lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e82

Contents lists avai

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / j rurstud

New rural livelihoods or museums of production? Quality food initiativesin practice

Sarah Bowen a,*, Kathryn De Master b

aDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8107, Raleigh, NC 27695, USAbCenter for Environmental Studies, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA

Keywords:HeritageTypical productsMultifunctionalityQuality standardsGeographical indicationsFrancePolandEuropean Union

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 919 515 0452; faxE-mail address: sarah_bowen@ncsu.edu (S. Bowen

0743-0167/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.08.002

a b s t r a c t

In recent years, the European Union’s stated commitment to the principle of multifunctionality within itsCommon Agricultural Policy has fostered a resurgence of interest in recovering and protecting theheritage and traditions associated with local agricultural products. In spite of, or perhaps because of, thegrowing political and economic salience of heritage-based initiatives, however, we argue that it isimportant to interrogate the meanings and assumptions that underlie notions of heritage and tradition.In this paper, we use case study research from France and Poland to explore the potential contradictionsassociated with heritage-based food systems. While quality initiatives create essential spaces formaintaining rural livelihoods in the face of the homogenizing trends in the global agro-food system,particularly for regions where traditional agriculture has been economically marginalized, they also havethe potential to undermine local specificity and privilege powerful extralocal actors at the expense oflocal communities. We pay particular attention to how, in practice, these initiatives may (1) reduce thediversity of available products, (2) create static notions of culture and (3) fundamentally change or distortthe character of products in promoting the shift from local to extralocal markets. Our analysis suggeststhat a more careful investigation of heritage-based initiatives’ vulnerabilities is warranted, particularlywith respect to the varied nature of local contexts. Initiatives that merely codify cultural productswithout taking the social-organizational context into account risk becoming little more than “museumsof production.”

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the European Union’s stated commitment tothe principle of multifunctionality within its Common Agricul-tural Policy has fostered a resurgence of interest in recovering andprotecting the heritage and traditions associated with local agri-cultural products. Origin-labeled products (e.g., Protected Desig-nations of Origin, PDO; Protected Geographical Indications, PGI),for example, link the production of agricultural goods to partic-ular territories (i.e., the Champagne region in France; the areasurrounding Parma, Italy) as well as the historic conditions ofproduction that have evolved over time in these regions. Morethan 700 PDOs and PGIs for food products have been registered inthe European Union, as well as more than 4200 for wines andspirits. Other initiatives seek to counteract homogenization andthe increasing loss of species diversity in global agriculture by

: þ1 919 515 2610.).

All rights reserved.

protecting heritage breeds of domestic livestock and heirloomseed varieties. And agritourism initiatives frequently aim todemonstrate the “synergy” (Van der Ploeg and Roep, 2003)between heritage-based tourism and agriculture when promotingrural development.

Although we recognize that the institutionalization of particularaspects of culinary heritage can create vital spaces for maintainingrural communities and cultures, we also argue that the very processof institutionalization can eradicate and diminish locality. It is thusnecessary to examine the assumptions and power relations thatunderlie heritage-based initiatives. The passage from local toextralocal markets, for example, introduces new organizationalrequirements into the supply chain. Further, new political andinstitutional arrangements promoting regulatory harmonizationintroduce new quality standards into the production and distri-bution process. Both processes result in new relations of poweralong the supply chain. As producers, consumers, and govern-mental officials engage in initiatives to protect and valorize theunique heritage of their regions and cuisines, it is important thatthey recognize these potential contradictions.

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e8274

2. New paradigms? Quality food initiatives and theoreticalfoundations

In the European Union, where many of these heritage-basedinitiatives are associated with the principle of multifunctionality(as institutionalized within the Common Agricultural Policy), theresulting “synergistic benefits” (Van der Ploeg and Roep, 2003) areperceived to have positive effects on overall rural development(Warner, 2007). For some analysts, this represents nothing short ofa “new and strong paradigm” for agriculture (Van der Ploeg andRoep, 2003). Yet within that general framework, analysts identifyregional variationwith respect to relocalization and heritage-basedefforts. Fonte (2008), drawing on insights from the CORASONresearch project into the intersections between locality andknowledge in eleven European nations1, identifies two generalperspectives reflected in efforts to relocalize food traditions inEurope. In someWestern European nations, relocalization reflectedan effort to “reconnect” with the food system and valorize foodsconnected to territory in order to rebuild the linkages betweenproducers and consumers. Yet in other regions of Europe, primarilythose where agriculture has been economically marginalized, an“origin-of-food” perspective holds sway and is a component ofattempts to engage in integrated rural development.

Some scholars see the development and valorization of regionalproducts in Europe as a key part of efforts to promote a kind of rural“re-peasantization” in agricultural communities (Van der Ploeg andRoep, 2003; Knickel and Renting, 2000; also see Gilarek et al., 2003;Granberg et al., 2001; Tovey, 2001). Gilarek et al. (2003) employ theterm “backwardsmodernization” in relation to Polish agriculture tosuggest that, in an era of agricultural modernization, farmers mightparadoxically find profitable markets for products that recall moretradition-based, agrarian, and so-called “backwards” productionstrategies. Through the profitable production of nostalgia, farmersfind what Potter and Tilzey (2005) term “spaces for post-productivism within an inherently productivist agriculture. [by]map[ing] out an alternative ‘consumption countryside.’” Therenewed focus on agricultural heritage in the European Unionreflects the guiding principle of “multifunctionality” within agri-culture; this perspective maintains that farming “not only producesfood but also sustains rural landscapes, protects biodiversity,generates employment, and contributes to the viability of ruralareas” (Erjavec et al., 2009: 45; also see Potter and Burney, 2002).Potter and Tilzey (2005: 590) further explain that advocates ofstrong multifunctionality “position their case firmly within whatReiger (1977) has called ‘the moral economy of the EuropeanCommunity’ (sic) by regarding the activity of farming as one of thedefining conditions of rural space, the purpose of state assistancebeing to create the conditions under which family farming, rurallandscapes, and society can flourish.” Under the rubric of multi-functionality, promoting and preserving cultural landscapes,regionally significant products such as Protected Denominations ofOrigin, heritage livestock breeds, and entrepreneurial agritourismprojects help foster high degrees of “jointness” and “synergy” (Vander Ploeg and Roep, 2003: 40).

In spite of, or perhaps because of, the growing political andeconomic salience of heritage-based initiatives, however, it isimportant to interrogate the meanings and assumptions thatunderlie notions of heritage and tradition. We argue that theintegration of heritage and tradition into local food systems reflectsboth particular meanings that people and communities share intheir relationship(s) with their food, and specific practices of

1 Case studies were drawn from research in Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Germany,Spain, Greece, Portugal, Southern Italy, Poland, and Norway.

production and consumption. First, the consumption and prepa-ration of food are bound up in local histories and collectivememories. Slow Food activist Alberto Capatti, for example, explainsthat Slow Food “is profoundly linked to the values of the past. Thepreservation of typical products, the protection of species fromgenetic manipulation, the cultivation of memory and taste educa-tiondthese are all aspects of this passion of ours for time” (p. 5, ascited byMorgan et al., 2006). Trubek (2005, 2008) calls taste a formof local knowledge in places like France, where communities relyon particular foods and taste to remember experiences, explainmemories, or express a sense of identity. Bérard and Marchenay(2008) argue that shared practices and history are the mostessential aspect of localized food systems. They state, “All localizedproducts are founded on a lowest common denominator e histor-ical depth and shared know-how e that defines “origin” in basicterms and allows us to think of these products as a family.” Thecollective dimension makes these products a part of the localculture and helps to distinguish provenance (meaning to issue froma place) from origin (meaning to truly be from a place).

