The European Optional Quality Term "Mountain Product": Hypothetical Application in the Production Chain of a Traditional Dairy Product

(1)

(2)

(3)

V

o

l

.

1

6

6 ,

,

N

o

.

1

4

4 /

/

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

5

2

In a well-known publication (Petrini, 2005), Carlo Petrini sums up the meaning of the term globalisation in the apparently illogical behaviour of Asti farmers. In 1996, while they were re-producing tulip bulbs for fields in the Netherlands, Dutch farmers were exporting to Italy sweet peppers produced, like other vege-tables, through hydroponics. More generally, this mechanism was worthy of criticism for its distortive effects. International trade was fuelling the phenomenon of replacing territorial specificities with standardised productions devoid of social, historical and traditio-nal content.

A number of changes have been made to the system since the mid 1990s. On the one hand, the institutions have designed and developed several tools aimed at recovering the traditions and territoriality of food and agricultural products and, on the other, private enterprise has reinterpreted the meaning of the term glo-balisation.

In the first case, the EU, for example, pursues the objectives of protecting and safeguarding European agro-food production through the creation and application of instruments such as food safety rules, the Common Agricultural Policy, the Rural Develop-ment Policy and food quality systems. Sometimes these issues are developed and improved at local level. A few of these include: the establishment of Traditional Agro-foods in Italy (Ministerial Decree 350/99) and attempts to certify them (Varese et al., 2010; Bonadonna et al., 2014) or the recent Romanian legislation dedicated to the certification of traditional products (Decree no. 724 of 29 July 2013 – Ordinul 724/2013).

In the second case, the changes seen in Western consumer societies have led to the global vision adapting to local

condi-tions, a phenomenon known as glocalization (Matusitz and Lord, 2013; Mak et al., 2012; Turner, 2003). Some multinationals operating in the agro-food sector have redefined strategies and operational plans to adapt them to local specificities and expec-tations (Martinelli et al., 2011). The strategy taken in Italy in recent years by a well-known global restaurant chain is one example of this. Trade agreements with consortia safeguarding Italian PDO and PGI terms for the supply of ingredients and

Qualivita certification for restaurant service, the 100% Italian

burger first and with meat from two native Italian breeds later, demonstrate the need to link gastronomical offerings to the local territory. This means that place and local are not only funda-mental to the creation of Alternative Food Networks (AFN) (Ikerd, 2011; Nonini, 2013; Dansero and Puttilli, 2014) but can also be considered adaptive (and in some cases essential) elements for operators of the global food system. The local approach in this case cannot be seen as a form of protectionism towards a concept of globalised trade, but rather, if anything, a useful comparison tool for identifying a path towards an equilibrium in an imperfect system (DuPuis and Goodman, 2005).

Different classifications define food quality emphasising these changes and, whether directly or indirectly, highlighting the im-portance of the place of origin of a food product: agronomic

quality (Percivale et al., 1996; Cappelletti et al., 2008), traditio-nal quality (Manfredini, 2010) and production context (Peri,

2006) demonstrate that these aspects should be in the product to meet consumer expectations.

Western consumers associate product origin with tradition (Vanhonacker et al., 2010) and actually acknowledges its value, requiring the term through the implementation of labelling (Bernues et al. 2003) (Banterle and Stranieri, 2008) and certifi-———————

1 This paper is one of the results of the project “Ipotesi di sistema certificativo per la tutela e la promozione di produzioni agroalimentari delle aree montane: definizione e stesura delle linee guida di orientamento in un area modello piemontese (Hypothesis of certification system for the

protection and promotion of agricultural food production in mountain areas: definition and drafting of guidelines for guidance in an area model Piedmontese)” coordinated by Alessandro Bonadonna. The present paper is the result of full and equal cooperation among all the authors.

*_{Department of Management, University of Turin, Corso Unione Sovietica, 218bis – 10134 Torino, Italy, E-mail: aalleessssaannddrroo..bboonnaaddoonnnnaa@}_{@uunniittoo..iitt.} **_{Department of Management, University of Turin, Torino, Italy, E-mail: ggiioovvaannnnii..ppeeiirraa@}_{@uunniittoo..iitt.}

***_{Department of Management, University of Turin, Torino, Italy, E-mail: eerriiccaa..vvaarreessee@}_{@uunniittoo..iitt.}

TThhee EEuurrooppeeaann O

Oppttiioonnaall Q

Quuaalliittyy TTeerrm

m ““M

Moouunnttaaiinn PPrroodduucctt””::

TThhee EEuurrooppeeaann O

Oppttiioonnaall Q

Quuaalliittyy TTeerrm

m ““M

Moouunnttaaiinn PPrroodduucctt””::

HHyyppootthheettiiccaall AApppplliiccaattiioonn iinn tthhee PPrroodduuccttiioonn CChhaaiinn

ooff aa TTrraaddiittiioonnaall DDaaiirryy PPrroodduucctt

1 AAlleessssaannddrroo BBO

ON

NAADDO

ON

NN

NAA

**

_{,, G}

_{Giioovvaannnnii PPEEIIRRAA}

****

_{,, EErriiccaa VVAARREESSEE}

******

AAbbssttrraacctt

EU Delegated Regulation no. 665/2014 defines the requirements for applying the optional “mountain product” quality term, which was introduced with EU Regulation no. 1151/2012. These requirements are the result of a long process on the part of the European Commission to standardise the different approaches presented by those Member States for whom the term is relevant.

The purpose of this study was to assess the applicability of the provisions of the Regulation to the production chain of cow’s milk and milk products. Specifically, the study was geared to assessing the requirements in relation to a milk product in the Piedmont cheese-making tradition, the “Toma del lait brusc.”

