Knowing Where It Comes From: Labeling Traditional Foods to Compete in a Global Market
274
Knowing Where It Comes From: Labeling Traditional Foods to Compete in a Global Market
274eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Labeling regimes have moved beyond intellectual property to embrace community-based protections, intangible cultural heritage, cultural landscapes, and indigenous knowledge. Reflecting a rich array of juridical, regulatory, and activist perspectives, these approaches seek to level the playing field on which food producers and consumers interact.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781609385347 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of Iowa Press |
| Publication date: | 08/15/2017 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 274 |
| File size: | 969 KB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
What Are Geographical Indications?
In summer 2015, a New York Times infographic about San Marzano tomatoes, a variety from around Mount Vesuvius, near Naples, Italy, brought the issue of the connection between food and its place of origin to the attention of American foodies. In ten colorful green and red panels, illustrator Nicholas Blechman explained what San Marzano tomatoes are and where they come from while alerting shoppers to the likelihood that they have been buying fake ones at premium prices (Blechman 2015). One panel explained how to recognize San Marzano tomatoes through ID numbers, seals, labels, and the basic rule of thumb that they are "never sold crushed, diced, or pulped." Blechman was not new to this kind of exposé. In 2014, his work about extra virgin olive oil from Italy divulged how the product bottled in Italy and labeled as Italian may really originate from other Mediterranean countries, namely, Greece and Turkey, while taking advantage of the reputation of Italian gastronomy, which tends to command higher prices (Blechman 2014). Worse, Blechman noted, other producers added cheaper oils, beta-carotene, and chlorophyll to further adulterate their olive oil. Uncovering widespread adulteration, the piece provoked heated reactions in Italy among those extra virgin olive oil producers that did maintain the highest-quality standards (Parasecoli 2014a).
In his olive oil infographic Blechman did not mention the existence of legal instruments in many European countries that not only connect a product to its precise area or areas of production but also define manufacturing methods, tying quality and reputation to origin. Illustrating the San Marzano history, Blechman instead mentioned Denominazione d'Origine Protetta (DOP), or PDO in English, Protected Designation of Origin. This legal category falls under the heading of "geographical indications" (GI), the most used and best established among all food-related place-based labels. At this point, however, things usually become confusing for most consumers, including self-proclaimed foodies. Although, as discussed in the introduction, the interest in where food comes from and in the stories of its producers is changing the market, especially in its higher segments, the instruments and labels that communicate and regulate that information often come across as muddled and complicated. For San Marzano producers, the adoption of a PDO means better protection from counterfeit tomatoes within Italy and abroad and better control over the distribution network of their tomatoes. However, it does not always translate into clearer and more available information for consumers, who are bombarded by a myriad of different messages and claims.
In fact, the ability to understand the difference between a PDO and other GIs in terms of what makes the product different — and worthy of higher prices — requires consumers' determination to educate themselves about intricate intellectual property systems. In Europe, the E.U. and national authorities support producers, distributors, and retailers in informing shoppers and in clarifying differences in cost, packaging, and overall availability, and yet, as we will see, their efforts are not as successful as they would hope. In other countries, where such systems have been introduced more recently, the learning curve for consumers (but also for distributors and retailers) is even steeper. Marketing difficulties may ultimately impact the producers' sales opportunities and the incomes of whole communities — especially rural ones — that rely on the labeled products for their survival. The stakes are even higher in developing countries, where GIs are being adopted as a tool to move crops and other food products out of unstable and often unfair commodity trade into more profitable niche markets, even if the latter are more difficult to navigate and the barriers to entry are higher due to costs and regulatory burdens.
Nevertheless, GIs have become the primary instruments used in national and international markets to attribute cultural value and monetize the link between the characteristics of foods, wine, and spirits and their places of origin. In their international aspects, GIs are regulated by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), one of the founding documents of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which now dictates rules of trade among nations. In his piece on San Marzano tomatoes, Blechman mentions details and regulatory complexities relevant for producers, exporters, trade agents, politicians, and — of course — consumers. In fact, GIs have become one of the issues holding back the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a bilateral agreement meant to institute a free-trade zone between the United States and the European Union that has been negotiated mostly in secrecy, despite a leak by Greenpeace of an April 2016 draft. After the United Kingdom's vote to exit the European Union and the reservations expressed by the new U.S. president over the agreement, TTIP approval has stalled reflecting its unpopularity among voters on both sides of the Atlantic.