At the same time, the meaning that consumers and producersattribute to traditional foods is also explicitly political and opposi-tional. The re-emphasis on the cultural heritage of food products isa conscious response to the standardizing and industrializingtendencies of globalization. Bessière (1998) states that “heritage is[not]. solely a link betweenpast and present, but also. a reservoirof meaning necessary to understand the world: a resource in orderto elaborate alterity and consequently identity.” The values andmeanings attached to food are in turn linked to particular practices,which,moreover, involve shifts in social relations and strategies tiedto power in the food system. By promoting and protecting specificpractices and skills, local actors re-appropriate and revalorize whathas been lost, while also helping to create and innovate (Bessière,1998). According to Ray (1998), the protection of agricultural heri-tage can be seen as “[an] attempt by rural areas to localize economiccontrol” by “increasingly adopting culturalmarkers as key resourcesin the pursuit of territorial development objectives . [and] reva-lorize[ing] place through its cultural identity.” The commitment to“rescuing” traditional agricultural products is therefore not just “asalvage effort akin to preserving a language or plant species fromextinction,” as described by Gade (2004), but more importantly,a potential means of sustaining the rural families and communitieswho have built their livelihoods around these products. Barham(2003) states that concepts like terroir and heritage reflect “aconscious and active social construction of the present. to recoverand revalorize elements of the rural past to be used in assertinga new vision of the rural future.”

Although the narratives that surround traditional or artisanalfood products tell us thatwe are consuming “the product of a uniqueand traditional farming system, surviving in a sea of mass produc-tion,” Pratt (2007) reminds us that traditional or artisanal products“are not survivals as such, they are generated out of sustainedcommercial activity, state regulatory systems, and internationaltrade agreements.” As such, the selection, protection, and institu-tionalization of these traditional and heritage-based products areenmeshed in particular bounded political, institutional, and socialsettings. Local actors mark identities and define specifications forproducts at least inpart in response tomarkets and competition, andtraditional products are flanked by a complex web of laws, Inter-national Property Rights, and state regulatory agencies that codifyand protect who has the right to produce these goods and how theyare produced. While some of these products might be stronglyembedded in their localities and collective histories, others havebeen appropriated by extralocal actors or altered to conform tospecific market demands or logistical requirements. Many scholarshave cited a need for increased attention to the ways these

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e82 75

initiatives fail to adequately rectify, andmay indeed reinforce, unjustsocial power relations (Goodman, 2004; Winter, 2003). Hinrichs(2000: 301) cautions that to assume that locallydor territoriallybaseddsupply chains preclude exploitative behavior and unevenpower relations “conflates spatial relations with social relations.”Goodman (2004) states that due to “limitations of competition,replicability. and uneven development,” quality schemes may notadequately address longstanding structural concerns for ruralcommunities, such as income inequality and social exclusion.

Because notions like heritage and tradition are social construc-tions that have concrete effects on the distribution of resourceswithin territories and the way that markets evolve, it is importantto analyze the power relations inherent in the definition of theseconcepts. In this paper, we use case study research to explore thecontradictions that heritage-based food systems can engender andtheway that these contradictions are linked to broader inequalities.We pay particular attention to how, in practice, these initiativeshave the potential to (1) reduce the diversity of available products,(2) create static notions of culture and (3) fundamentally change ordistort the character of products in promoting the shift from local toextralocal markets. We argue that while quality initiatives createessential spaces for maintaining rural livelihoods in the face of thehomogenizing trends in the global agro-food system, particularlyfor regions where traditional agriculture has been economicallymarginalized, they also have the potential to undermine localspecificity and privilege powerful extralocal actors at the expenseof local communities.

3. Methods

The fieldwork upon which this analysis is based took place intwo distinct places: France and Poland. France and Poland werespecifically chosen because they reflect regional variation in howthe “relocalization” of food has been defined and institutionalized(Fonte, 2008).Within these countries, we examine four examples ofheritage-based quality initiatives. We analyze two cases (Corsicancheese and Comté cheese) from France, where quality labels havea substantial history and place in national agricultural regulation,and two cases (Narew River region multifunctional quality initia-tives and Oscypek cheese) from Poland, where new regulations andinstitutional arrangements are affecting rapid shifts in the way“heritage” and “tradition” are constructed and practiced.

In this project, we adopt the case studymethod. Case studies areparticularly useful in developing an understanding of the contra-dictions or unexpected outcomes of particular processes. As Feaginet al. (1991: 277) write in their influential book, A Case for the CaseStudy:

“Case studies. lend themselves to emergent theories andinterpretations. They usually have an emergent, open-endedquality that facilitates the discovery of new theories of humanbehavior. Studying social life in situ and in diversity often addsthe benefit of unanticipated findings and data sources.”

These four cases serve as a lens through to analyze the positiveopportunities afforded by the institutional promotion of authenticfood cultures, as well as the problematic vulnerabilities associatedwith these same initiatives. The case study method allows us to“reconstruct” the existing body of literature on values-based foodlabels and territorially embedded agrifood systemsdelaborating,correcting, and refining itdthrough showing how it does, or doesnot, account for the cases at hand. The constant refining andreconstruction of existing theory makes the in-depth investigationof these four cases relevant not simply in an ethnographic sense butalso in more generalizable terms (Burawoy, 1998) and in relation toother cases.

These cases are drawn from extensive field research data fromtwo larger extended investigations of quality initiatives. One studywas conducted by one of the authors between February and June2007, and is an in-depth investigation of origin-labeled products inFrance. The primary objective of this research was to examine thepower dynamics and struggles over quality and production normswithin the supply chain for Comté cheese, the highest-volume AOCcheese in France. 79 semi-structured interviews were conductedwith actors throughout the supply chain, including dairy farmers,cheese makers (fromagers), cheese ripeners (affineurs), govern-mental officials, and members of the collective governing body, theInterprofessional Committee for Gruyère from Comté (CIGC,according to its French acronym). Questions focused on the rela-tionship between the interview participant and other actors in thesupply chain, the participant’s perceptions of the organization ofthe supply chain and the distribution of power, and the partici-pant’s view on the primary problems associated with the supplychain. Participants were also asked to identify the primary factorsthat contributed to the quality of Comté cheese.

Another case from this same project, conducted in March 2007,was a collectivefield study of cheese production in the French islandof Corsica. One of the authors participated in the study, organized bythe Centre Internationale d’Études Supérieures en Sciences Agrono-miques in Montpellier, France. 18 semi-structured interviews wereconducted (by teams of researchers) with cheese producers, dairyfarmers, consumers, retailers, and governmental officials. Inter-views focused on participants’ perspectives of different approachesto product qualification, how participants’ defined quality, and howthey wanted cheese production in Corsica to evolve. At the end ofthe project, researchers engaged in a “collective synthesis” offindings.

The second study, conducted between March and September of2006 by one of the authors, is an investigation of certified organicfarming in Poland. The primary focus of this research was toexamine the transformations occurring in the certified organicfarm sector, in the context of Poland’s 2004 accession to theEuropean Union. Particularly relevant to this paper, the studyincluded an exploration and interrogation of the multifunctionalinitiatives being put in place in Poland as part of efforts toharmonize Poland’s agricultural policies with those of the Euro-pean Union. The subsidies supporting organic farming representone of these, but this study also incorporated an exploration ofadditional multifunctional initiatives, including the promotion ofregional products, the production of domestic heritage livestockbreeds, and the development of regional agritourism. 100 in-depthinterviews were conducted with certified organic farmersthroughout Poland, many who were engaged in complementaryheritage-based initiatives; an additional 40 interviews were con-ducted with other actors in the organic farming sector. Approxi-mately 20 of these interviews were conducted in the Narew regionwhere heritage-based products have become a significant compo-nent of rural development initiatives. These multifunctionalinitiatives in the Narew region are one of our cases; the other is anemergent regional product, Oscypek cheese. For this case, we drawnot only from our own interviews in Poland, but from secondarydata from a related investigation into Oscypek cheese conducted bysociologists Krzysztof Gorlach and Tomasz Adamski at JagiellonianUniversity.

