washington Post, July 11.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/11/quinoa-should-be-taking-
over-the-world-this-is-why-it-isnt/.
 Sasson, 16

FAQs- International Year of Quinoa 2013. 2016. Food and Agricultural Administration of the
United Nations. Accessed May 10. http://www.fao.org/quinoa-2013/faqs/en/.
Healy, Kevin. 2004. Towards an Andean Rural Development Paradigm? NACLA Report on
the Americas 38 (3): 2833.
Hellin, Jon, and Sophie Higman. 2003. Feeding the Market: South American Farmers, Trade
and Globalization. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc.
. 2005. Crop Diversity and Livelihood Security in the Andes. Development in Practice
15 (2): 16574.
Hogan, Clare, and Maggie Joyce. 2014. The Commercialization of Quinoa: Indigenous
Extortion or Economic Opportunity? Washington, United States: The Council on
Hemispheric Affairs.
http://search.proquest.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/1547938342/abstract/A0
D1A8FE3E9A4CF0PQ/1.
Home- International Year of Quinoa 2013. 2016. Accessed April 7.
http://www.fao.org/quinoa-2013/en/.
International Year of Quinoa Objectives- International Year of Quinoa 2013. 2016. Accessed
April 12. http://www.fao.org/quinoa-2013/iyq/objectives/en/.
Irupana Andean Organic Food. 2016. Accessed April 12.
http://www.irupanabio.com/1home.html.
Jacobsen, S.-E. 2011. The Situation for Quinoa and Its Production in Southern Bolivia: From
Economic Success to Environmental Disaster. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 197
(5): 39099. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00475.x.
Keen, Timothy. 2015. The Battle for Quinoa: The Bittersweet Reality of Globalization.
Washington, United States: The Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
http://search.proquest.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/1667731506/abstract/98
96DD90B22249ABPQ/1.
Kerssen, Tanya. n.d. Food Sovereignty and the Quionoa Boom: Challenges to Sustainable Re-
Peasantization in the Southern Altiplano of Bolivia. Third World Quarterly 36 (3): 489
507. doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1002992.
Kraidy, Marwan M. 2005. Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
LeVaux, Ari. 2013. Its OK To Eat Quinoa. Slate, January 25.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/quinoa_bad_for_bolivian_and_peruvian_fa
rmers_ignore_the_media_hand_wringing.html.
Lundberg, Jan. 2010. Bolivias Evo Morales: Capitalism and Plastic No, Mother Earth and
Indigenous Products, Yes. Culture Change, April 18.
McKay, Ben, Ryan Nehring, and Marygold Walsh-Dilley. 2014. The state of Food
Sovereignty in Latin America: Political Projects and Alternative Pathways in Venezuela,
Ecuador and Bolivia. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 11751200.
doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.964217.
Ofstehage, Andrew. 2012. The Construction of an Alternative Quinoa Economy: Balancing
Solidarity, Household Needs, and Profit in San Agustin, Bolivia. Agriculture and Human
Values 29 (4): 44154. doi:http://dx.doi.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1007/s10460-
012-9371-0.
 Sasson, 17

Programa Nacional de Asistencia Alimentaria (PRONAA) | SIPI. 2016. Accessed April 12.
http://www.sipi.siteal.org/politicas/364/programa-nacional-de-asistencia-alimentaria-
pronaa.
Quinoa Bad for Bolivian and Peruvian Farmers? Ignore the Media Hand-Wringing. 2016.
Accessed April 12.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/quinoa_bad_for_bolivian_and_peruvian_fa
rmers_ignore_the_media_hand_wringing.html.
Romero, Simon, and Sara Shahriari. 2011a. Quinoas Global Success Creates Quandary in
Bolivia. The New York Times, March 19.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/americas/20bolivia.html.
. 2011b. Quinoas Global Success Creates Quandary in Bolivia. The New York Times,
March 19. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/americas/20bolivia.html.
Stevens, Andrew. 2015. Quinoa Quandry: Cultural Tastes and Nutrition in Peru. University of
California, Berkeley. http://andrewwstevens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Quinoa.pdf.
Ton, G., and J. Bijman. 2006. The Role of Producer Organizations in the Process of
Developing an Integrated Supply Chain; Experiences from Quinoa Chain Development in
Bolivia. In International Agri-Food Chains and Networks: Management and
Organization, 97112. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Walsh-Dilley, Marygold. 2013. Negotiating Hybridity in Highland Bolivia: Indigenous Moral
Economy and the Expanding Market for Quinoa. The Journal of Peasant Studies 40 (4):
65982. doi:10.1080/03066150.2013.825770.
. 2016. Indigenous Reciprocity and Globalization in Rural Bolivia. Inter-American
Foundation. Accessed May 6. http://www.iaf.gov/resources/publications/grassroots-
development-journal/2012-focus-native-americans-and-their-resources/indigenous-
reciprocity-and-globalization-in-rural-bolivia.
Walsh-Dilley, Marygold, Wendy Wolford, and James McCarthy. 2016. Rights for Resilience:
Food Sovereignty, Pwoer and Resilience in Development Practice. Ecology and Society 21
(1). doi:10.5751/ES-07981-210111.
Winkel, T., H. D. Bertero, P. Bommel, J. Bourliaud, M. Chevarra Lazo, G. Cortes, P. Gasselin,
et al. 2012. The Sustainability of Quinoa Production in Southern Bolivia: From
Misrepresentations to Questionable Solutions. Comments on Jacobsen (2011, J. Agron.
Crop Sci. 197: 390399). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 198 (4): 31419.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2012.00506.x.