CONTENTS Vol. 16, No. 144 - February 2015

INFO/EVENIMENT  Alexandru Giura, Petrişor Gagiu, Metrology in Total  ISO 45001, etapa de Proiect de comitet 1 Productive Maintenance 58  Jeni Toma, SR EN ISO 21500:2014, Linii directoare  Eduard Ceptureanu, Sebastian Ceptureanu, pentru managementul de proiect – standard Change Management Survey on Innovative ITC de baz ã pentru eficien þa proiectelor 3 Romanian SMEs 62  Noul standard ISO pentru managementul  Mihai Vrîncuþ, Cezar Simion-Melinte, Qualitative conformit ãþii 4 Techniques for Project Management VI.a. Particularities of Romanian Project MANAGEMENTUL CALITÃÞII Management. Construction Projects (III) 66  Firic ã Popa, Standardul ISO 9001:2015,  Valentina Mihaela Ghinea, Mihalache Ghinea, punct şi de la capãt! (II) 5 Organizational Culture Dynamics. Preamble 69  Titu-Marius I. Bãjenescu, Gestionarea riscurilor 10  Mouna Zahar, Abdellah El Barkany,  Oana Pãun, Managementul asigurãrii şi gestiunii Ahmed El Biyaali, Piloting Process Improvement resurselor materiale – Garanþia calitãþii by the Cost of Non-Quality: A Case Study 73 V. Direcþii de îmbunãtãþire a procesului  Andrey Sergeevich Mikhaylov, Ivan Sergeevich de asigurare şi gestiune a resurselor materiale 17 Gumenuk, Anna Alekseevna Mikhaylova,  Alexandru Giura, Petrişor Gagiu, Metrologia The SERVQUAL Model in Measuring Service în sistemul Mentenanþã Productivã Totalã 22 Quality of Public Transportation: Evidence  Eduard Ceptureanu, Sebastian Ceptureanu, from Russia 78 Anchetã privind implementarea managementului  Steliana Cojocariu, Development Trends Analysis schimbãrii în IMM-urile inovative din România 28 for the Cultural Routes at European Level  Mihai Vrîncuþ, Cezar Simion-Melinte, Tehnici and in Romania 84 calitative în managementul de proiect  Ibrahim Al Ali, Constantin Militaru, VI.a. Particularitãþi ale mediului managementului Airport Ground Movement Optimization 87 de proiect românesc. Industria construcþiilor (III) 33  Valentina Mihaela Ghinea, Mihalache Ghinea, ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT Dinamica culturii organizaþionale. Preambul 37  Ovidiu Þuþuianu, Environmental Performance Indicators into Maintenance Activity MANAGEMENTUL MEDIULUI of Industrial Equipments 91  Ovidiu Þuþuianu, Indicatori ai performanþei de mediu în activitatea de mentenanþã FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT a echipamentelor industriale 42  Maurizio Lanfranchi, Carlo Giannetto, A Case Study on the Role of Farmers' Markets MANAGEMENTUL SIGURANÞEI in the Process of Shortening the Food Chain ALIMENTULUI and the Possible Economic Benefits for Consumers 94  Cornelia Şulea, Validarea în standardele  Alessandro Bonadonna, Giovanni Peira, de siguranþa alimentului 46 Erica Varese, The European Optional Quality Term “Mountain Product”: Hypothetical Application QUALITY MANAGEMENT in the Production Chain of a Traditional  Oana Pãun, Management of Procurement Dairy Product 99 and Material Resources – A Guarantee for Quality V. Directions for Improvement of the Process of Procurement and Management of Material Resources 54

CAL IT ATEA 2 V o l. 16, No . 144 /Fe b ru ary 2015 acces la succes FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT

The European Optional Quality Term “Mountain Product”: Hypothetiical Applicattion in the Producttion Chain of a Tradittional Dairy Product1

Alessandro BONADONNA*, Giovanni PEIRA**, Erica VARESE***

Abstract

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 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.

Keywords: mountain product, optional quality term, traditional dairy product, niche production, Toma del lait brusc .