4. Background and overview of cases

4.1. Comté cheese case

Comté is a cooked and pressed cheese madewith unpasteurizedmilk from the Montbéliarde cow, a local breed. Small farmers in the

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e8276

Jura Massif region in eastern France have produced cheese since atleast the 12th century, as a means of preserving milk forconsumption during the harsh winters. In 1958, the Frenchgovernment recognized Comté cheese as an AOC, and in 1963, theInterprofessional Committee for Gruyère from Comté (CIGC) wasformed to regulate the Comté label and codify the rules ofproduction. The current AOC region includes the entire departmentof Jura and parts of the departments of Doubs and Ain. Today, 3200dairy farmers are organized into 169 fruitières, cooperatively ownedcheese producers. The cooperatively managed fruitières produce86% of Comté cheese; private firms are responsible for only 14% ofComté cheese (Colinet et al., 2006). After receiving the milk fromthe dairy farmers, the fruitières make huge rounds of Comté thatweigh an average of 35 kg (77 pounds). The large number of smallfruitières accounts for the diversity in tastes and flavors that isassociated with Comté cheese and highly valued by supply chainactors. The cheese is then aged for a minimum of four months byone of 20 affineurs, or cheese ripeners. Because of the strict rulesand commitment to artisanal productionmethods that characterizethe supply chain, French consumers and industry leaders recognizeComté as one of the most traditional cheeses in France. In addition,Comté cheese is the highest-volume GI cheese in France, andbetween 1992 and 2005, Comté cheese production increased from35,016 tons to 49,435 tons (DRAF, 2006, as cited in Colinet et al.,2006). Comté cheese has been cited by both scholars and govern-mental officials as one of the most successful examples of usingprotective heritage-based labels to stimulate rural development.

4.2. Corsican cheese case

Farmers on the French island of Corsica, which is located in theMediterranean Sea and characterized by its rugged, mountainousterrain, have a long tradition of cheese production. Historically,small farmers, particularly in the highlands of central Corsica,milked grass-fed sheep and/or goats and then used themilk tomakecheeses that they sold directly to local consumers. Corsican cheeseis known, above all, for its diversity. Five traditional cheeses, whichcorrespond to particular micro-regions within Corsica and differentproduction methods, have been identified (Casgiu Calinzaninchu,Casgiu Niulinchu, Casgiu Venachese, Casgiu Bastelicacciu, Cuscio).Importantly, though, neither the methods nor the territories ofproduction have been codifieddthe type ofmilk used (sheep’smilk,goat’s milk, or a combination of the two), the size of the cheese, andthe conditions and duration of the aging process all vary fromfarmer to farmer (Siadou, 2004). Because consumers historicallypurchased their cheese directly from the farmstead producers,a formal labeling scheme was seen as unnecessary. In recent years,however, a series of market shifts have prompted Corsican dairyfarmers, cheese producers, and local governmental officials to begindiscussing the possibility of an AOC label for Corsican cheese2.Producers are concerned that extralocal actors are exploiting theimage of Corsican cheese without adhering to the “spirit ofproduction” of the cheese. Because milk produced in Corsica sellsfor a significantly higher price than milk produced in mainlandFrance or Italy (due to feed costs, transportation costs, etc.), large-scale cheese producers buy milk from the mainland, but, by pro-cessing their cheese on the island, are able tomarket their cheese asCorsican cheese. The challenge is how to protect the integrity of theCorsican cheese-making tradition while still maintaining the highlevels of diversity that have always characterized it.

2 Brocciu, a Corsican cheese made from the whey of goat’s and/or sheep’s milk,was awarded AOC status in 1998 (INRA, 2004). The new AOC that is being discussedwould be a more general label protecting Corsican cheeses.

4.3. Multifunctional quality initiatives in the Narew River regioncase

In the Narew River valley in the Podlaskie region of North-western Poland, a series of EU-funded rural development projectshelp protect a variety of natural and agricultural resources: localcheeses, white storks, river meadows and grasslands, and PolishRed Cows and green-legged chickens (recognized domestic heri-tage breeds). Encompassing the Narew wetlands, the EU-fundedagri-environmental projects are situated in and around a cluster offarms and small villages in the region and reflect the EU’s concept ofthe “multifunctional village.” Narew valley farmers receive multi-functional subsidies from the CAP’s second pillar and also receivedEU transition grant assistance in advance of the EU accession in theform of SAPARD funds, as well as other forms of support for specificregional initiatives. The Narew case demonstrates the potential formultifunctional agricultural initiatives to enhance conditions forrural development and agro-ecological health and stability. At thesame time, the Narew region case illuminates concerns regardingthe vulnerability of the region’s farmers to potentially fickleexternal supports (in the form of tourism and subsidy funds),perhaps hindering prospects for long-term sustainable growthbased on resources that are internal to the valley and region.

4.4. Oscypek cheese case

Wallachian shepherd farmers in the mountains of southernPoland have produced Oscypek cheese, a smoked salted sheep’smilk cheese, since the 15th century. The Wallachians tenda particular breed of sheep adapted to the climate of the Podhaleregion; from this breed farmers gathered both milk (for cheeseproduction) and wool. The traditional method for making Oscypekcheese is an intricate, multi-step, and highly seasonal processinvolving non-pasteurized sheep’s milk, a wooden smoking shed,and shepherding farmers who pass their cheesemaking knowledgefrom generation to generation. In the 1990s, economic shiftsfostered a precipitous drop in the price of wool, reducing theincentive for shepherds to continue shearing their sheep andproducing wool. The result was what Gorlach and Adamski (2006)term the “de-coupling of [cheese-making]. from shepherding.”Gorlach et al. (2006) further identified one result of this decoupledproduction as a new trend in which non-shepherding farmersbegan producing a type of Oscypek that does not employ traditionalmethods, to serve the tourist or mass consumption market. Inresponse, there was also a resurgence of interest in protecting thetraditional methods from this dilution of authenticity. Yet the resulthas been not a return to strictly traditional methods but rathera type of “neo-traditional” certified Oscypek that valorizes heritageand promotes the image of a return to the traditions of earlyshepherds, while still shifting some of the original productiontraditions. This “neo-traditional” Oscypek is now recognized by theEU as Poland’s first PDO, a certification that has generatedcontroversy.

5. Institutionalizing culture: contradictions

Our analysis of heritage-based quality initiatives in France andPoland indicates that the process of institutionalizing culture cangenerate unintended consequences. We identify three potentialcontradictions in particular. First, a wide range of actors e bothlocal and extralocal, with diverse perspectives and motivations e isinvolved in the construction and definition of a region’s traditionalfoods and customs. Conflicts can arisewhen extralocal actors do notvalue the same aspects of traditional cultures or foods as localactors (Ray, 1998; Bessière, 1998). Leitch (2003) warns against the

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e82 77

“commodification of tradition,” in which products with distinctivesocial histories are patented and appropriated by particular groupsof actors in order to access niche markets. Second, formal systemsof codification risk reducing a complex system of farmer knowledgeand traditional practices to a set of easily measurable and verifiablestandards. In doing so, they may stifle the diversity that has char-acterized these products for many generations, contributing tostandardization and homogenization instead of truly valorizing andprotecting the diversity of agricultural products. Third, the insti-tutionalization of local quality initiatives has the potential to fixcultural food expressions in time and create overly static notions ofculture. The risk, according to Barham (2003), is that the country-side and the customs defined as central to rural identity willundergo a process of “Disneyfication” as they become “livingmuseums for visitors from the city, a kind of ‘rurality under glass.”

