Spatializing Quality: Regional Protection and the Alternative Geography of Food

Abstract

The globalization of trade in foodstuffs is now a firmly established feature on the landscape of economic geography, although its impacts and desirability remain the source of controversy. Yet, while the liberalization of trade in food continues apace we are simultaneously witnessing a reassertion of foods with local and regional identities. This ‘counter-trend’ has led some economic and agricultural geographers to propose that an ‘alternative geography of food’ may be coming into view. If this contention is correct, it would seem to be implicated in new forms of food governance, notably European legislation that has provided legal protection to designated regional foods, through the ‘PDO’ and ‘PGI’ labels. In this paper we explore the background to the development of these protective devices, which, we argue, illustrates profound differences between ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ food cultures and agricultural systems within Europe. In stylized terms, we argue that the former places great emphasis on ‘efficient’ production of commodities while the latter retains strong affiliations to ‘ terroir’, tradition and artisanal production. Analysis of the spatial distribution of registered regional foodstuffs reflects this north-south divide, with more than 75 percent of the products registered in five southern EU states (France, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain). Our analysis, which compares the two ‘cultures of food’ using conventions theory, shows that spatial differentiation also exists at a regional level and that a similar proportion of PDO products originates from Less Favoured Areas (LFAs). This implies that the new geography of ‘alternative’ foods is becoming increasingly complex. We explore the obstacles and opportunities, arising within the two distinct food cultures of ‘north’ and ‘south’.

A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review

“…They can be produced by input-based agricultural farming systems and traded through globalised commoditybased food systems with low social, spatial and ecological embeddedness and little or no additional added value for farmers or the local/regional economy (e.g. geographical indications oriented to economic efficiency; Parrott et al 2002). They also can be traded in short or long supply chains in alternative food systems with strong social, spatial or ecological embeddedness and, in turn, equally distribute added value to all participants (e.g.…”

“…They also can be traded in short or long supply chains in alternative food systems with strong social, spatial or ecological embeddedness and, in turn, equally distribute added value to all participants (e.g. the French cheese "Comté" protected designation of origin, Bowen 2010; Parrott et al 2002). Accordingly, our analytical framework of agriculture models greatly helps to clarify the main characteristics of these different farming systems and socio-economic contexts in both absolute and relative terms.…”

You Are What You Eat: Gastronomy & Geography of Southern Spain

“…Finally, the concept of the "alternative geography of food," as presented by Nicholas Parrott, Natasha Wilson, and Jonathan Murdoch (2002), plays a role towards a more thorough understanding of Andalucían gastronomy. They describe the conflicting forces of globalization that have shaped the tastes and flavors of kitchens worldwide with the increasing sense of locality associated with European products labeled with the DOP stamp (denominación de origen protegida), indicating a very strict regional association.…”

Under the lens of embeddedness : socio-cultural perspective on home-grown school feeding in Ghana

“…For the most part, the territorial embeddedness of food has been seen as a distinguishing feature of different food systems where some food systems have been described as embedded and others as disembedded. Parrott et al (2002) distinguish between the food cultures of the global north which they consider disembedded because of the focus on economic efficiency and those of the global south, which they consider to be embedded in place, culture and society. Barham (2003) in a similar fashion explains that the quality label of embeddedness is created by emphasizing the link between production and territory.…”

“…The social, territorial, spatial and ecological dimensions of embeddedness have been the focus of much of the literature on agro-food networks (Hinrichs 2000;Hinrichs 2003;MoraguesFaus and Sonnino 2012;Pallares-Barbera et al 2004;Parrott et al 2002;Penker 2006;Sonnino 2007Sonnino , 2009Sonnino , 2010Winter 2003). Other writers (Granovetter 1985;Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993) have emphasized the role of social capital and trust in shaping economic outcomes.…”