Much tension among trading nations and confusion among consumers derive from the existence of two divergent perspectives on GIs, both rooted in enduring and respected legal approaches. On the one hand, the European perspective, hinted at in Blechman's piece, considers food and wine to emerge from traditions maintained by communities in specific places, the names of which have themselves become indicators of quality. From this perspective, GIs require separate regulations and legal protection (known for this reason as sui generis, Latin for "of its own kind"). On the other hand, the approach embraced by the United States and many other countries has been to extend already existing legal systems based on intellectual property marks to include food products. This is meant to emphasize the creativity, uniqueness, and entrepreneurship of individual producers, as well as to protect their financial and commercial investments, rather than to acknowledge traditions and their connections to specific places.
The legal systems that derive from the two approaches reflect divergent priorities and vastly dissimilar worldviews about labor, entrepreneurship, and business. Individual products are thus considered and treated differently when traded internationally, often bringing about unexpected and undesired consequences for producers and consumers. In this chapter, we examine the overarching principles for GIs as stipulated in the 1994 TRIPS, defined flexibly enough to legitimize both approaches. We then outline both systems individually, in terms of regulations and functioning, and identify the pros and cons of each while assessing how they both fit within the WTO framework despite their differences. In the following three chapters, we will look more closely at the historical development of these approaches, their distinct cultural, social, and political origins, and the controversies their differences generate in international trade.
The WTO Framework for Geographical Indications
Unlike its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO is a structured institution to which countries make a permanent commitment. As of 2017, the WTO included 164 member states. The countries that joined the organization most recently were Afghanistan and Liberia (2016), the Seychelles and Kazakhstan (2015), Yemen (2014), Tajikistan and the Lao People's Democratic Republic (2013), and the Russian Federation (2012). In terms of food-related issues, through the Agreement on Agriculture (one of the WTO founding documents) the WTO deals with internal matters, such as subsidies and all forms of domestic support, when they are deemed to cause international trade distortion. The WTO also regulates some health-related aspects of the food trade through the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and exchanges of services through the General Agreement on Trades in Services. This chapter, however, focuses on the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
Dwijen Rangnekar (2004a, 9) wrote that it was the European Union, having launched its own sui generis system in 1992, that determined the inclusion of GIs in the TRIPS provisions. The GI category would otherwise probably have been considered a form of traditional knowledge and as such (as we will see in chapter 7) excluded from the agreement. It was clear from the beginning, however, that the 1994 WTO document would be subject to change. Behind many of the controversial points debated in the WTO negotiations known as the Doha Development Round, begun in 2001, developing countries expressed their determination to have their voices and priorities taken into greater consideration than they had been at the time of the inception of the WTO (Wilkinson, Hannah, and Scott 2014). In fact, following the development of regional trade agreements and WTO members' own admissions after the December 2015 meeting in Nairobi that "some wish to identify and discuss other issues for negotiation; others do not," observers now consider the Doha Round practically defunct. The organization specified, "Any decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on such issues would need to be agreed by all Members" (WTO 2015; New York Times Editorial Board 2016). When the original WTO treaties were discussed, some countries were trying to find their footing after the dismantling of the Eastern Bloc, while others were struggling to repay their national debt and to implement the austere reforms and privatization measures (known as structural adjustment) imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in exchange for financial support (De Schutter 2009a; United Nations Development Programme 2003, 109–46). Many developing countries resent the economic and trade policies (referred to by some commentators as the Washington Consensus) that steered the WTO negotiations and shaped its guiding principles in terms of elimination of barriers to trade (Harvey 2005). Such policies, which often had a negative impact on public crop marketing agencies, tariffs, and taxation in developing countries, as well as on investments in research and development, have in some cases contributed to national food insecurity (Heidhues and Obare 2011; Patel 2010).
Before delving into the legal definition and the regulations provided by TRIPS, it is useful to explore the very concept of GI and its meaning. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the U.N. agency founded in 1967 to "promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world," states, "A geographical indication is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin" (2015a, 8). As "distinctive signs used to differentiate competing goods," they constitute "intangible assets" with "interesting marketing potential in terms of product branding." WIPO specifies that these signs can be either geographical (such as "champagne") or nongeographical (such as "cava" or "argan oil"), as long as the origin of a product is linked to characteristics and/or fame. Geographical indications are applied to agricultural products, food, wine and spirits, and handicrafts, which all show a close connection with their origin (10). According to WIPO, determination of the GI signs to be used is left to national legislation (2015a, 9; 2015c). Since they highlight "specific qualities of a product that are due to human factors found in the product's place of origin, such as specific manufacturing skills and traditions," GIs can also be applied to artisanal and handicraft products beyond food, wine, and spirits (which nevertheless constitute the majority) (2015a, 10). Furthermore, GIs can be used by all the producers in their place of origin, as long as they meet all the necessary requirements in terms of quality, methods, and other characteristics. WIPO explains that "those who produce and market geographical indications must engage in collective action with regard to production methods, quality standards and control, as well as product distribution and marketing" (7).