Although restricted to a limited geographical area and to a particular traditional product, the results of the survey provide an initial assessment of the applicability of the instrument. Companies operating in the mountains and those practising transhumance would be able to use the optional term provided they are able to self-produce a substantial portion of their fodder or obtain it locally and can regularly document the diet of their animals. Some of the Regulation’s requirements, however, await derogations and clarifications from the national legislator.

(5)

1

0

0 FFO

OO

ODD SSAAFFEETTYY M

MAAN

NAAG

GEEM

MEEN

NTT

Q

QUUAA LLIITTYY

V

o

l

.

1

6

6 ,

,

N

o

.

1

4

4 /

/

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

5

cation systems (Van Ittersum et al., 2007) that ensure transpa-rency, food safety guarantees and are subject to independent third-party monitoring (Resano et al., 2012).

In search of further guarantees, Western consumers have also developed a high affinity for farmers’ market and local and regional foods, in order to regain awareness of the origin of products and to defend themselves from the homogenisation of the agro-food products of their local territory.

The benefits of a more widespread use of these instruments are immeasurable. They make it possible to differentiate and characterise local products from similar standardised products; they enable the growth and development of local business networks, the preservation of traditions and the protection of local cultural heritage (Tregear et al., 1998); they are based on the direct and simple relationship between producers and consumers (Belliveau, 2005); they promote the visibility of local products in public spaces; they educate consumers to the limi-tations and the potential of local food (Brown and Miller, 2008); they encourage the creation of initiatives and are a defence against product homogenisation (Schnell, 2011); they support local production and small producers and safeguard work within fragile rural communities (Sgroi et al., 2014). Although it is customary to see them as an advantage, the issue of the possible benefits to be gained in environmental terms is actually contro-versial (Foster et al., 2006; Saunders and Barber, 2008; Coley et

al., 2009; Cholette, 2011; Forssell and Lankoski, in press).

In the EU, sensitivity towards a territory and its agro-food pro-ducts is based on the Mediterranean approach of Latin Countries of which it has been said in the past (Bonadonna et al., 2013): it highlights the importance of combining nature-related factors (climate, water, soil) and human factors (culture, tradition, me-thod) in a particular “place”, which allows food and agriculture production to acquire characteristics and specificities that are unrepeatable in analogous standardised productions and, by stating their origin, to enhance their reputation.

In addition to renewing established tools such as certification schemes dedicated to the Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and the Tradi-tional Specialities Guaranteed (TSG) (Gragnani, 2013; Tosato, 2013), the European Union’s recent food and agriculture policy emphasises that the agricultural sector can even be sustained through implementation of initiatives that favour geographical areas with specific geomorphological conditions.

EU Regulation no. 1151/2012 (“Quality Package”) further outlines the concept of origin as an element for the quality assessment of agro-food products and emphasises the impor-tance of the relationship between food and territory. This objec-tive is highlighted by a willingness in Europe to establish and define several optional quality terms inspired by the local territory.

As stated in the text of the legislation (article 29, paragraph 1), “optional quality terms” have a European dimension and must relate to a characteristic of one or more categories of pro-ducts, or to a farming or processing attribute which applies in specific areas; their use term adds value to the product as com-pared to products of a similar type.

The main objective of these instruments consists, on the one hand, in facilitating the transfer of information between the producer and the consumer with regard to the particular charac-teristics and/or properties of the product, and, on the other hand, in highlighting the importance of supporting the income and the creation of wealth in less-favoured communities. In this regard, the Regulation provides for the set-up of two optional quality terms: mountain product and product of island farming.

22.. O

Oppttiioonnaall qquuaalliittyy tteerrm

m ““m

moouunnttaaiinn pprroodduucctt””

Referring to the first term, after several months of work (OJEU, 2010), evaluations (Santini et al., 2013) and substantial changes from the original ideas (e.g. not introducing labelling systems consistent with the regulations on animal welfare and environ-mental sustainability – EC Commission, 2009), the European legislator has tried to involve the rural and less-favoured areas directly, trusting in the creation of a useful instrument for

mountain farmers and producers to define new trade strategies to promote output.

In order to reduce the possibility of confusion in consumers comparing the mountain origin of products, Legislators have stressed the need to establish more relevant application criteria for the optional quality term (e.g. production methods, procurement of raw materials and semi-finished products from non-mountain areas) as well as any derogations for the use of the term mountain product.

For the definition of mountain areas, considered to be among the least-favoured areas in the European Union, the article refers to EC Regulation no. 1257/1999. They are characterised by a reduction in the potential use of land and an increase in labour costs than in flatland areas. These elements may be due to se-veral factors:

a) altitude makes weather conditions particularly difficult, with a consequent reduction in the growing season;

b) steep slopes prevent the use of machinery or require spe-cial and expensive tools, even at lower altitudes;

c) a combination of the above factors.

In light of such considerations, the quality package esta-blishes mountain product as a new optional quality term dedica-ted to product categories for human consumption that meet two specific conditions in their production chain and process:

a) both raw materials and farm animal feedstuffs come pri-marily from mountain areas;

b) the transformation of the food product is carried out in a mountain area (for processed products only).

These provisions were interpreted by the European Commission and translated into EU Delegated Regulation no. 665/2014 which, in fact, identifies the necessary requirements for use of the term mountain product. The text provides precise indications on the length of time animals must stay in the mountain environment and the origins of their feed, and also provides derogations for processing operations. According to the current guidelines, the indications contained in this Regulation should lead to the crea-tion of a labelling system.