We suggest that each of these consequences has the potential toaccentuate vulnerabilities and problematic power relations. In spiteof these unintended consequences, however, our analysis alsoshows that if attention is given to specific socio-organizational andcultural contexts, these quality initiatives have the potential tocontribute to meaningful rural development.

5.1. Reducing diversity

Certification schemes and quality labels privilege and aim toprotect the diverse agro-ecological resources and the deeply rootedtraditions and cultural practices that have interacted in the devel-opment of unique foods and tastes (Trubek, 2008; Bérard andMarchenay, 2006; Bérard et al., 2005). As such, they provide analternative to the homogenized, standardized goods that areubiquitous in grocery stores around the world. Norms and stan-dards are essential to the preservation of traditional productionmethods and rural landscapes, particularly as the markets for theseproducts expand beyond the local region and as new extralocalactors enter the supply chain. However, in the same way thata museummight select certain artistic representations of a culturalperiod for its display while deciding against the inclusion of others,the very process of codifying the production process may threatenthe diversity and specificity of these traditional products.

The production of AOC cheeses in France, a country character-ized by its strong cultural and political commitment to the diversityand specificity of food products, exemplifies an effort to use certi-fication schemes and quality labels to protect diversity. Many AOCspecifications are explicitly designed to preserve the link betweenthe unique tastes and flavors of typical products and the terroirassociated with their regions of origin. The specifications for manyAOC cheeses, for instance, require the use of rawmilk, in an effort toallow the specific flavors that are tied to the native species andclimate of particular milk-producing regions to emerge (Paxson,2008). This ensures that even within a particular category ofcheese (Roquefort, Comté), the cheeses produced in differentmicro-regions retain their unique tastes and flavors.

Quality schemes like the French AOC label help preserve diver-sity by maintaining traditional production methods and links tolocal ecological resources; however, these certification schemesalso necessarily freeze production techniques. Even as the localcultures and production methods that have created these uniqueproducts are constantly adapting to changing market, social, andbiophysical conditions, regulatory mechanisms fix productiontechniques in time and space. In doing so, these schemes and labelshave the potential to reduce, rather than enhance, the diversity thatcharacterizes many local products. As many scholars have noted,the creation and enforcement of quality standards is highly politi-cized (Guthman, 2004, 2007; Renard, 2003; Marsden and Arce,1995); competing definitions of quality reflect differences in

farming/processing systems, cultural traditions, organizationalstructures, consumer perceptions, and institutional supports(Renting et al., 2003). As diverse methods of production andunderstandings of quality are necessarily distilled into one over-arching quality standard, the process of setting the standardbecomes key. Whose definitions of quality are privileged, and whateffects does this have on the local culture?

In the case of Comté cheese, produced in eastern France, mostsupply chain actors see the diversity of Comté cheese as its mostimportant strength. Most fundamentally, all actors see the speci-ficity of the milk and the milk’s ability to “translate” the terroir ofthe region as essential components of cheese quality. As one affi-neur explained,

“Whenwe areworking with rawmilk, we give themilk the rightto express its entire life, until the moment that it becomescheese. We do not intervene in order to steer it into a specifictaste. Instead of having guaranteed regularity, something that isconstant, by working with raw milk, we know that our cheeseshave higher quality, that we have something that is sublime”(Author interviews, 2007).

The diversity of taste and the link between terroir and quality aremaintained not only by individual actors’ practices, but also bythe presence of a large number of small fruitières spread throughoutthe entire GI territory. The long history of cooperative fruitières inthe region is unique, and a major objective of the changingproduction specifications has been tomaintain amaximumnumberof these fruitières. A Comté cheese producer noted,

“Themain factor (in the quality of Comté) is diversity. That is thestrength (“la richesse”) of Comtédthat even with 50,000 tons(produced per year), we are able to preserve this diversity.Before, each small village had its own fruitière; sometimes, if thevillage was a little bigger, there were two fruitières in the vil-lage. The milk was delivered by handdthe proximity betweenthe milk producers and the fruitière was indispensable. After-wards, with the modernization of the collection process, thefruitières’ costs increased (which led to concentration). With themodernization (of the process, and the increased costs), therehas been a decrease in the number of fruitières. The response ofthe CIGC has been to establish rules to prevent further decreasesin the number of fruitières. The most important thing is topreserve the diversity of the cheesedthe link to the terroir thatcreates the richness of the product” (Author interviews, 2007).

Two major measures have been established to maintain thenetwork of fruitières and preserve the diversity of Comté cheese:a 25 km maximum radius for milk collection, established in 1998;and a maximum processing capacity ceiling per fromagerie, nomore than thirty times the average annual milk production of allComté farms, established in 2007. These norms help ensure the linkbetween the taste of the cheese and its particular location ofproduction, and also help local actors maintain their positionwithin the supply chain vis-à-vis powerful extralocal actors. Inaddition, the belief that quality permeates all stages of the supplychain reinforces each actor’s common interest in working togetherto promote quality.

Unfortunately, in some cases, the very process of establishingnorms and standards can serve to reduce the diversity of theproducts that these rules are trying to protect, as the case of Cor-sican cheese shows. As noted above, small farmers on the Frenchisland of Corsica have a long history of producing farmsteadcheeses from sheep’s or goat’s milk. Like Comté, Corsican cheese isrecognized and valued for its diversity; unlike Comté, neither themethods nor the territories for producing Comté cheese have beencodified. Until recently, most Corsican cheese was sold locally, and

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e8278

producers had never articulated a need for a formal labelingscheme. In the past few years, supply chain actors have begunconsidering whether an AOC label for Corsican cheese is necessary.

The production of Corsican cheese by extralocal actors, who usemilk from mainland France, drives this discussion. The use of “off-site” milk threatens the economic livelihoods of the Corsican dairyfarmers. In addition, it threatens the quality of the cheese, sinceCorsican cheese producers and consumers believe that the uniquebiophysical characteristics (soil type, native plant species, micro-climate) of the places where the goats and sheep graze are trans-lated into the taste and flavor of the milk. Equally important,especially since the late 1970s, industrial cheese producers haveexpanded their production. They have developed their own prod-ucts, “inspired” by the traditional Corsican cheeses, but notnecessarily corresponding with the local cheese culture, farmerknowledge, or production methods. As a result, a wide range ofcheeses and cheese producers exists in Corsica today e rangingfrom very traditional cheeses, produced in small quantities by localfarmers and sold directly to consumers, to “Corsica” brand cheese,produced by Lactalis (the world’s largest cheese maker) usingimported milk3. In response, the traditional cheese producers,together with some local governmental officials, have proposeda formal labeling system as a means of protecting their product inthe face of the perceived threats to the quality and authenticity ofCorsican cheese. The measure was not supported by all traditionalproducers, however. While an AOC could help the local farmsteadproducers resist cooptation of their traditional products and foodheritage by extralocal actors, such as multi-national dairy compa-nies, many producers were concerned that the establishment of anAOC would actually eliminate the diversity that is so central to theimage and reputation of Corsican cheese. One small-scale Corsicancheesemaker explained:

“The problem with the AOC is that it is trying to createconsensus regarding the product [methods, taste characteristics,etc.], and in doing so, it is almost at the level of creating a newproduct. The problem is that we cannot harmonize our meth-ods. The proponents want to erase all of the history and startover again. There are different cheeses [in the different micro-regions]dwe can’t have one AOC that encompasses all ofthem. The history of Corsican cheese is a history of specificity”(Author interviews, 2007).