GIs did not develop out of the blue, in a legal void. In the existing international agreements on intellectual property, various concepts and terms have been, and still are, used to indicate the relationship between a product and its origin, varying in terms of specificity and strictness of application. At one end of the spectrum, the formulation indication of source is the most encompassing among these legal categories, while the strictest is appellation of origin. The indication of source was first mentioned in Article 1.2 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (established in 1883 and amended several times until 1979) and later expanded to become the core of the 1891 Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods. Although neither document provides a precise definition, the term has come to simply indicate that a service or product originates in a specific country, group of countries, region, or locality but that none of its qualities, characteristics, or fame can be essentially attributed to its place of origin. It may correspond to wording such as "product of" and "made in," followed by the name of a place or country.
As noted, the strictest category defining the relationship between a product, its features, and its origin is appellation of origin, mentioned in the Paris Convention and then later defined by the 1958 Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and Their International Registration as "the geographical denomination of a country, region, or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality or characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors" (my emphasis). As WIPO (2015a, 14) explains, this usually means that the raw materials for an appellation of origin must be sourced from its place of origin and that the entire process of production must occur in that same location, establishing a particularly strong connection between a product and its origin. The definition in the Lisbon Agreement, which counts twenty-eight signatory countries as of 2017, corresponds to a system of protection whereby appellations of origin are registered in an international register established by the agreement (now managed by WIPO) and are automatically recognized and protected in the territory of all signatory countries. In May 2015 the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications was adopted, formally extending the protections of the Lisbon Agreement to GIs and allowing intergovernmental organizations to be become parties to the agreement. As of 2017, only fifteen countries from Europe, Africa, and Latin America have signed it, and it has not yet taken effect. Despite its limits in terms of effectiveness on the global market, from a legal point of view registration in the Lisbon system (pertaining to the 1958 Lisbon Agreement, the 1967 Stockholm Act that revised it, and the 2015 Geneva Act) makes it more difficult to consider as generic a name linked to the geographical origin of a product. Outside the Lisbon system, the category of appellation of origin appears only in legislation establishing special systems of protection for GIs, as discussed further below.
Geographical indications, included in the 1994 TRIPS Agreement of the WTO, can be considered an intermediate category in the spectrum of concepts ranging from the looser indications of source to the stricter appellations of origin. In fact, GIs could be approached as a particular, more restricted kind of indication of source (Bodenhausen 1969, 23). In turn, appellations of origin are often considered as a subset of GIs that require a stronger link between a product and its place of origin. In the WTO framework, GIs "identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin" (Art. 22.1). TRIPS does not mention the "exclusive" attribution of the characteristics of a product to its place of origin, which is included in the definition of appellation of origin as spelled out in the Lisbon Agreement, but rather it settles on specifying an "essential," less limiting connection. Furthermore, it adds reputation to the features determined by the origin of a product while eliminating reference to "natural and human factors" as determinant in a product's origin. Less stringent, the TRIPS definition allows its implementation within the already existing national systems of protection of intellectual property while providing a more defined legal framework than the one offered by the concept of indication of source in the Paris Convention.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Knowing Where It Comes From"
by .
Copyright © 2017 University of Iowa Press.
Excerpted by permission of University of Iowa Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Chronology of Laws, Treaties, and Administrative Measures Introduction: Food, Place, and Power in the Global Market 1. What Are Geographical Indications? 2. Geographical Indications: The Sui Generis Systems 3. Geographical Indications: The Mark-Based Systems 4. Geographical Indications, Global Trade Wars, and Local Development 5. Civil Society in Action: The Slow Food Presidia 6. Place, Landscape, and Cultural Heritage 7. Food, Communities, and Indigenous Knowledge Conclusion: The Future of Place-Based Labels References IndexWhat People are Saying About This
“Knowing Where It Comes From is a singular achievement on the construction of local food in our contemporary societies. The critical and experienced perspective of Parasecoli reveals successfully the hits, interests, needs, and contradictions of the world of today’s food.”
“This book demonstrates the global importance of place-based labels in contemporary food culture, fusing issues of development, heritage, and food security along the way. I particularly found Parasecoli an expert guide through the complex trade agreements, legal codes, and practical considerations that make ‘place’ matter for the future of food.”
“This is a definitive account of place-based food labeling. Whether comparing the legal terms of European protected designations of origin versus U.S. trademarks or detailing the cultural imaginaries of Slow Food’s Arc of Taste, Parasecoli is a savvy guide to the political intricacies and social consequences of geographical indications.”
“This lucid investigation of place-based food and drink labels lays out the intersection of trade networks and intellectual property regimes over the past century and provides important new insights. The legal and political engagements with these labels have complex, contradictory, and inconsistent consequences, thus providing a crucial cautionary tale to both producers and consumers.”