33.. PPuurrppoossee

The purpose of this work is to assess the applicability of the provisions of EU Commission Delegated Regulation No. 665/ 2014 in the production chain of cow’s milk and milk products.

It was decided to limit the study to a traditional Piedmont dairy product and the companies that produce it. The ensuing search led to the selection of “Toma del lait brusc” as the subject of investigation, since historically it was made only in mountain areas, but is now produced in flatland areas. This cheese was included in the National List of Traditional Agro-Food Products (PAT) and is one of the products selected by Piedmont Region (Bonadonna et al. 2013) to define the guidelines for implemen-ting a regional quality certification system (Varese et al. 2010).

33..11.. RReeqquuiirreem

meennttss ooff EEUU C

Coom

mm

miissssiioonn

D

Deelleeggaatteedd RReegguullaattiioonn nnoo.. 666655//22001144

The Regulation states that the term “mountain product” can be applied to products made from cattle farms in mountain areas provided that

a) these products are supplied from animals reared for at least the last two thirds of their life in those mountain areas, if the products are processed in such areas;

b) or, by way of derogation, products made from transhumant animals that have been reared for at least one quarter of their life in transhumance pastures in mountain areas.

With regard to ruminants, the Regulation also states that feedstuffs for farm animals can be considered to come essentially from mountain areas if “the proportion of the annual animal diet

that cannot be produced in mountain areas, expressed as a percentage of dry matter, (...) does not exceed 40%”.

With regard to the processing of milk and milk products, the text states that such activities may also be performed outside of mountain areas, in processing facilities in place on 3 January

(6)

FFO

OO

ODD SSAAFFEETTYY M

MAAN

NAAG

GEEM

MEEN

NTT

1

0

1

1 Q

QUUAALLIITTYY

V

o

l

.

1

6

6 ,

,

N

o

.

1

4

4 /

/

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

5

2013, provided that the distance from the mountain area in question does not exceed 30 kilometres. It is left to individual Member States to decide whether to implement all or part of this derogation.

33..22.. TToom

maa ddeell llaaiitt bbrruusscc:: ddeessccrriippttiioonn

“Toma del Lait Brusc” (a Piedmont term meaning “cheese made from sour milk”), also known as “Bianca Alpina” (from here on referred to as “Toma”), is a dairy product whose area of production historically, but not exclusively, includes the territory of the Alpine Susa and Lanzo Valleys and Val Sangone, in the province of Turin (Torino). The term “toma” is generally applied to cheeses made from cow’s, goat’s and/or sheep’s milk obtai-ned in the north-western Italian Alps, on the border with France and Switzerland (the French “tomme” has the same etymology). The particular characteristics (Zeppa et al., 2004) of Toma are identified and described in special production rules set out for the

Paniere mark in the province of Turin (Provincia di Torino, 2012),

an initiative for the promotion of local products launched for the 2006 Winter Olympics, and still in place today (Borra et al., 2012).

Toma is a cheese made from raw, semi-skimmed cow’s milk, which has a medium to long maturation period and the following size characteristics: cylindrical shape with flat sides and straight heel; weight from 3 to 6 kg; heel height is 10 cm to 20 cm and diameter is 20 to 25 cm.

The texture is chalky, meaning that it is compact, almost glassy, with practically no holes and offering a certain amount of resistance to cutting. Unlike other “toma” cheeses, slices are not shiny and soft looking, but have a micro roughness and crumble easily. This is due to the use of sour milk, which gives the cheese a special texture. The colour varies from ivory to off-yellow. The rind is smooth or slightly irregular, grey or slightly orange, ten-ding to intensify with age.

The cow’s milk must be processed raw, semi-skimmed with a fat content of no more than 3.0% and undergone acidification.

It should be matured for no less than 70 days, which is sufficient to produce the aromatic characteristics of this particular type of cheese.

It should be mentioned that although maintaining the typical characteristics listed in the rules, Toma is not necessarily duced in mountain areas and therefore the milk used in its pro-duction does not have to come from mountain areas.

44.. SSuurrvveeyy M

Meetthhoodd

In order to verify observance of the requirements of the Regulations, we identified all producers of “Toma” belonging to the association of producers, set up for the Province of Turin

Paniere mark for local products.

The final sample consists of 12 companies based in the Province of Turin in the municipalities of Balangero (1), Bruzolo (1), Corio (1), Giaveno (4), Lanzo Torinese (1), Pianezza (Lago Nero pasture land, Cesana) (1), Venaus (1), Verolengo (Alpe Brusà del Plan a Sauze pasture land, Cesana) (1), Villarfocchiar-do (1); 10 companies are in the mountain area, 2 companies are located in flatland areas and move their animals to pasture land in the summer only (Figure 1).

The company based in Balangero is a dairy that does not produce its own milk, but purchases large quantities of raw material from local farms. The remaining companies are farms which produce Toma solely from their own milk.

Data about the farms was collected through a three-part questionnaire. The first section asks for information about the company and the production of Toma (production period and amount produced); the second section asks about the place where the animals are bred, in order to verify observance of the first of the Regulation’s requirements, and also collects infor-mation about the type of feed given to the animals, to verify ob-servance of the second requisite; the third deals with the com-pany owner’s perceptions of the optional quality term “mountain product”.

For the production of the cheese, we conducted interviews using a simplified questionnaire, consisting of a section asking about the company and the production of Toma and another section dealing with the company owner’s perceptions of the optional quality term “mountain product”. This was because no animal rearing activities are involved in this part of the business. The questionnaires used the PAPI (Paper and Pen Interview) system completed by an interviewer (in person and by telephone).