The key tension at the heart of this producer’s testimonyconcerns the standards that would underlie the proposed AOC. Arelatively strict set of standards is essential to preventing coopta-tion of the label by extralocal actors and guaranteeing theauthenticity and quality of the product (Barjolle and Sylvander,2002), and can serve as a source of power for local actors. Theproposed AOC for Corsican cheese would be of little use if it did notspecify the type of milk used, the cheese production methods, orthe aging process. Paradoxically, however, the very process offormalization of a production process for a cheese that has beenhistorically defined by diversity poses a threat to that same diver-sity. In the past, when the farmstead producers sold their cheesedirectly to consumers, a formal label was unnecessary, since theconsumers were familiar with the cheese and personally knew theproducer. The expansion of the market for Corsican cheese hasprompted suggestions that a more formal system of codification

3 Today, more than 700 small farmers produce goat’s and/or sheep’s milk inCorsica (Via Campagnola, 2008). Of the 15 million liters of milk produced annually,8.5 million liters is sold to industrial dairy firms (and primarily processed intocheese), while 6.5 million liters is made into farmstead cheese (for a total of 1200tons of farmstead cheese produced each year) (Via Campagnola, 2008).

may be necessary, but to many local actors, it is impossible toformally define the production process for a cheese that has beenhistorically characterized by such diversity.

In Poland, a new process involving a similar reduction in thediversity of available products may be underway. As new targetedsubsidies and rural development efforts associated with EuropeanUnion accession encourage a variety of Second Pillar initiativeswithperceived environmental and social benefits (e.g., preservation ofdomestic heritage breeds, the development of regional productsand geographic indications, and the development of EU-styleorganic farming), a necessary “streamlining” is occurring thataffects Poland’s overall agricultural diversity. In the case of organicfarming in the Narew River region, for example, new standards andregulations do not account for the diversity of practices associatedwith biodynamic traditions upon which early organic farming inPoland was built. Organic farmers sometimes complain that certi-fication inspectors may know how to implement basic rules buthave no background with which to advise them on diverse andnuanced practices associated with their longstanding traditions. Asone farmer explained, for example,

“When he came for the control [inspection] I asked him if thesepreparations were permitted within the new rules. He said thathe did not know! How can he keep the rules if he does not knowthe most important things? I asked about this plant, and thisonedand he did not know the names of the most basic plants.And he is an inspector?!” (Author interviews, 2006).

The streamlining also impacts the selection of regional productsfor application and registration as official geographic indicationsmeriting subsidy support. When some products deemed market-able are selected and others ignored, overall diversity is reduced asfarmers and producers emphasize new products. In the Narewvalley region, for example, certain cheeses are being reviewed forpossible inclusion in the list of registered regional products.Ostensibly, there is no restriction on the diverse array of productsthat might be included. But certain products match regulatoryregimes far better than others; fresh cheeses traditionally madefrom non-pasteurized milk, for example, or blood sausages madewith pig blood from farms unable to register their facility, are left bythe wayside. Other products may find easier fit with new EUsanitary and veterinary regulations and are included in the selec-tion of registered regional products, thereby skewing what hadbeen an emphasis on overall regional agricultural diversity.

In sum, these cases demonstrate the contradiction that lies atthe heart of institutional quality labeling schemes. The Comté caseshows that certification schemes and quality labels offer criticaltools for preserving traditional production methods in the face ofglobalization, standardization, and concentration. At the sametime, as suggested by the Corsican and Narew cases, these formalsystems of codification can reduce diverse agricultural practices toa set of overly simplified and technical rules and standards. In all ofthese European regionsdmainland France, Corsica, and Poland’sNarew river regiondrural development and relocalization initia-tives are critical for the survival of small farmers, but also riskdiluting the diverse agricultural products and practices uponwhichthese knowledge systems depend.

5.2. Creating static notions of culture

In addition to creating contradictions that may reduce diversityin practice, as these quality initiatives delineate and institutionalizecultural forms, they risk creating overly static notions of foodcultures. Traditional conceptualizations of culture can in somecases constitute an advantage for local actors, by providinga discursive strategy for resisting the modernizing and

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e82 79

industrializing tendencies promoted by certain extralocal actors.However, these initiatives also risk privileging particular (fixed)markers of culture over a more dynamic relationship betweencommunities, environments, and local actors. Arguably, in dynamic,evolving cultures, there exists a tension between ensuring thecontinuity of tradition and embracing innovation. As traditionaland place-based foods become institutionalized, local actorsrelinquish some of their ability and agency to innovate even as theysimultaneously assert their power as producers to continue long-held production traditions. Depending on the larger socioeconomicstructural context, the generation of static notions of culture maylead to stable opportunities or increased vulnerabilities for indi-vidual producers.

The Comté cheese case demonstrates how traditional notions ofculture, as they become statically fixed through institutionalization,can be used as a source of power for local actors. The codes ofpractices for Comté cheese set very strict, specific parametersregarding production of milk and cheese. These specificationsrequire a minimum amount of pastureland per cow and prohibitthe use of silage. All milk used for the production of Comté cheesemust come from the Montbéliarde breed, a local breed. Cheesemust be produced in copper vats and aged on pine shelves, prac-tices that have been passed down from generation to generation.The Comté producers have successfully used the artisanal methodsthat characterize the Comté supply chain, as well as images of smallfarmers, brown and white cows, and rolling hills, as a strategy fordifferentiating Comté from other AOC cheeses. Furthermore, simi-larly to their emphasis on diversity, supply chain actors’ focus onthe authenticity of the production process is also an explicitstrategy to reduce concentration within the supply chain andprevent transnational dairy companies from taking over, becausethe production specifications make it difficult to achieve theeconomies of scale necessary for the efficient production ofindustrial-style cheese.

It is precisely the strict production specifications, and theirability to bound production in time, that accounts for the economicsuccess, reputation (as one of themost “authentic” French cheeses),and sustainability of the Comté supply chain. In the French context,the question of whether innovation is curtailed is less important,considering thewidespread support (among French consumers andproducers and in the political sphere) for maintaining culturalcontinuity (Barham, 2003; Trubek, 2005). At the same time, Frenchcheese producers, including makers of Comté cheese, face chal-lenges as they walk the line between tradition and modernity e

particularly in terms of maintaining the traditional practices of theregion while adhering to increasingly demanding public andprivate hygiene and sanitary standards. As one member of the CIGCexplained:

“The specifications are based on very old customs. Of course,(the CIGC) tries to adapt the rules to the reality of the terrain, butwe need to keep the process as traditional as possible. (Theproduction process) needs to respect tradition. The most diffi-cult thing for the Comté is to combine traditionwithmodernity”(Author interviews, 2007).

In Poland, these challenges are especially acute, particularlybecause Poland is engaging in the post-EU-accession process ofinstitutionalizing the traditional heritage of food production quiterapidly. This process is being introduced in a manner that leavesPolish quality initiatives especially vulnerable to drawbacks asso-ciated with the creation of overly static notions of culture. Theinstitutionalization of quality initiatives in this case reflects lessa strategy for resisting the homogenization of the conventionalfood system and more a component of efforts to harmonizePoland’s diverse agriculture with the rest of the European Union’s.

