Third Party Certification in Food and Agriculture: A Study in Values and Science

该提案解决了在科学动态和社会竞争的全球农业食品系统中标准化农业过程和产品的第三方认证（3PC）的科学和伦理层面。第三方认证机构是（私人或公共）使用科学理论、测试和数据以及技术工件来独立验证生产和产品质量和安全声明的组织。它们的特点通常是声称独立于买方和卖方。第三方认证机构在协商社会风险问题方面发挥越来越大的作用；然而，人们对农业食品领域第三方认证机构的新兴形式、工具和功能知之甚少，更不用说第三方认证机构所带来的科学和伦理问题了。虽然它已经存在了一段时间，但近年来3PC的增长相当可观。特别是，3PC伴随着所谓的质量经济的发展而成长。这种质量经济的特点是：(1)寡头垄断市场，公司避免价格竞争，转而关注产品差异化；(2)不断壮大的全球中产阶级，他们的成员渴望通过时尚脱颖而出；(3)大量的新社会运动，对工业提出了各种各样的要求，要求提供可信赖的产品，如环境和工人保护、食品质量和尽量减少农药残留。在这种情况下，许多政府和公司都利用了3PC允许的灵活性和对快速变化的响应能力。此外，认证机构呼吁技术科学价值，如独立性、客观性、一致性、能力、透明度和有效性，以增加信任和公众同意，并限制责任。在这些条件下，3PC声称稳定技术科学设备和流程，从而减少决策风险并解决与标准有关的社会冲突。然而，目前尚不清楚的是，从直接互动到中介互动的转变（即增加3PC的使用）是否解决了食品供应链中参与者之间因这些问题而产生的争议，或者它是否只是为他们的持续争论提供了一个改变的社会背景。从理论上讲，如果社会冲突是食品和农业标准过程中科学不确定性的根源，那么3PC应该是一个相对无效的冲突仲裁者，因为它不是为了解决社会结构问题而设计的。相反，如果关于食品和农业标准的社会冲突是由高度的科学不确定性引起的，那么3PC应该是一个非常有效的社会冲突仲裁者，因为它声称稳定了被认为是冲突根源的技术科学设备和程序。利用风险的社会理论，我们将研究农业食品管理背景下的3PC，这些背景提出了与科学与社会之间紧张关系相关的相关经验和伦理/价值问题。这些问题涉及到3p的出现、合法性和结构，因为它调解了受影响人群中风险和信息的分配。这些问题的核心是涉及效用、公平和利益冲突的伦理和价值问题，这些问题与3c在全球农业食品部门管理中日益重要的作用有关。我们通过比较分析3PC在五个农业食品管理的典型案例中的应用来检验这些问题之间的差异：(1)欧洲零售商生产工作组良好农业规范（EUREPGAP），(2)非转基因谷物，(3)国家作物有机标准，(4)蓝莓的微生物污染，(5)快餐行业的动物福利。我们的研究采用了多种方法，包括以下研究活动：(a)回顾历史研究和原始文献；(b)与参与制定、修改、执行和执行3PC的人员进行面谈；(c)技术文献的内容分析，以了解3PC所作的科学主张；(d)观察培训和认证过程，以了解3p的实施情况，以及如何处理模棱两可/有争议的案件；（五）对所收集的实证数据进行哲学分析。

This proposal addresses the scientific and ethical dimensions of Third Party Certification (3PC) of standardized agricultural processes and products in a scientifically dynamic and socially contested global agrifood system. Third party certifiers are (private or public) organizations that use scientific theories, tests, and data as well as technical artifacts to independently verify production and product quality and safety claims. They are usually distinguished by their claimed independence from both buyer and seller. Third party certifiers play an increasing role in negotiating issues of risk in society; yet, little is known about the emerging forms, tools, and functions of third party certifiers in the agrifood sector, much less the scientific and ethical issues 3PC engenders. While it has existed for some time, in recent years 3PC has grown considerably. In particular, 3PC has grown concomitantly with the development of what has been called an economy of qualities. This economy of qualities is marked by (1) oligopolistic markets in which firms avoid price competition and focus instead on product differentiation, (2) a growing global middle class, the members of which are eager to distinguish themselves through fashion, and (3) a plethora of New Social Movements that place a variety of demands on industry for credence goods such as environmental and worker protection, food quality, and minimized pesticide residues. Under these conditions, many governments and firms have taken advantage of the flexibility and responsiveness to rapid change that 3PC permits. Moreover, certifiers appeal to technoscientific values such as independence, objectivity, consistency, competence, transparency, and effectiveness in an effort both to increase trust and public consent and limit liability. Under these conditions 3PC claims to stabilize technoscientific devices and processes so as to reduce decision-stakes and resolve social conflict pertaining to standards. Still, it is unclear whether the shift from direct to mediated interaction (i.e., increased use of 3PC) resolves disputes arising from these issues among actors in the food supply chain, or whether it simply presents a changed social context for their continued contention. In theoretical terms, if social conflict lies at the root of scientific uncertainty in the food and agricultural standards process, then 3PC should be a relatively ineffective arbiter of conflict because it is not designed to address social structural issues. Conversely, if social conflict over food and agricultural standards arises from high degrees of scientific uncertainty, then 3PC should be a highly effective arbiter of social conflict because it claims to stabilize the technoscientific devices and procedures that are presumed to lie at the root of that conflict. Using social theories of risk, we will examine 3PC in agrifood management contexts that raise interrelated empirical and ethical/value questions associated with the tension between science and society. These questions address the emergence, legitimation, and structure of 3PC as it mediates the apportionment of risk and information among affected populations. Central to these questions are ethical and value concerns involving the utility, fairness, and conflicts of interests associated with the rising importance of 3PC in the management of the global agrifood sector. We examine variance among these questions through a comparative analysis of 3PC applied in five exemplary cases of agrifood management: (1) Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices (EUREPGAP), (2) Non-Genetically Modified Grains, (3) National Organic Standards for Crops, (4) Microbial Contamination of Blueberries, and (5) Animal Welfare in the Fast Food Industry. Our study utilizes a multi-method approach involving the following research activities: (a) review of historical studies and primary documents; (b) interviews with persons involved in the creation, modification, execution and enforcement of 3PC; (c) a content analysis of the technical literature so as to understand the scientific claims made by 3PC; (d) observation of training and certification processes to understand how 3PC is implemented and how ambiguous/disputed cases are handled; and (e) philosophical analysis of the empirical data collected. .