Below are the results of the interviews carried out at the farms. The questions for the dairy are separate (except for information about the production of Toma processed together with other association members) and are found at the end of the para-graph.

55.. RReessuullttss

55..11.. C

Coom

mppaannyy IInnffoorrm

maattiioonn

According to their answers, Toma producers are mainly lo-cated in mountain areas (10 out of 12 companies): 6 practise transhumance in the summer (including the two companies based in flatland areas) in pastures in Susa Valley (5) and Val Chisone (1) (Table 1); the remaining farms rear and pasture their animals around their own land.

In addition to cows for cheese production, 5 farms also sell non-pasteurized fresh milk directly on the farm and another 5 also rear goats; 2 farms sell some of their milk to other com-panies for processing.

FFiigguurree 11.. LLooccaattiioonn ooff ccoommppaanniieess aanndd tthheeiirr ppaassttuurreess iinn tthhee PPrroovviinnccee ooff TTuurriinn

TTaabbllee 11.. LLooccaattiioonn ooff ffaarrmmss ((mmuunniicciippaalliittyy aanndd tteerrrriittoorryy)) aanndd tthheeiirr ppaassttuurreess iinn tthhee PPrroovviinnccee ooff TTuurriinn C

Coommppaannyy MMuunniicciippaalliittyy TTeerrrriittoorryy PPaassttuurree

1 Pianezza Flatland Cesana Torinese (Lago Nero) 2 Verolengo Flatland Cesana Torinese (Alpe Brusà del_Plan) 3 Giaveno Mountain Giaveno

4 Venaus Mountain Mompantero 5 Giaveno Mountain Pragelato 6 Bruzolo Mountain Chianocco 7 Lanzo Torinese Mountain Lanzo Torinese 8 Giaveno Mountain Giaveno 9 Giaveno Mountain Giaveno 10 Corio Mountain Corio

(7)

1

0

2

2 FFO

OO

ODD SSAAFFEETTYY M

MAAN

NAAG

GEEM

MEEN

NTT

Q

QUUAA LLIITTYY

V

o

l

.

1

6

6 ,

,

N

o

.

1

4

4 /

/

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

5

5 55..22.. TToom

maa ddeell llaaiitt bbrruusscc::

pprroodduuccttiioonn ppeerriioodd aanndd qquuaannttiittiieess

For most of the respondents, the production period covers the entire year (7); 3 companies use the warmest months in variable periods (4 to 7 months) in line with tradition; 1 company excludes the summer period (production from October to April).

The average number of forms of Toma made in the last year (2013) by the dairy, which will be discussed later, was approxi-mately 2,700. The average weight declared is 4.5 kilograms/ form. The total quantity produced is around 12 tonnes and the total consumption value is estimated at around 150,000 Euros.

55..33.. RReeqquuiirreem

meennttss ooff EEUU C

Coom

mm

miissssiioonn

D

Deelleeggaatteedd RReegguullaattiioonn nnoo.. 666655//22001144

As seen in Table 1, the sample can be divided into three diffe-rent types of farming: companies located in mountain areas practising transhumance in the summer, companies located in mountain areas that do not practise transhumance and com-panies based in flatland area which pasture during the summer. The restriction of where breeding should take place can be met by all the companies in the study. According to the informa-tion provided, the 10 companies based in mountain areas should have no difficulty reaching the requirement for the last 2/3 of life because the animals spend their entire production life in these areas. The 2 companies based in flatland areas, on the other hand, pasture for around 4 months in the mountain, enabling them to meet the restriction for transhumant animals to spend at least a quarter of their lives in mountain areas. For compliance purposes, the document mentioned by most respondents is Model 7 (6 companies). However, the rest of the sample still have doubts and did not indicate alternatives.

According to the respondents, the requirement for feedstuffs, regarded “essentially from mountain areas” “if the proportion of

the annual animal diet that cannot be produced in mountain areas, expressed as a percentage of dry matter, does not exceed 40 % (...) in the case of ruminants”, has been reached throughout

the sample: 10 companies based in mountain areas meet this percentage by a minimum of 65% of self-produced feedstuffs and/or sourced locally up to a maximum of 100%; 2 companies based in flatland areas declare 95% solely for the period pasture (Table 2).

The remaining feedstuffs given to animals are sourced from agricultural cooperatives (3 companies), farmers’ cooperatives (2) and private feed companies (1). None of the respondents was able to state the actual origin of these products.

To ensure compliance with this requirement, the only docu-mentary instrument mentioned by respondents is the Quaderno

di Campagna (4 companies); in this case, most of the sample

indicated no instrument (7).

TTaabbllee 22.. NNuummbbeerr ooff ffaarrmmss aanndd ppeerrcceennttaaggee ooff ffeeeedd ssoouurrcceedd llooccaallllyy

55..44.. O

Oppttiioonnaall ““m

moouunnttaaiinn pprroodduucctt”” qquuaalliittyy tteerrm

m

Before the final part of the questionnaire, on the basis of the answers already given, the respondents were given a brief pre-sentation of the labelling system proposed by the European Union and the relative requirements. This resulted in a number of observations which can be summed up as follows: although a significant portion of the sample (7 companies) did not know about the European initiative before the questionnaire, 9 out of 11 companies believe that these provisions could be easily met by farms operating in mountain areas, whether or not they prac-tise transhumance. However, some respondents said that

imple-mentation of such a system should not increase costs, both in strictly economic terms and in terms of time spent, since, by definition, mountain forms are less-advantaged economic entities with low productivity and could do without extra expenses.