Post-accession, efforts have been primarily geared towardmodernization of production methods to meet existing EU sanitaryand veterinary standards. These efforts also intersect witha national society that since 1989 has been experiencing rapid,unprecedented socioeconomic transitions. The ability of farmers todefine their future on their own terms is influenced by neoliberaleconomic transformations that have catalyzed what sociologistKrzysztof Gorlach has termed “the massive pauperization of thecountryside” (Gorlach, 1995). In this context, quality initiativesrepresent both a vehicle for Polish farmers to compete in Europeanmarkets and a component of a comprehensive rural developmentstrategy for communities facing socioeconomic challenges. In thisrespect, such initiatives provide necessary shelter to mitigate theblunt force of the global market through the profitable productionof nostalgia and the “consumption countryside” (see Granberget al., 2001).

Yet, in such a complex milieu, questions also arise concerninghow, precisely, initiatives from Poland’s distinct regional foodcultures are being concomitantly constructed and quickly codified inan effort to adapt to both European Union institutional regulationsand broadermarkets. In the rush, for example, to registerwhat PolishMinister of Agriculture and Rural Development Mareck Sawickiacknowledges is “hundreds of regional and traditional products sofar [in the four years since EU accession],” (Sawicki, 2008), as well asto adopt a myriad of CAP quality standards and initiatives, a partic-ular vision of European-Polish food culturedhistorically grounded,yet safely modern; cosmopolitan, yet locally place-based; ecologi-cally contemporary, yet culturally authenticdis being quickly,consciously designed. Once this rapid distillation takes place,Poland’s dynamic, evolving food cultures risk being entrenched instatic patterns, under an umbrella of institutionalization. Oscypekcheese reflects one example of this, as its registration as a PDOmeansthat innovative shifts that might otherwise occur in response tocultural developments now face substantial bureaucratic and insti-tutional barriers. Moreover, as is unfolding in the Corsican case, it isessential to ask whose definitions of authentic and quality foodheritage are privileged, and what effects this will have on localculture and communities where a rapid reshuffling of powerdynamics is occurring.

We see these issues emerging in the cluster of villages in thePodlasie-Narew region of Northeastern Poland. There, a series of EUCommon Agricultural Policy and SAPARD-funded rural develop-ment projects actively promote a series of quality initiatives thatreflect the multifunctional agri-environmental aims of thereformed Common Agricultural Policy. PDOs and PGIs are nowpromoted in the region: local, fresh cheeses have begun to beproduced “traditionally,” yet with expensive homogenizationequipment in newly tiled facilities as per EU regulations. Somecheese producers have applied to register their products, alongwith other regional specialties such as blood sausages and breads.Origin-based products are not the only quality initiatives associatedwith the rural development programs in the region: as seenthroughout Poland, farmers receive subsidies for transitioning tocertified organic production, for assisting in the restoration ofagricultural landscapes, and for raising heritage livestock breeds.Here, too, agri- and eco-tourism is promoted as part of ruraldevelopment. Kayaking eco-tourists paddle the waters of thecelebrated Narew River, drifting past picturesque fields dotted withplatforms piled high with marsh hay, a nod to the early agriculturaltechniques of Polish peasants who inhabited the Narew’s valleys. Astork sanctuary fulfils environmental aims concerning wildlifeprotection while also contributing to local eco-tourism initiatives;Polish red cows and Konik Polski (Polish horses)dboth heritagebreedsdgraze in the fields, and green-legged chickens providebreakfast eggs for agritourism farms. And the local up-market hotel,

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e8280

complete with an out-of-place medieval-style castle, capitalizes onthe local culture, marketing “peasant” fare and nostalgia to inter-national tourists.

Positively, the projects in the Narew River region are creatingvital economic spaces to maintain or create new rural economiclivelihoods, and farmers participating in the programs experienceincreased access to markets, including newmarkets fuelled by eco-and agritourism activities. As Dorota Metera, liaison for one of theSAPARD projects and the director of one of Poland’s organic certi-fying agencies explained,

“Yes.the hotels, the images of the ‘peasant’ in the hotel diningrooms.it seems strange, doesn’t it? Not very much like the ‘realpeasant.’ But what is the alternative? It is maybe our chance togive these people a good living.and to.[do].somethingbetter.[than] the big intensive farming.” (Author interviews.2006).

Indeed, as Metera notes, the tension faced by Polish rural resi-dents in the face of economic globalization is between two modelsfor development, and the model favoring quality initiatives has thepotential to preserve some of Poland’s authentic food culture in theface of rapid transitions. Nevertheless, the institutionalization oflocal quality initiatives risks fixing these cultural food expressionsin time. Outsiders visiting the region experience a comprehensivelyconstructed and packaged notion of Polish food culture and regionalheritage that, while mainly authentic in its component parts,represents a consciously constructed and unchanging authenticity.Thus, as Barham (2003) has suggested, the region is effectivelybecoming a kind of livingmuseumwhere some products are left outof the (locked) museum case in favor of artifacts deemed moreappealing and where rural citizens function not only as purveyorsand protectors of genuine heritage but also as props in a constantlyrunning production. As one farmer in the Narew River regionpessimistically predicted,

“Most of the agriculture in our country will probably becomecommercial, [industrialized] farming. Only a small portion willbe [traditional, Polish] organic.we will be like little museumsin the countryside for people to only look at and remember theway agriculture was in Poland, before the changes” (Authorinterviews. 2006).

5.3. Changing the nature of traditional products to adapt to newmarkets

Finally, heritage-based quality initiatives, by protecting andcelebrating the characteristics of particular places, provide a meansof “localizing” production within the framework of globalization(Barham, 2003). At the same time, however, it is precisely thepassage from local to extralocal (regional, national, or interna-tional) markets that prompts the need for protection of typicalagricultural products (Benkahla et al., 2005). This shift in produc-tion relations, in turn, introduces new costs and benefits and newrelations of power within the supply chain. Like a local museumthat begins altering its displays in order to appeal to visitors fromafar, this process may induce pressure to distort the nature of theproduct to better conform to these new markets. As FabioParasecoli (2008), president of the Association for the Study of Foodand Society, stated, “Local products reveal their historicity and theirdeveloping nature, always pulled between tradition and innova-tion, cultural value and economic potential.” Ironically (for initia-tives that aim to preserve food cultures), in some cases, adaptationto market conditions may fuel alterations in the very nature of thequality products themselves. Oscypek cheese provides an exampleof the contradictions inherent in this shift.

Today, Oscypek cheese is a PDO officially recognized by theEuropean Union, and as demand for it has risen faster than theability of Wallachian shepherds, whomilk their sheep seasonally tokeep up with production, shifts in the traditional methods ofproduction are now being codified as traditional. Given Oscypek’smarket and development and the inconsistencies in supply anddemand for milk, producers sought strategies that would allowthem to produce cheese year-round without being limited by theavailable sheep’s milk quantity. As Gorlach and Adamski (2006)found in their interviews with Oscypek cheesemakers, the solu-tion they developed was to innovate by incorporating cow’s milkinto the traditional Oscypek recipe (Gorlach and Adamski, 2006).Today, PDO specifications state that 60% of the milk for the cheesemust come from sheep but allow for the use of Polish Red Cow’smilk (a registered heritage breed) for up to 40% of content. Whileone local highlander reported “.there is one technique ofproduction and many recipes,” the widespread incorporation ofcow’s milk into Oscypek represents a shift from tradition to the“commercialization of tradition” (Gorlach and Adamski, 2006).

As that tradition undergoes the process of commercialization,cheese producers and consumers alike recognize the shift awayfrom the more “authentic” tradition. As one agricultural inspectorin southern Poland who worked with cheese producing farmersexemplified this shift in perceptionwhen she pulled nearly a dozenof the cylindrical-shaped cheeses out of her desk drawer, asking,“Do you want to buy some? This one has some cow’s milk, so it isnot the real Oscypek [emphasis ours]. But it is all very good, boththe sheep and the cow!” (Author interviews, 2006).

