Geographic Indication

(1)

MARJO SÄRKKÄ-TIRKKONEN

UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI, RURALIA INSTITUTE

MATHANTVERKSDAGAR

FISKARS, 23.11.2018

Geographic Indication is telling

the origin of the food

(2)

•EU product quality schemes

•PDOs/PGIs/TSGs in Nordic countries

•Do consumers know the labels?

Summary

CONTENT

(3)

Modern food chain:

Individual producers are not known directly by the consumer (Loureiro and McCluskey, 2000).

So:

The concepts of trust, authenticity, traceability and reputation

are very relevant topics among global food business and

gastronomical tourism.

(4)

SOME LABELS

(5)

ABOUT QUALITY

Quality has on objective and subjective dimension (Grunert, 2005):

Objective: Physical characteristics built into the product and is typically dealt with by engineers and food

technologists

Subjective: Quality perceived by consumers

(6)

Nature and ”terroir”

• lakes, forests, climate, soil

Immaterial resources

• History, reputation

• Tradition, ”Savoir-faire”, ”Know-how”

• Collective

QUALITY CAN RELATE TO

(7)

60 ^o 0’N

 Finnish soil is very pure, internationally compared

 Snow cover, frost, cold winters

 Intensive growing season with a lot of light -> bioactive

compounds

 Fresh water resources are vast and pure

(Unesco report, Water Poverty Index)

 Clean air

(8)

EU QUALITY SCHEMES

PDO/PGI/TSG-SYSTEM

(9)

EU product quality schemes

• Relate to agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines, spirits and aromatized wines

• Ca. 3500 products

• A product name identified as a geographical indication is one that is closely linked to a specific production area.

• The concept comprises

• protected designations of origin (PDOs) and

• protected geographical indications (PGIs) for foods and wines Spirits and aromatized wines have geographical indications (PGIs)

• It is possible to highlight the traditional aspects such as the way the product is made or its composition, without being linked to a specific geographical area

• Traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG)

(10)

CONSUMER LABELS!

(11)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0 50 100 150 200 250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cumulativeamountof products

Amountof products per year

PDO PGI TSG CUMULATIVE

Registered PDOs/PGI/s/TSGs in EU 1996-2017 Agricultural products and foodstuff

Source: DOOR-database

(12)

12

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/list.html

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Tuotteiden lukumäärä

Registered PDOs/PGI/s/TSGs in EU countries Agricultural products and foodstuff

31.5.2018 1429 products

(13)

(14)

(15)

PDOs/PGIs/TSGs

in Nordic countries

(16)

FINLAND (3) Sahti (öl)

Kalakukko (limpa med inbakad fisk)

Karjalanpiirakka (pirog)

SVERIGE (2) Falukorv (korv) Hushållsost (ost)

VIN DANMARK

Bornholm Fyn Jylland Sjælland

(17)

SPRIT OCH LIKÖR

5

(18)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Finland Sverige Danmark Norway Island

PDO PGI TSG

In total 36 PDO/PGI/TSG products in Nordic

0 1 2 3 4 5

Wine and spirits (PGI)

(19)

DO CONSUMERS KNOW

THE LABELS?

(20)

• 20-40 % of the European consumers know the labels

• a lot of variation between different countries

• Clear difference between Southern European and Northern European countries

(Grunert & Aachmann, 2016)

(21)

Do consumers in Finland

know the labels?

(22)

MITÄ SEURAAVISTA PAKKAUSMERKINNÖISTÄ OLET NÄHNYT?

94 62

36 16

9 7 6

5 36

63 81

89 91 91

1 2 2 2 3 3 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Joutsenlippu Luomutunnus Maakuntien parhaat Feikkimerkki Perinteinen tuote Maantieteellinen merkintä Alkuperänimitys

%

Kyllä En EOS

Vastaajat, n=1004

Kuluttajakysely/nimisuojajärjestelmän ja -tuotteiden tunnettuus 2018

Taloustutkimus, Helsingin yliopisto/Ruralia-instituutti, Turun yliopisto/Brahea-keskus

Promo-nimisuojatuotteiden monimediakampanja-hanke, Mavi/MMM

(23)

MITKÄ SEURAAVISTA ELINTARVIKETUOTTEISTA OVAT MIELESTÄSI NIMISUOJATTUJA?