In terms of their own businesses, the entire sample thought they would be able to meet the requirements in order to use the wording “mountain product” for the whole of their dairy produc-tion, including Toma (the respondents of the two flatland com-panies emphasised the possibility of using the labelling system for the whole of production attributable to only one period of pas-ture). Most of the sample (9 out of 11 companies) also believed that this tool might be useful for their business: 5 companies, however, said that integration of the instrument shouldn’t lead to further costs, 4 companies would be prepared to recognise its value of integration, whether self-monitored or controlled by independent third-party organisation, if a certification system were introduced. In the latter case, the additional cost they would be prepared to pay would be 3.5 percent of the value of pro-duction.

55..55.. IInnffoorrm

maattiioonn aabboouutt cchheeeessee ffaaccttoorryy

In accordance with the provisions of the Regulation, the dairy is currently located in a mountain municipality and has been in business since 2007 (before the limit of 3 January 2013). The core business is transformation of raw cow’s milk into different types of cheese (Toma di Lanzo, small cheeses and flavoured herb cheeses, Toma del lait brusc), ricotta and butter.

Before the questionnaire, the owner had never heard of the European labelling system. However, he thinks the instrument could easily be integrated into his business (the company tracea-bility system already keeps milk batches separate and enables them to be closely traced within the company), provided that the farms which supply cow’s milk are able to comply with the re-quirements of the legislation: About 60% of the milk that is processed in the company comes from local companies based in mountain towns. However, he did not currently know how many could be defined as “from the mountain” and how many producers would be able to document their compliance with the requirements. He also thought that it was too early to give a positive evaluation of the system, since it would be useful to get the impressions of the farms as well as of potential consumers of mountain cheese. However, if the interest of consumers and primary producers were assured, he would have no difficulty bearing the cost of self-monitoring, thanks to the existing tracea-bility system, as well as the cost of further certification with third-party monitoring.

66.. DDiissccuussssiioonn

The work carried out by the European Commission to define the requirements for the optional “mountain product” quality term appears to have achieved its objectives. The survey among Toma producers demonstrates that only those operating in moun-tain areas and able to obmoun-tain feed from the territory concerned are entitled to use the term.

With regards to time spent in the mountain area, the respon-dents said they were able fulfil the requirements of the Regulation quite easily: the location of the company headquarters, Model 7 (official document for transfers to mountain pastures) and Model 4 (official document certifying the transport of animals) trace the time spent and routes of each animal, which also ensures that formal requirements are met. In view of this documentation, the requirement is easily verifiable for companies based in mountain areas and for those based in flatland areas.

In terms of feedstuffs, the statement suggests that fulfilment would be easy (only a couple of companies said that 30-35% of dry matter is not sourced from the mountain area), although some limitations are seen in the difficulty of being able to support these declarations an effective document. Some mentioned the

Quaderno di Campagna as the instrument which contains

infor-mation about the type and quantity of agricultural production in a company, but leaves the issue of the origin of feed purchased N

Noo.. ccoommppaanniieess 1 3* 3 2 1 1 %

% ffeeeedd 100 95 90 80 70 65

(8)

FFO

OO

ODD SSAAFFEETTYY M

MAAN

NAAG

GEEM

MEEN

NTT

1

0

3

3 Q

QUUAALLIITTYY

V

o

l

.

1

6

6 ,

,

N

o

.

1

4

4 /

/

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

5

from third parties. Another criticism of the second requirement is the difficulty calculating the required percentage of dry matter content.

Interviews with various subjects also highlighted the need to know the possible costs arising from implementation of the European Union labelling system. While the first requirement can be checked by consulting documents already present on farms, the second requirement might lead to several costs. If the

Qua-derno di Campagna is not sufficient, companies interested in

using the term would have to ensure their feedstuffs come from mountain areas, in addition to managing a document system to trace the feed. The proposed certification system, further reduced producers’ inclination to include the “mountain product” term.

When it comes to the place of processing, there should be no complications for companies operating in a mountain area which manage the entire production chain. For companies operating in flatland areas, much will depend on the interpretation given by Member States to the derogation for “processing operations” outside of the “mountain area in question.”

It is also worth noting the comments of the dairy owner, who mentioned the need to evaluate the interests of mountain farms in documenting the uniqueness of their mountain milk, and the desire of potential consumers to buy mountain dairy products.

There are two particular aspects that should be mentioned about the quantity of Toma produced and compliance with the production specification rules: compared with previous obser-vations (Bonadonna et al., 2014), there was an increase in overall production in the 2011-2013 period, both in terms of weight and the number of forms. At the same time, a number of dimensional inconsistencies still remain, because, for market reasons and depending on the availability of raw materials, pro-ducers do not always comply with the provisions regarding the weight of the form, heel and/or diameter.

77.. C

Coonncclluussiioonnss

In the past, the application of European quality systems has led to mixed results. While the financial economic results achie-ved by the quality agro-food sector in several European countries cannot be ignored (Ismea Qualivita, 2013; Tiberius and Diniz, 2012; Bouamra- Mechemache and Chaaban, 2010), however those results could be further improved, for example, in terms of commercial strategies (Arfini e Capelli, 2009), volume (Tiberio and Diniz, 2012), cost (Tudisca et al., 2014) or structure of the offering (Antonelli and Viganò, 2014). The same structure of European quality systems has been criticised. For example, the European quality system disciplining traditional recipes (TSG) did not get the expected results, mainly owing to a weak link between product and territory (Peira, 2014).