1. Introduction tions, a phenomenon known as glocalization (Matusitz and Lord, 2013; Mak et al. , 2012; Turner, 2003). Some multinationals In a well-known publication (Petrini, 2005), Carlo Petrini sums operating in the agro-food sector have redefined strategies and up the meaning of the term globalisation in the apparently operational plans to adapt them to local specificities and expec- illogical behaviour of Asti farmers. In 1996, while they were re- tations (Martinelli et al. , 2011). The strategy taken in in producing tulip bulbs for fields in the Netherlands, Dutch farmers recent years by a well-known global restaurant chain is one were exporting to Italy sweet peppers produced, like other vege- example of this. Trade agreements with consortia safeguarding tables, through hydroponics. More generally, this mechanism was Italian PDO and PGI terms for the supply of ingredients and worthy of criticism for its distortive effects. International trade was Qualivita certification for restaurant service, the 100% Italian fuelling the phenomenon of replacing territorial specificities with burger first and with meat from two native Italian breeds later, standardised productions devoid of social, historical and traditio- demonstrate the need to link gastronomical offerings to the local nal content. territory. This means that place and local are not only funda- A number of changes have been made to the system since the mental to the creation of Alternative Food Networks (AFN) (Ikerd, mid 1990s. On the one hand, the institutions have designed and 2011; Nonini, 2013; Dansero and Puttilli, 2014) but can also be developed several tools aimed at recovering the traditions and considered adaptive (and in some cases essential) elements for territoriality of food and agricultural products and, on the other, operators of the global food system. The local approach in this private enterprise has reinterpreted the meaning of the term glo- case cannot be seen as a form of protectionism towards a balisation. concept of globalised trade, but rather, if anything, a useful In the first case, the EU, for example, pursues the objectives of comparison tool for identifying a path towards an equilibrium in protecting and safeguarding European agro-food production an imperfect system (DuPuis and Goodman, 2005). through the creation and application of instruments such as food Different classifications define food quality emphasising these safety rules, the Common Agricultural Policy, the Rural Develop- changes and, whether directly or indirectly, highlighting the im- ment Policy and food quality systems. Sometimes these issues are portance of the place of origin of a food product: agronomic developed and improved at local level. A few of these include: quality (Percivale et al. , 1996; Cappelletti et al. , 2008), traditio- the establishment of Traditional Agro-foods in Italy (Ministerial nal quality (Manfredini, 2010) and production context (Peri, Decree 350/99) and attempts to certify them (Varese et al. , 2010; 2006) demonstrate that these aspects should be in the product to Bonadonna et al. , 2014) or the recent Romanian legislation meet consumer expectations. dedicated to the certification of traditional products (Decree no. Western consumers associate product origin with tradition 724 of 29 July 2013 – Ordinul 724/2013). (Vanhonacker et al. , 2010) and actually acknowledges its value, In the second case, the changes seen in Western consumer requiring the term through the implementation of labelling societies have led to the global vision adapting to local condi- (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 , Corso Unione Sovietica, 218bis – 10134 Torino, Italy, E-mail: [email protected]. ** Department of Management, University of Turin, Torino, Italy, E-mail: [email protected]. *** Department of Management, University of Turin, Torino, Italy, E-mail: [email protected].

Q U AL IT Y access to success Vo l. 16, No . 14 4/Fe b ru ary 2015 99 FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT

cation systems (Van Ittersum et al. , 2007) that ensure transpa- mountain farmers and producers to define new trade strategies rency, food safety guarantees and are subject to independent to promote output. third-party monitoring (Resano et al. , 2012). In order to reduce the possibility of confusion in consumers In search of further guarantees, Western consumers have also comparing the mountain origin of products, Legislators have developed a high affinity for farmers’ market and local and stressed the need to establish more relevant application criteria regional foods, in order to regain awareness of the origin of for the optional quality term (e.g. production methods, products and to defend themselves from the homogenisation of procurement of raw materials and semi-finished products from the agro-food products of their local territory. non-mountain areas) as well as any derogations for the use of The benefits of a more widespread use of these instruments the term mountain product. are immeasurable. They make it possible to differentiate and For the definition of mountain areas, considered to be among characterise local products from similar standardised products; the least-favoured areas in the European Union, the article refers they enable the growth and development of local business to EC Regulation no. 1257/1999. They are characterised by a networks, the preservation of traditions and the protection of reduction in the potential use of land and an increase in labour local cultural heritage (Tregear et al. , 1998); they are based on costs than in flatland areas. These elements may be due to se- the direct and simple relationship between producers and veral factors: consumers (Belliveau, 2005); they promote the visibility of local a) altitude makes weather conditions particularly difficult, with products in public spaces; they educate consumers to the limi- a consequent reduction in the growing season; tations and the potential of local food (Brown and Miller, 2008); b) steep slopes prevent the use of machinery or require spe- they encourage the creation of initiatives and are a defence cial and expensive tools, even at lower altitudes; against product homogenisation (Schnell, 2011); they support c) a combination of the above factors. local production and small producers and safeguard work within In light of such considerations, the quality package esta- fragile rural communities (Sgroi et al. , 2014). Although it is blishes mountain product as a new optional quality term dedica- customary to see them as an advantage, the issue of the possible ted to product categories for human consumption that meet two benefits to be gained in environmental terms is actually contro- specific conditions in their production chain and process: versial (Foster et al. , 2006; Saunders and Barber, 2008; Coley et a) both raw materials and farm animal feedstuffs come pri- al. , 2009; Cholette, 2011; Forssell and Lankoski, in press). marily from mountain areas; In the EU, sensitivity towards a territory and its agro-food pro- b) the transformation of the food product is carried out in a ducts is based on the Mediterranean approach of Latin Countries mountain area (for processed products only). of which it has been said in the past (Bonadonna et al. , 2013): it These provisions were interpreted by the European Commission highlights the importance of combining nature-related factors and translated into EU Delegated Regulation no. 665/2014 (climate, water, soil) and human factors (culture, tradition, me- which, in fact, identifies the necessary requirements for use of the thod) in a particular “place”, which allows food and agriculture term mountain product . The text provides precise indications on production to acquire characteristics and specificities that are the length of time animals must stay in the mountain environment unrepeatable in analogous standardised productions and, by and the origins of their feed, and also provides derogations for stating their origin, to enhance their reputation. processing operations. According to the current guidelines, the In addition to renewing established tools such as certification indications contained in this Regulation should lead to the crea- schemes dedicated to the Protected Geographical Indication tion of a labelling system. (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 3. Purpose emphasises that the agricultural sector can even be sustained through implementation of initiatives that favour geographical The purpose of this work is to assess the applicability of the areas with specific geomorphological conditions. provisions of EU Commission Delegated Regulation No. 665/ EU Regulation no. 1151/2012 (“Quality Package”) further 2014 in the production chain of cow’s milk and milk products. outlines the concept of origin as an element for the quality It was decided to limit the study to a traditional Piedmont assessment of agro-food products and emphasises the impor- dairy product and the companies that produce it. The ensuing tance of the relationship between food and territory. This objec- search led to the selection of “Toma del lait brusc” as the subject tive is highlighted by a willingness in Europe to establish and of investigation, since historically it was made only in mountain define several optional quality terms inspired by the local territory. areas, but is now produced in flatland areas. This cheese was As stated in the text of the legislation (article 29, paragraph included in the National List of Traditional Agro-Food Products 1), “optional quality terms” have a European dimension and (PAT) and is one of the products selected by Piedmont Region must relate to a characteristic of one or more categories of pro- (Bonadonna et al. 2013) to define the guidelines for implemen- ducts, or to a farming or processing attribute which applies in ting a regional quality certification system (Varese et al. 2010). specific areas; their use term adds value to the product as com- pared to products of a similar type. 3.1. Requirements of EU Commission The main objective of these instruments consists, on the one Delegated Regulation no. 665/2014 hand, in facilitating the transfer of information between the producer and the consumer with regard to the particular charac- The Regulation states that the term “mountain product” can teristics and/or properties of the product, and, on the other hand, be applied to products made from cattle farms in mountain areas in highlighting the importance of supporting the income and the provided that creation of wealth in less-favoured communities. In this regard, a) these products are supplied from animals reared for at the Regulation provides for the set-up of two optional quality least the last two thirds of their life in those mountain areas, if the terms: mountain product and product of island farming . 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 2. Optional quality term “mountain product” in transhumance pastures in mountain areas. With regard to ruminants, the Regulation also states that Referring to the first term, after several months of work (OJEU, feedstuffs for farm animals can be considered to come essentially 2010), evaluations (Santini et al. , 2013) and substantial changes from mountain areas if “the proportion of the annual animal diet from the original ideas (e.g. not introducing labelling systems that cannot be produced in mountain areas, expressed as a consistent with the regulations on animal welfare and environ- percentage of dry matter, (...) does not exceed 40% ”. mental sustainability – EC Commission, 2009), the European With regard to the processing of milk and milk products, the legislator has tried to involve the rural and less-favoured areas text states that such activities may also be performed outside of directly, trusting in the creation of a useful instrument for mountain areas, in processing facilities in place on 3 January