Vastaajat, n=1004

4949 4647 4243 31 35

25 29 2525 2424 2324 1819 1515 1313 5 8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Karjalanpiirakka Champagne Lapin Puikula Kalakukko Prosciutto di Parma Fetajuusto Parmegiano Reggiano Lapin Poron liha Sahti Kainuun Rönttönen Lapin Poron kuivaliha Suomalainen vodka Lapin Poron kylmäsavuliha Edam-juusto Puruveden muikku Ruisleipä Huile d’Olive de Nice Suomalainen rypsiöljy Lapin taimen Kitkan viisas Lähdevesi Suomalainen marja-/hedelmälikööri Patonki EOS / EI MIKÄÄN NÄISTÄ

% Kuluttajakysely/nimisuojajärjestelmän ja -tuotteiden tunnettuus 2018 Taloustutkimus, Helsingin yliopisto/Ruralia-instituutti, Turun yliopisto/Brahea-keskus Promo-nimisuojatuotteiden monimediakampanja-hanke, Mavi/MMM

(24)

• In succesfull cases typical: the whole chain feels a collective ownership to the product and its reputation

• Typical: Lack of horizontal and vertical cooperation between producers, processors, retailers and other actors.

• Sense of belonging to a specific place is fundamental.

(Kizos et al., 2017)

(25)

AS A SUMMARY

• In addition to the composition, shelf life or organoleptic factors, also other factors like cultural effects and collective values of the processors can have fundamental meaning on the

reputation of the food and thus perception of the

quality.

(26)

PROMO-NIMISUOJATUOTTEIDEN MONIMEDIAKAMPANJA (MAVI)

TOTEUTTAJAT:

HELSINGIN YLIOPISTON RURALIA-INSTITUUTTI

TURUN YLIOPISTON BRAHEA-KESKUS

(27)

PROMO-nimisuojatuotteiden monimediakampanja Hankkeen tavoite:

Lisätä nimisuojamerkkien ja -tuotteiden tunnettuutta monialaisen yhteistyön avulla.

Toimenpiteet

•Nimisuojamerkkien käyttö tavaksi (TP1)

• Mm. työpajat

•Monimediakampanja (TP2)

• Youtube, Instagram ja facebook-kampanjat

• Artikkelit lehdissä ja blogeissa

• Kuvallinen materiaali nimisuojatuotteista

• Kuluttajakyselyt

•

Aineiston tuottaminen ja julkaiseminen aitojamakuja.fi – sivustolle (TP3)

• Aitojamakuja-somekanavien hyödyntäminen

• Nimisuojaesitteen päivitys

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

MARJO.SARKKA-TIRKKONEN@HELSINKI.FI +358 44 5906849

@Marjo_ST

(32)

References

Bonaiuto, M., Caddeo, P., Carrus, G., De Dominicis, S., Maroni, B., & Bonnes, M. (2012). Food reputation impacts on consumer's food choice. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(4), pp. 462-482.

Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., Petruccelli, I. & Bonaiuto, F. (2017). Food Reputation Map (FRM): Italian long and short versions’ psychometric features. Food Quality and Preference 59. pp. 156–167.

Bonow, M. Rytkönen, P. (2013). Kalixlöjrom –an institutional analysis of the application an implementation of Sweden’s first PDO. Spanish Journal of Rural Development. Vol IV (4):59-66.

DOOR database: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/list.html

Grunert, K.G. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp. 369–391

Grunert, K.G. & Aachmann, K. (2016). Consumer reactions to the use of EU quality labels on food products: A review of the literature. Food Control 59, pp.178-187.

Kizos, T., Koshaka, R., Penker, M., Piatti, C., Vogl, C.R.& Uchiyama, Y. (2017). The governance of

geographical indications. Experiences of practical implementation of selected case studies in Austria, Italy, Greece and Japan. British Food Journal, Vol. 119 Iss:12, pp. 2863-2879.

Rytkönen, P. 2014. Värdet av SUB-skydd: Fallet Kalix löjrom. In: Ragnar, M. 2014. Regional matkultur: terroir i matlandet Sverige.Carlsson Bokförlag. ISBN 978917331630, 287-294.