However, as far as the “mountain product” is concerned, the initiative of the European Union is praiseworthy. The creation of a labelling system for these products should support local economies and integrate the tangible elements of which they are made up, more generally as a “territorial brand” (Pencarelli and Forlani, 2006). For this to happen, draft legislation aimed at creating quality instruments should be followed and supported by careful planning of activities on the part of stakeholders, inclu-ding local authorities, proceeinclu-ding with the necessary timing and precautions (Tregear et al., 2007).

If implemented consistently, agro-food products from moun-tain areas could be enhanced by the initiative. This presupposes the need to assess the applicability of the requirements to broader mountain areas and all sectors affected by EU Delegated Regulation no. 665/2014 and to establish whether or not consumers are effectively interested.

Q Q--aass

RReeffeerreenncceess

[1] AAnnttoonneellllii,, GG.. and VViiggaannòò,, EE.. (2009), L’economia dei prodotti agroalimentari tipici tra vincoli tecnici e sfide organizzative, Italian Journal of Agronomy, 4 (3), 125-136.

[2] AArrffiinnii,, FF.. and CCaappeellllii,, MM..GG.. (2011), The resilient character of PDO/PGI products in dynamic food markets: The Italian case, In A Resilient European Food Industry in a Challenging World, 37-57.

[3] BBaanntteerrllee,, AA.. and SSttrraanniieerrii,, SS.. (2008), Information, labelling, and vertical coordination: An analysis of the Italian meat supply networks, Agribusiness, 24 (2), 320-331.

[4] BBeelllliivveeaauu,, SS.. (2005), Resisting global, buying local: Goldsmith revisited, The Great Lake Geographer, (12) 1, 45-53.

[5] BBeerrnnuueess,, AA..,, OOllaaiizzoollaa,, AA.. and CCoorrccoorraann,, KK.. (2003), Labelling information demanded by European consumers and relationship with purchasing

motives, quality and safety of meat, Meat science, (65) 3, 1095-1106.

[6] BBoonnaaddoonnnnaa,, AA..,, AAcceettoo,, PP..,, PPeeiirraa,, GG.. and VVaarreessee EE.. (2013), Hypothesis for relaunch of the pig farming sector in piedmont: medium/heavy pigmeat

as the raw material in the production of cooked ham, Quality – Access to success, 14(135), 104-108.

[7] BBoonnaaddoonnnnaa,, AA..,, PPeeiirraa,, GG..,, VVaarreessee,, EE.. and VViittttoonnee PP.. (2014), Osservazioni e prospettive per un prodotto lattiero caseario tradizionale piemontese:

la ‘Toma del lait brusc’ o ‘Bianca alpina’, In Tarabella, A. (eds.) Atti del XXVI Congresso Nazionale di Scienze Merceologiche “Innovazione,

Sostenibilità e Tutela dei Consumatori: L’Evoluzione delle Scienze Merceologiche per la Creazione di Valore e Competitività”, Pisa, 102-114. [8] BBoorrrraa,, DD..,, GGaarroogglliioo,, PP..,, MMaassssaagglliiaa,, SS.. and MMaazzzzaarriinnoo SS.. (2012), Marchio e valorizzazione dei prodotti tipici e locali, Micro & Macro Marketing,

XXI (3), 461-478.

[9] BBoouuaammrraa--MMeecchheemmaacchhee,, ZZ.. and CChhaaaabbaann,, JJ.. (2010), Determinants of Adoption of Protected Designation of Origin Label: Evidence from the French

Brie Cheese Industry, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 225-239.

[10] BBrroowwnn,, CC.. and MMiilllleerr,, SS.. (2008), The impacts of local markets: a review of research on farmers markets and community supported agriculture

(CSA), American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1296-1302.

[11] CCaappppeelllleettttii,, GG..MM..,, VVaarreessee,, EE.. and BBoonnaaddoonnnnaa,, AA.. (2008), Analisi qualitativa e quantitativa sugli oli d’Oliva prodotti in Piemonte (Qualitative and

quantitative analysis on olive oils produced in Piedmont), Industrie Alimentari, 47(485), 1097-1102, 1108.

[12] CChhoolleettttee,, SS.. (2011), Addressing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food distribution: a case study of Californian farmers’ markets, Economia agro-alimentare, 3, 145-168.

[13] CCoolleeyy,, DD..,, HHoowwaarrdd,, MM..,, WWiinntteerr,, MM.. (2009), Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution

approaches, Food Policy, 34, 150-155.

[14] DDaannsseerroo,, EE.. and PPuuttttiillllii,, MM.. (2014), Multiple territorialities of alternative food networks: six cases from Piedmont, Italy, Local Environment, 19(6), 626-643.

[15] DDuuppuuiiss,, EE.. MM.. and GGooooddmmaann,, DD.. (2005), Should we go home to eat?’ Toward a reflexive politics of localism, Journal of Rural Studies, 21, 359-371.

[16] Ec Commission (2009), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social

committee and the committee of the Regions on agricultural product quality policy, Available from hhttttpp::////eeuurr--lleexx..eeuurrooppaa..eeuu//lleeggaall--ccoonntteenntt//EENN// TTXXTT//PPDDFF//??uurrii==CCEELLEEXX::5522000099DDCC00223344&&ffrroomm==EENN.

[17] FFoorrsssseellll,, SS.. and LLaannkkoosskkii,, LL.. (in press), The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination through ‘‘alternative’’

(9)

1

0

4

4 FFO

OO

ODD SSAAFFEETTYY M

MAAN

NAAG

GEEM

MEEN

NTT

Q

QUUAA LLIITTYY

V

o

l

.

