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

食品和农业第三方认证：价值观和科学研究

• 批准号: 0426245
• 负责人: Lawrence Busch
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Michigan State University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Continuing Grant
• 财政年份: 2004
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2004-07-01 至 2007-06-30
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0426245&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Third; Party; Certification; Food; Agriculture

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. .

这项建议涉及在科学上充满活力和社会竞争的全球农业食品体系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。第三方认证机构是指(私营或公共)组织，它们使用科学理论、测试和数据以及技术制品来独立验证生产和产品质量和安全声明。它们通常因声称独立于买方和卖方而有所不同。第三方认证机构在社会风险问题的谈判中发挥着越来越大的作用；然而，人们对第三方认证机构在农业食品领域的新兴形式、工具和功能知之甚少，更不用说3PC所产生的科学和伦理问题了。虽然它已经存在了一段时间，但最近几年，3PC已经有了相当大的增长。特别是，3PC伴随着所谓的质量经济的发展而发展起来。这种质量经济的特点是：(1)寡头垄断市场，企业避免价格竞争，转而专注于产品差异化；(2)日益壮大的全球中产阶级，其成员渴望通过时尚脱颖而出；(3)过多的新社会运动，对工业提出了各种信用商品的需求，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所允许的灵活性和快速反应能力。此外，认证机构呼吁技术科学价值观，如独立性、客观性、一致性、能力、透明度和有效性，以努力增加信任和公众同意，并限制责任。在这种情况下，3PC声称要稳定技术科学设备和过程，以减少决策风险，解决与标准有关的社会冲突。尽管如此，尚不清楚从直接互动转向调解互动(即更多地使用3PC)是解决了食品供应链参与者之间因这些问题而产生的争端，还是仅仅为他们继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性问题而设计的。相反，如果围绕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应该是社会冲突的一个非常有效的仲裁者，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。使用风险的社会理论，我们将在农业食品管理的背景下审查3PC，这些背景提出了与科学和社会之间的紧张关系相关的经验和伦理/价值问题。这些问题涉及3PC的出现、合法化和结构，因为它调解了风险和信息在受影响人群中的分配。这些问题的核心是伦理和价值问题，涉及效用、公平和与3PC在全球农业食品部门管理中日益重要的利益冲突相关的利益冲突。我们通过对五个农业食品管理示范案例中应用的3PC的比较分析来检验这些问题之间的差异：(1)欧洲零售商农产品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)快餐业的动物福利。我们的研究采用了多种方法，涉及以下研究活动：(A)审查历史研究和主要文件；(B)对参与3PC的创建、修改、执行和执行的人员进行访谈；(C)对技术文献进行内容分析，以了解3PC提出的科学主张；(D)观察培训和认证过程，以了解3PC是如何实施的，以及如何处理模棱两可/有争议的案件；以及(E)对收集的经验数据进行哲学分析。。