In the case of Oscypek cheese, then, we see a shift in the verycharacter of the product, precipitated by economic challenges andgreater attention to the extralocal market. While these alterationsin the cheese production process may promote needed ruraldevelopment in the Tatras region, such a shift in practices raisesquestions concerning the dynamics of institutionalizing theseinitiatives and, as mentioned in the previous section, whether thismeans an increasingly static configuring of food cultures. Forexample, even a return to an all sheep’s milk cheese traditionwouldface those institutional and definitional barriers, since the PDO hasbeen codified. To some degree, the process of registering andinstitutionalizing Oscypek demonstrates receptiveness to farmerinterests with respect to market access. Yet institutionalizingOscypek is resulting in a loss of some of the characteristics thatdefined this product traditionally: its rarity (driven by seasonalavailability of sheep’s milk); its production process driven by localshepherds; and the recipes for the cheese that previously empha-sized sheep’s milk.

The trajectory of future Oscypek cheese production now seemsdirected toward making the product more ubiquitously availablethroughout Europe. Furthermore, this product, previouslyeconomically rational only to small producers, is now vulnerable tocooptation by multi-national dairies seeking to profit from mar-keted authenticity. Additionally, production techniques will now bedefined not solely by the generational local knowledge that hascharacterized cheese production but by a dialogue between Euro-pean Union regional production regulations, small farmers, andpossibly new extralocal actors. Given Poland’s relatively newmembership status in the EU, this underscores an already thornypower dynamic in EU agricultural markets in which “authentic”Polish peasant farmers might be seen as catering to nostalgicWestern European consumers drawn to Oscypek cheese by thisnew recipe for “invented tradition” (Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983).While thus far the character of traditional regional products in theNarew has not experienced the shifts of Oscypek, wewonder if andwhen new traditions will be invented in response to new marketattention in the region.

4 See Bowen (2010) for a more detailed discussion of the way the Comté supplychain is governed and of its collective organizing body, the CIGC.

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e82 81

This tensiondbetween local traditions and the demands ofextralocal markets, consumers, governmental officials, and/orretailersdis exemplified by other heritage-based products. Thestrong leadership of the CIGC has been central to the Comté filière’scontinued commitment to traditional practices (e.g., the use of rawmilk; relatively small-scale, copper vats), but some supply chainactors are concerned about the increasing divergence between thequality attributes emphasized by retailers (and demanded byconsumers) and the attributes that the dairy farmers and cheeseproducers see as central to Comté’s authenticity. Some actors worrythat retailers’ one-dimensional focus on the age of the cheese leadsretailers and consumers to ignore other important aspects ofquality (i.e., terroir, diversity, taste). One member of the CIGC,a farmer, complained,

“The retailers are only concerned with the price of the cheese.not the quality. Ten years ago, the minimum refining time wasthree months; now it is four months. We should be talkingabout the taste of the cheesedwhether it is fruity, nutty,etc.dinstead of saying that it has been refined for X months. Itdepends on the cheese. We must go back to focusing on thespecificity of the cheese (instead of selling the age)” (Authorinterviews, 2007).

In Corsica, as supply chain actors discuss the possibility ofcreating an AOC label for Corsican cheese, a key question is whattype of Corsican cheese the label would protect e traditional,farmstead-produced cheeses, known for their strong tastes andsmells; or the milder cheeses sold under Lactalis’s “Corsica” brand,which have found market success but have little in common withthe cheese culture and heritage of the island.

6. Conclusions

We argue in this analysis that heritage and territory-basedinitiatives offer a meaningful strategy to promote thriving rurallivelihoods, creating vital spaces for rural development, particularlyin regions that have been economically marginalized. Our examplessuggest that in many instances, formal institutions are a necessarymeans of resisting the homogenization, industrialization, andcommodification that characterize the food system. However, wefind that this process of institutionalizing culture can alter the verycultures and heritage that it aims to protect. More specifically,formal heritage-based initiatives potentially diminish diversity,create overly static cultural forms and practices, and change thenature of products in an effort to cater to extralocal markets.

Our analysis raises questions of power in rural regions. Althoughthe political and economic contexts, specific histories, and marketopportunities for these four products vary widely, it is useful tobriefly compare what makes the Comté case different from theother three cases. In the Comté case, heritage and tradition areintegrated into protective arrangements in ways that benefit smallfarmers and cheese makers, strengthen rural communities, andhelp preserve the local landscapes. In the other cases, powerful(largely extralocal) actors have created “invented traditions”(Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983) that are not necessarily embeddedin local social, cultural, and ecological resources in order to maxi-mize their commercial profit by accessing niche markets.

As we consider how local development initiatives can best serverural regions, a key question is how we can protect and preservetraditional products and rural livelihoods without distorting ordestroying them, particularly considering the pervasive globalreach of the current industrial food system. It is important torecognize, first of all, that the protection and preservation of“traditional” cultures and heritage always embodies a tensionbetween continuity and change; authenticity is a socially

constructed and negotiated concept. We agree with Tregear’s(2003) assertion that all typical products represent a mixture oftradition and innovation, physicality and symbolism, mechaniza-tion and craftsmanship, endogeneity and exogeneity, myths andrealities. In the Comté case, traditions have been defined by localactors, with input from actors at all stages of the supply chain (dairyfarmers, cheesemakers, affineurs, retailers)4. This limits the poten-tial for powerful public or private actors or institutions to dictatetraditions or norms in ways that benefit them. Furthermore, thecollective organization that governs the Comté supply chain hasconsistently recognized the complications inherent in definingquality and heritage, the need for reflexivity, and the importance ofconsidering long-term consequences. The organization’s strongvision has been instrumental in guiding the supply chain throughperiods in which external support was misguided or lacking (forexample, during the 1970s, when the French government encour-aged them to enact policies to encourage industrialization andconcentration among the dairy farms and cheese cooperatives). Inthe other cases, the institutionalization and codification of traditionhas proceeded too quickly, without adequate attention to thecomplexities of particular production practices and contexts, andwithout clear representation from all of the actors involved. Insome cases (e.g., Narew River), protective initiatives appear to bedictated by external funding and priorities; in others, even localactors’ visions seem short-sighted and overly oriented towardsmarket expansion (as in the case of Oscypek cheese) and/orprotection from misappropriation (as in the case of Corsicancheese).

Our examples and analysis here suggest that a more carefulinterrogation of heritage-based initiatives’ vulnerabilities is war-ranted, particularly with respect to the varied nature of localcontexts. Initiatives that merely codify cultural products withouttaking the social-organizational context into account (i.e., ensuringthe representation of all actors, privileging local actors in theconstruction and governance of protective arrangements, consid-ering local needs and priorities) risk becoming little more than“museums of production.”

Acknowledgements

This article is based on research funded by a Fubright Institute ofInternational Education grant to the European Union, a grant fromthe Kosciuszko Foundation, and support from the Land TenureCenter and the Center for German and European Studies at theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison. The authors thank Denis Sautierand other members of the research group in “Innovation etDéveloppement dans l’Agriculture et l’Agroalimentaire” in Mont-pellier, France, as well as Dorota Metera (BioEkspert) and KrzysztofGorlach (Jagiellonian University) in Poland, for research support.Finally, we are grateful to Jane Collins and anonymous reviewers fortheir helpful comments on early versions of this paper. Responsi-bility for any errors is our own.