1

6

6 ,

,

N

o

.

1

4

4 /

/

F

e

b

r

u

a

r

y

2

0

1

5

[18]FFoosstteerr,, CC..,, GGrreeeenn,, KK..,, BBlleeddaa,, MM..,, DDeewwiicckk,, PP..,, EEvvaannss,, BB..,, FFllyynnnn,, AA.. and MMyyllaann,, JJ.. (2006), Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Manchester Business School, Defra, London, Available from hhttttpp::////wwwwww..iiffrr..aacc..uukk//wwaassttee//RReeppoorrttss//DDEEFFRRAA--EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall%%2200IImmppaaccttss%%2200ooff%%2200FFoooodd%%2200PPrroodduuccttiioonn%%2200%%2200CCoonnssuummppttiioonn..ppddff..

[19] GGrraaggnnaannii,, MM.. (2013), The EU regulation 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, European Food and Feed Law Review, 8 (6), 376-385.

[20] IIkkeerrdd,, JJ..EE.. (2011), Local food: revolution and reality, Journal of Agriculture & Food Information, 12 (1), 49-57.

[21] IIssmmeeaa QQuuaalliivviittaa (2013), Rapporto 2013 sulle produzioni agroalimentari italiane DOP, IGP e STG, Available from hhttttpp::////wwwwww..iissmmeeaa..iitt//fflleexx//ccmm// ppaaggeess//SSeerrvveeBBLLOOBB..pphhpp//LL//IITT//IIDDPPaaggiinnaa//88776655.

[22] MMaakk,, AA..HH..NN..,, LLuummbbeerrss MM.. and EEvveess AA.. (2012), Globalisation and food consumption in tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (1), 171-196. [23] MMaannffrreeddiinnii,, RR.. (2010), Il paesaggio alimentare: tutela e valorizzazione delle eccellenze italiane, Silvæ, 6 (13), 93-97.

[24] MMaarrttiinneellllii,, LL..AA..,, NNaarrddoottoo,, GG..BB..,, CChheessssoonn,, LL..AA..,, RRiinnaallddii,, FF..DD..,, OOmmeettttoo JJ..PP..HH..BB..,, CCeerrlliinngg TT..EE.. and EEhhlleerriinnggeerr JJ..RR.. (2011),Worldwide stable carbon

and nitrogen isotopes of Big Mac® patties: An example of a truly ‘glocal’ food, Food Chemistry, 127, 1712-1718.

[25] MMaattuussiittzz,, JJ.. and LLoorrdd,, LL.. (2013), Glocalization or Grobalization of Wal-Mart in the US? A Qualitative Analysis, Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 10 (1) 81-100.

[26] NNoonniinnii,, DD..MM.. (2013), The local food movement and the anthropology of global system, American Ethnologist, 40 (2), 267-275.

[27] Official Journal of the European Union (2010), Commission Communication — EU best practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for

agricultural products and foodstuffs (2010/C 341/04), Available from hhttttpp::////eeuurr--lleexx..eeuurrooppaa..eeuu//lleeggaall--ccoonntteenntt//EENN//TTXXTT//PPDDFF//??uurrii==OOJJ::CC::22001100:: 334411::FFUULLLL&&ffrroomm==IITT.

[28] PPeeiirraa,, GG.. (2014), I sistemi di qualità in ambito europeo nel settore agroalimentare, in La qualità nel settore agroalimentare, In Sistemi di qualità e strumenti innovativi, Torino: Celid. 71-124.

[29] PPeennccaarreellllii,, TT.. and FFoorrllaannii,, FF.. (2006), Il marketing dei prodotti tipici nella prospettiva dell’economia delle esperienze, In Congresso Internazionale “Le tendenze del Marketing”, Venezia: Università Ca’ Foscari.

[30] PPeerrcciivvaallee,, FF..,, BBeellttrraammoo,, RR.. and PPeeiirraa GG.. (1996), La qualità dei prodotti alimentari. L’evoluzione della filiera agroalimentare verso la qualità del

prodotto, De Qualitate, 50 (2), 87-94.

[31] PPeerrii,, CC.. (2006), The universe of food quality, Food quality and preference, 17, 3-8.

[32] PPeettrriinnii,, CC.. (2005), Buono pulito e giusto. Nuovi principi di neogastronomia, Torino: Giulio Einaudi Editore.

[33] Provincia di Torino (2012), Paniere dei Prodotti tipici. Provincia di Torino 2012-2013, Available from hhttttpp::////wwwwww..pprroovviinncciiaa..ttoorriinnoo..ggoovv..iitt//aaggrriimmoonntt// ffiillee--ssttoorraaggee//ddoowwnnllooaadd//ttiippiiccii//ppddff//ppaanniieerree__bbrroocchhuurree__ttiippiiccii..ppddff.

[34] RReessaannoo,, HH..,, SSaannjjuuáánn,, AA.. II.. and AAllbbiissuu LL.. MM.. (2012), Consumers’ response to the EU Quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences, Food Policy, 37(4), 355-365.

[35] SSaannttiinnii FF..,, GGuurrii FF.. and GGoommeezz yy PPaalloommaa SS.. (2013), Labelling of agricultural and food products of mountain farming, JRC Scientific and policy reports, Report EUR25768EN, European Union, Available from hhttttpp::////eecc..eeuurrooppaa..eeuu//aaggrriiccuullttuurree//eexxtteerrnnaall--ssttuuddiieess//mmoouunnttaaiinn--ffaarrmmiinngg__eenn..hhttmm. [36] SSaauunnddeerrss,, CC.. and BBaarrbbeerr,, AA.. (2008), Carbon Footprints, Life Cycle Analysis, Food Miles: Global Trade Trends and Market Issues, Political Science,

60 (1), 73-88.

