Vehículos de carga pesada

Terroirism is a neologism that derives its assumptions of reality from the

ambiguous French concept of terroir, a widely discussed and controversial term with

no universal definition or direct translation into other languages.16 Terroir asserts that certain products derived from historical places of origin are genuine and

legitimate relative to similar products produced in different territories (INAO 2006).

But the positive notion of terroir that undergirds the European GI system typifies what Scarpato (2002: 101) calls the “myth of global provence.” The meaning of the

concept has evolved over time and it was used in the seventeenth century to describe

16

I elected to use the French concept of terroir despite my focus on an Italian and English cheese name because according to Smith (2006: 6), “Although the other four southern states have played important roles in developing the EU’s programmatic model, the French approach to geographical indications has always been its dominant ideological inspiration.” Terroir was used to describe the product/place connection in quite a few of my interviews with British, Italian, and EU trade representatives (Personal interviews, March 13, February 22 and 27, and April 9, 2013). One Italian Parmigiano-Reggiano representative informed me that the word ‘typico’ is similar to terroir in Italian but that it is not synonymous. It is broader and incorporates more of the cultural and human elements of a product that comes from a territory with a history and characteristics that exist nowhere else. He stated that, “The product must be linked to geography and has a value and history beyond the product itself, a cultural tradition linked to a territory” (Personal interview, February 27, 2013).

106

product flaws such as an “earthy” flavor (Jacobsen 2010: 10) or in the eighteenth

century to denote the negative characters of people in certain regions of France (Guy

2003: 42). It was not until the nineteenth century that the positive connotations of

terroir took on a nationalistic flavor to become naturalized as part of French cultural identity and, “The connection between geography and quality had become a widely

accepted belief, if not to say myth, by the nineteenth century” (Guy 2003: 122).

Originally used to link viticulture practices and particularistic geography to the

quality of wine, terroir has since been de-localized from its patrimony in France and

globalized as a universal marketing concept. It has become a catchword in

gastronomic literature where it inspires the celebration of local and place-based

foods and alternative food movements around the world (Trubek 2008; Jacobsen

2010; Paxson 2010) and also in trade negotiations (Barham 2003; Josling 2006)

where it takes on significant marketing and commercial importance and forms the

conceptual foundation for GI protection schemes. Terroir is more than just a notion;

it matters economically and culturally for both producers and consumers.

To elaborate, terroir refers to the intimate connection between (1) material

factors such as the natural, geographical, and ecological elements of a place (see

Wilson 1998; Robertson 1994; INAO 2006) and (2) immaterial factors that include

human, historical, mystical, symbolic, and cultural importance (see Guy 2003;

Trubek 2008; Leynse 2006; Vaudour 2002; Deloire, Prévost, and Kelly 2008) and

their combined impact on the uniqueness, reputation, and quality of food and

beverage products. Many scientists generally approve of the assertion that differing

ecological areas have an effect on products, especially wine (Guy 2002: 42) but what

is most commonly disputed is the inclusion of the abstract human or cultural element

107

a place bestows unique qualities on wine and food products. And within the GI context it defines the crucial link between a product’s place of origin and its

distinctiveness in the marketplace.

Although, when terroir is used as a legitimating strategy or political tool to

ensure the conferral of exclusive property rights to some producers over others it

becomes terroirism. In the context of European multifunctional agriculture,

terroirism legitimates government action in formulating and extending ‘economic patriotic’ agricultural policies that “seek to discriminate in favour of particular social

groups, firms or sectors understood by the decision-makers as insiders because of

their territorial status” (Clift and Woll 2012: 308). In the GI context this refers to the

disproportionate privileging of ‘genuine’ producers over others through the conferral

of exclusive property rights. ‘Multifunctionality’ is a defining feature of current

European agricultural policy that plays an important role in the negotiating position of the EU in world trade negotiations and “developed partly in response to the threat

which trade liberalisation presents to European agriculture” (Dibden and Cocklin

2009: 163). The concept asserts that the value of agriculture lies beyond the commercial production of food to encompass “so-called ‘non-economic’ objectives”

(Winters 1988) and “non-trade concerns” (Gössl 2008). These could include certain

non-marketable social and environmental benefits such as sustainable and rural

development, food quality, safety, and security, and the preservation of landscapes

and cultural heritage that are perceived as threatened by the further liberalization of

agricultural trade. Multifunctionality is a contested policy concept in the context of

agricultural negotiations because it has been used to help justify government

intervention and continued state support for agriculture in order to protect agri-food

108

Kaditi and Swinnen 2006; Potter and Tilzey 2007; Dibden, Potter, and Cocklin

2009).

To continue, as noted by Barthes (2009: 177) it is difficult to know the “social geography” of mythologies; however it is conceivable to isolate “the lines

which limit the social region where it is spoken.” Additionally, he observes that “a

myth ripens because it spreads” but will often resist spreading to hostile

environments (Barthes 2009: 177). Thus, it is plausible to argue that distinctive

boundaries are evident when considering the divisions between those who are in

favor of GI protection for product names and those who are against it. Terroirism

itself has had powerful constitutive effects in some countries but not others and has

been transplanted in different forms in various countries that have institutionalized

GI protection regimes and norms. Yet, the myths promoted through GIs attempt to

take root in very different cultural and ideological assumptions that have evolved

throughout history and as a result are not universally accepted. The meanings

conveyed through food products and their names are read in different ways and

ultimately affect the enthusiasm for origin protection. As well, there is skepticism as to “whether or not appellation systems actually guarantee quality” or if GIs are

mainly being used as an exclusionary tool to market and prioritize European goods

(Charters 2006: 104, 109). This oppositional position has exposed a different reading

of meanings surrounding product names through genericism.