References

Barham, E., 2003. Translating terroir: the global challenge of French AOC labeling.Journal of Rural Studies 19, 127e138.

Barjolle, D., Sylvander, B., 2002. Some factors of success for origin-labeled productsin agri-food supply chains in Europe: market, internal resources, and institu-tions. Économies et Sociétés 25, 1441e1464.

Benkahla, A., Boutonnet, J.P., Fort, F., 2005. Enjeux de la certification d’origine etstratégies d’acteurs: la cas de l’AOC pélardon. Economies et Sociétés 27,817e894.

S. Bowen, K. De Master / Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2011) 73e8282

Bérard, L., Marchenay, P., 2006. Local products and geographical knowledge: takingaccount of local knowledge and biodiversity. International Social Science Jour-nal 58, 109e116.

Bérard, L., Marchenay, P., 2008. From Localized Products to Geographical Indica-tions: Awareness and Action. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,Bourg-en-Bresse.

Bérard, L., Cegarra, M., Djama, M., Louafi, S., Marchenay, P., Roussel, B., Verdeaux, F.,2005. Savoirs et savoir-faire naturalistes locaux: l’originalité Française. LesNotes IDDRI, No. 8. Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Inter-nationales, Paris.

Bessière, J., 1998. Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine astourist attractions in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 21e34.

Bowen, S., 2010. Embedding local places in global spaces: Geographical indicationsas a territorial development strategy. Rural Sociology 75, 209e243.

Burawoy, M., 1998. The extended case method. Sociological Theory 16, 4e33.Via Campagnola, 2008. Importation de lait et fromages corses. Downloaded from:

http://www.viacampagnola.com/edito.htm (Accessed 13.10.08).Colinet, P., Desquilbet, M., Hassan, D., Monier-Dilhan, S., Orozco, V., Réquillart, V.,

2006. Case Study: Comté Cheese in France. Institut Nationale de la RechercheAgronomique, Toulouse.

Direction Régionale de l’Agriculture et de la Forêt (DRAF), Franche Comté, 2006.Synthèse des données Agreste les chiffres du lait de 1991 à 2005. DRAF,Besançon.

Erjavec, K., Erjavec, E., Juvancic, L., 2009. New wine in old bottles: Critical discourseanalysis of the current Common EU Agricultural Policy Reform Agenda. Socio-logia Ruralis 49, 41e55.

Feagin, J., Orum, A., Sjoberg, G., 1991. A Case for the Case Study. University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Fonte, M., 2008. Knowledge, food, and place: a way of producing, a way of knowing.Sociologia Ruralis 48, 200e222.

Gade, D., 2004. Tradition, territory, and terroir in French viticulture: cassis, France,and appellation contrôlée. Annals of the Association of American Geographers94, 848e867.

Gilarek, K., Mooney, P., Gorlach, K., 2003. Moral dilemmas of globalization: Polishagriculture at the crossroads. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38, 117e128.

Goodman, D., 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro-foodnetworks and paradigm change. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 3e16.

Gorlach, K., 1995. The peasant issue in contemporary Poland. Polish SociologicalReview 2, 139e158.

Gorlach, K., Adamski, T., 2006. Local food production and knowledge dynamics in therural sustainable development: country reportdPoland (draft). Downloadedfrom. http://corason.hu/download/wp6/wp6_poland.pdf (accessed 13.10.08).

Gorlach, K., Starosta, P., Pilichowski, A., Adamski, T., Dzwonkowska, K., 2006.Local food production and knowledge dynamics in rural sustainable devel-opment in Poland. In: Gorlach, K., Kovách, I. (Eds.), Local Food Production,Non-Food Economies, and Knowledge Dynamics in Rural Sustainable Devel-opment. Political Science Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,Budapest.

Granberg, L., Kovách, I., Tovey, H., 2001. Introduction. In: Granberg, L., Kovach, I.,Tovey, H. (Eds.), Europe’s Green Ring: Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning.Ashgate, Hampshire.

Guthman, J., 2004. Agrarian Dreams? The Paradox of Organic Farming in California.University of California Press, Berkeley.

Guthman, J., 2007. The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal gover-nance. Antipode 39, 456e478.

Hinrichs, C., 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types ofdirect agricultural markets. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 295e303.

Hobsbawm, E., Ranger, T.O., 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), 2004. The Corsican cheese,Brocciu: INRA’s role in accompanying the controlled designation of origin.Downloaded from. http://www.international.inra.fr/press/the_corsican_cheese_brocciu (accessed 13.10.08).

Knickel, K., Renting, H., 2000. Methodological and conceptual issues in the study ofmulti-functionality and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40, 512e528.

Leitch, A., 2003. Slow food and the politics of pork fat: Italian food and Europeanidentity. Ethnos 68, 437e462.

Marsden, T., Arce, A., 1995. Constructing quality: emerging food networks in therural transition. Environment and Planning A 27, 1261e1279.

Morgan, K., Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., 2006. Worlds of Food: Place, Power, andProvenance in the Food Chain. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Parasecoli, F., 2008. Presidential address. Association for Food and Society, annualmeeting, New Orleans.

Paxson, H., 2008. Post-pasteurian cultures: the microbiopolitics of raw-milk cheesein the United States. Cultural Anthropology 23, 15e47.

Potter, C., Burney, J., 2002. Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTOdlegitimatenontrade concern or disguised protectionism? Journal of Rural Studies 18, 35e47.

Potter, C., Tilzey, M., 2005. Agriculture policy discourses in the European post-fordisttransition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism, and multifunctionality. Progress inHuman Geography 29, 581e600.

Pratt, J., 2007. Food values: the local and the authentic. Critique of Anthropology 27,285e300.

Ray, C., 1998. Culture, intellectual property, and territorial rural development.Sociologia Ruralis 38, 3e20.

Reiger, E., 1977. The Common Agricultural Policy. In: Wallace, H., Wallace, W. (Eds.),Policymaking in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Renard, M.C., 2003. Fair trade: quality, market, and conventions. Journal of RuralStudies 19, 87e96.

Renting, H., Marsden, T., Banks, J., 2003. Understanding alternative food networks:exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ-ment and Planning A 35, 393e411.

Sawicki, M., Spring 2008. Polanddabundance of local and traditional foods. PolishFood Downloaded from. http://www.minrol.gov.pl/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabOrgId¼1333&LangId¼1 (accessed 13.10.08).

Siadou, S., 2004. Quelle qualification pour les produits d’élevage ovin et caprin enCorse? CNEARC, Montpellier.

Tovey, H., 2001. Creating and re-creating modernity: peasantisation and de-peas-antisation in Ireland. In: Granberg, L., Kovach, I., Tovey, H. (Eds.), Europe’s GreenRing: Perspectives on Rural Policy and Planning. Ashgate, Hampshire.

Tregear, A., 2003. From Stilton to Vimto: using food history to re-think typicalproducts in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 43, 91e107.

Trubek, A., 2005. Place matters. In: Korsmeyer, K. (Ed.), The Taste Culture Reader:Experiencing Food and Drink. Berg, Oxford.

Trubek, A., 2008. The Taste of Place: A Cultural Journey into Terroir. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.

Van der Ploeg, J.D., Roep, D., 2003. Multifunctionality and rural development: theactual situation in Europe. In: Van Huylenbroeck, G., Durand, G. (Eds.), Multi-functional Agriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture and RuralDevelopment. Ashgate, Hampshire.

Warner, K., 2007. The quality of sustainability: agroecological partnerships and thegeographic branding of California winegrapes. Journal of Rural Studies 23,142e155.

Winter, M., 2003. Embeddedness, the new food Economy, and defensive localism.Journal of Rural Studies 19, 23e32.