[37] SScchhnneellll,, SS.. MM.. (2011), The local traveler: farming, food and place in state and provincial tourisme guides, 1993-2008, Journal of Cultural Geography, 28 (2), 281-309.

[38] SSggrrooii,, FF..,, DDii TTrraappaannii,, AA.. MM..,, TTeessttaa,, RR.. and TTuuddiissccaa,, SS.. (2014), The rural tourism as development opportunity or farms. The case of direct sales in

Sicily, American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 9 (3, 407-419.

[39] TTiibbeerriioo,, LL..,, DDiinniizz,, FF.. (2012), Agri-food Traditional Products: From Certification to the Market – Portuguese recent evolution, Regional Science Inquiry Journal, IV (2), 57-86.

[40] TToossaattoo,, AA.. (2013), The Protection of Traditional Foods in the EU: Traditional Specialities Guaranteed, European Law Journal, 19 (4), 545-576. [41] TTrreeggeeaarr,, AA..,, AArrffiinnii,, FF..,, BBeelllleettttii,, GG.. and MMaarreessccoottttii,, AA.. (2007), Regional foods and rural development: The role of product qualification, Journal of

Rural Studies, 23, 12-22.

[42] TTrreeggeeaarr,, AA..,, KKuuzznneessooff,, SS.. and MMooxxeeyy,, AA.. (1998), Policy initiatives for regional foods: some insights from consumer research, Food Policy, 23(5), 383-394.

[43] TTuuddiissccaa,, SS..,, DDii TTrraappaannii,, AA..MM..,, SSggrrooii,, FF..,, TTeessttaa,, RR.. (2014), Economic evaluation of PDO introduction in Sicilian orange farms, Quality – Access to Success, 15(139), 99-103.

[44] TTuurrnneerr,, BB..SS.. (2003), McDonaldization: Linearity and Liquidity in Consumer Cultures, American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 137-153.

[45] VVaann IItttteerrssuumm,, KK..,, MMeeuulleemmbbeerrgg,, MM..TT..GG..,, VVaann TTrriipp,, HH..CC..MM.. and CCaannddeell,, MM..JJ..JJ.. (2007), Consumers’ appreciation of Regional certification labels: a

Pan-European study, Journal of agricultural Economics, 58(1), 1-23.

[46] VVaannhhoonnaacckkeerr,, FF..,, VVeerrbbeekkee,, WW..,, GGuueerrrreerroo,, LL..,, CCllaarreett,, AA..,, CCoonntteell,, MM..,, SSccaallvveeddii,, LL..,, ZZaakkoowwsskkaa--BBiieemmaannss,, SS..,, GGuuttkkoowwsskkaa,, KK..,, SSuullmmoonntt--RRoosssséé,, CC..,, RRaauuddee,, JJ..,, GGrraannllii,, BB..SS.. and HHeerrsslleetthh,, MM.. (2010), How European Consumer define the concept of Traditional food: evidence from survey in six

countries, Agribusiness, 26(4), 453-476.

[47] VVaarreessee,, EE..,, BBoonnaaddoonnnnaa,, AA.. and PPeerrcciivvaallee,, FF.. (2010), Il progetto ‘Piemonte Agriqualità’. La valorizzazione delle produzioni agroalimentari

piemontesi, De Qualitate, XIX (6), 14-22.

[48] ZZeeppppaa,, GG..,, RRoollllee,, LL..,, DDii BBllaassii,, GGii..,, TTaalllloonnee,, GG..,, SSppeeggiiss,, II..,, CCaarreegglliioo,, VV..,, CCoommbbaa,, GG..,, GGaammbbaa,, LL..,, AArrrruu,, RR.. and GGiiaaccccoonnee,, DD.. (2004),

Caratterizza-zione della produCaratterizza-zione tradizionale regionale dei prodotti Lattiero-caseari: Toma del lait brusc, Murianengo, Formaggio crosta rossa, Cevrin di Coazze, Quaderni della Regione Piemonte, 41, 26-29.

The European Optional Quality Term "Mountain Product": Hypothetical Application in the Production Chain of a Traditional Dairy Product

V

V

o

o

l

l

.

.

1

1

6

6

,

,

N

N

o

o

.

.

1

1

4

4

4

4

/

/

F

F

e

e

b

b

r

r

u

u

a

a

r

r

y

y

2

2

0

0

1

1

5

5

2

2

CONTENTS

Vol. 16, No. 144 - February 2015

Alexandru Giura, Petrişor Gagiu, Metrology in Total

Productive Maintenance

58

Eduard Ceptureanu, Sebastian Ceptureanu,

Change Management Survey on Innovative ITC

Romanian SMEs

62

Mihai Vrîncuþ, Cezar Simion-Melinte, Qualitative

Techniques for Project Management

VI.a. Particularities of Romanian Project

Management. Construction Projects (III)

66

Valentina Mihaela Ghinea, Mihalache Ghinea,

Organizational Culture Dynamics. Preamble

69

Mouna Zahar, Abdellah El Barkany,

Ahmed El Biyaali, Piloting Process Improvement

by the Cost of Non-Quality: A Case Study

73

Andrey Sergeevich Mikhaylov, Ivan Sergeevich

Gumenuk, Anna Alekseevna Mikhaylova,

The SERVQUAL Model in Measuring Service

Quality of Public Transportation: Evidence