Q UA LI TY 100 V ol . 16 , N o. 144/F eb ru ar y 2015 access to success FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT

2013, provided that the distance from the mountain area in For the production of the cheese, we conducted interviews question does not exceed 30 kilometres. It is left to individual using a simplified questionnaire, consisting of a section asking Member States to decide whether to implement all or part of this about the company and the production of Toma and another derogation. section dealing with the company owner’s perceptions of the optional quality term “mountain product”. This was because no 3.2. Toma del lait brusc: description animal rearing activities are involved in this part of the business. The questionnaires used the PAPI (Paper and Pen Interview) “Toma del Lait Brusc” (a Piedmont term meaning “cheese system completed by an interviewer (in person and by telephone). made from sour milk”), also known as “Bianca Alpina” (from Below are the results of the interviews carried out at the farms. here on referred to as “Toma”), is a dairy product whose area of The questions for the dairy are separate (except for information production historically, but not exclusively, includes the territory of about the production of Toma processed together with other the Alpine Susa and Lanzo Valleys and Val Sangone, in the association members) and are found at the end of the para- (Torino). The term “toma” is generally applied graph. 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). 5. Results The particular characteristics (Zeppa et al. , 2004) of Toma are identified and described in special production rules set out for the 5.1. Company Information Paniere mark in the province of Turin (Provincia di Torino, 2012), an initiative for the promotion of local products launched for the According to their answers, Toma producers are mainly lo- 2006 Winter Olympics, and still in place today (Borra et al. , cated in mountain areas (10 out of 12 companies): 6 practise 2012). transhumance in the summer (including the two companies Toma is a cheese made from raw, semi-skimmed cow’s milk, based in flatland areas) in pastures in Susa Valley (5) and Val which has a medium to long maturation period and the following Chisone (1) ( Table 1); the remaining farms rear and pasture their size characteristics: cylindrical shape with flat sides and straight animals around their own land. heel; weight from 3 to 6 kg; heel height is 10 cm to 20 cm and In addition to cows for cheese production, 5 farms also sell diameter is 20 to 25 cm. non-pasteurized fresh milk directly on the farm and another 5 The texture is chalky, meaning that it is compact, almost also rear goats; 2 farms sell some of their milk to other com- glassy, with practically no holes and offering a certain amount of panies for processing. 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 pro- duced in mountain areas and therefore the milk used in its pro- duction does not have to come from mountain areas.

4. Survey Method

In order to verify observance of the requirements of the Regulations, we identified all producers of “Toma” belonging to Figure 1. Location of companies and their pastures the association of producers, set up for the Province of Turin in the Province of Turin Paniere mark for local products. The final sample consists of 12 companies based in the Table 1. Location of farms (municipality and territory) Province of Turin in the municipalities of (1), and their pastures in the Province of Turin (1), Corio (1), (4), (1), (Lago Nero pasture land, Cesana) (1), (1), Verolengo (Alpe Company Municipality Territory Pasture Brusà del Plan a Sauze pasture land, Cesana) (1), Villarfocchiar- do (1); 10 companies are in the mountain area, 2 companies are 1 Pianezza Flatland (Lago Nero) located in flatland areas and move their animals to pasture land Cesana Torinese (Alpe Brusà del in the summer only (Figure 1). 2 Verolengo Flatland Plan) The company based in Balangero is a dairy that does not produce its own milk, but purchases large quantities of raw 3 Giaveno Mountain Giaveno material from local farms. The remaining companies are farms 4 Venaus Mountain which produce Toma solely from their own milk. Data about the farms was collected through a three-part 5 Giaveno Mountain questionnaire. The first section asks for information about the 6 Bruzolo Mountain company and the production of Toma (production period and amount produced); the second section asks about the place 7 Lanzo Torinese Mountain Lanzo Torinese where the animals are bred, in order to verify observance of the 8 Giaveno Mountain Giaveno first of the Regulation’s requirements, and also collects infor- mation about the type of feed given to the animals, to verify ob- 9 Giaveno Mountain Giaveno servance of the second requisite; the third deals with the com- 10 Corio Mountain Corio pany owner’s perceptions of the optional quality term “mountain product”. 11 Villarfocchiardo Mountain Cesana Torinese (Desertes)

Q U AL IT Y access to success Vo l. 16, No . 14 4/Fe b ru ary 2015 101 FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT

5.2. Toma del lait brusc: mentation of such a system should not increase costs, both in production period and quantities strictly economic terms and in terms of time spent, since, by definition, mountain forms are less-advantaged economic For most of the respondents, the production period covers the entities with low productivity and could do without extra expenses. entire year (7); 3 companies use the warmest months in variable In terms of their own businesses, the entire sample thought periods (4 to 7 months) in line with tradition; 1 company excludes they would be able to meet the requirements in order to use the the summer period (production from October to April). wording “mountain product” for the whole of their dairy produc- The average number of forms of Toma made in the last year tion, including Toma (the respondents of the two flatland com- (2013) by the dairy, which will be discussed later, was approxi- panies emphasised the possibility of using the labelling system for mately 2,700. The average weight declared is 4.5 kilograms/ the whole of production attributable to only one period of pas- form. The total quantity produced is around 12 tonnes and the ture). Most of the sample (9 out of 11 companies) also believed total consumption value is estimated at around 150,000 Euros. that this tool might be useful for their business: 5 companies, however, said that integration of the instrument shouldn’t lead to 5.3. Requirements of EU Commission further costs, 4 companies would be prepared to recognise its Delegated Regulation no. 665/2014 value of integration, whether self-monitored or controlled by independent third-party organisation, if a certification system As seen in Table 1, the sample can be divided into three diffe- were introduced. In the latter case, the additional cost they would rent types of farming: companies located in mountain areas be prepared to pay would be 3.5 percent of the value of pro- practising transhumance in the summer, companies located in duction. mountain areas that do not practise transhumance and com- panies based in flatland area which pasture during the summer. 5.5. Information about cheese factory The restriction of where breeding should take place can be met by all the companies in the study. According to the informa- In accordance with the provisions of the Regulation, the dairy tion provided, the 10 companies based in mountain areas should is currently located in a mountain municipality and has been in have no difficulty reaching the requirement for the last 2/3 of life business since 2007 (before the limit of 3 January 2013). The because the animals spend their entire production life in these core business is transformation of raw cow’s milk into different areas. The 2 companies based in flatland areas, on the other types of cheese (Toma di Lanzo, small cheeses and flavoured hand, pasture for around 4 months in the mountain, enabling herb cheeses, Toma del lait brusc), ricotta and butter. them to meet the restriction for transhumant animals to spend at Before the questionnaire, the owner had never heard of the least a quarter of their lives in mountain areas. For compliance European labelling system. However, he thinks the instrument purposes, the document mentioned by most respondents is could easily be integrated into his business (the company tracea- Model 7 (6 companies). However, the rest of the sample still have bility system already keeps milk batches separate and enables doubts and did not indicate alternatives. them to be closely traced within the company), provided that the According to the respondents, the requirement for feedstuffs, farms which supply cow’s milk are able to comply with the re- regarded “essentially from mountain areas” “if the proportion of quirements of the legislation: About 60% of the milk that is the annual animal diet that cannot be produced in mountain processed in the company comes from local companies based in areas, expressed as a percentage of dry matter, does not exceed mountain towns. However, he did not currently know how many 40 % (...) in the case of ruminants ”, has been reached throughout could be defined as “from the mountain” and how many the sample: 10 companies based in mountain areas meet this producers would be able to document their compliance with the percentage by a minimum of 65% of self-produced feedstuffs requirements. He also thought that it was too early to give a and/or sourced locally up to a maximum of 100%; 2 companies positive evaluation of the system, since it would be useful to get based in flatland areas declare 95% solely for the period pasture the impressions of the farms as well as of potential consumers of (Table 2). mountain cheese. However, if the interest of consumers and The remaining feedstuffs given to animals are sourced from primary producers were assured, he would have no difficulty agricultural cooperatives (3 companies), farmers’ cooperatives bearing the cost of self-monitoring, thanks to the existing tracea- (2) and private feed companies (1). None of the respondents was bility system, as well as the cost of further certification with third- able to state the actual origin of these products. party monitoring. 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 6. Discussion indicated no instrument (7). The work carried out by the European Commission to define Table 2. Number of farms and percentage of feed sourced locally 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- No. companies 1 3* 3 2 1 1 tain areas and able to obtain feed from the territory concerned are entitled to use the term. % feed 100 95 90 80 70 65 With regards to time spent in the mountain area, the respon- dents said they were able fulfil the requirements of the Regulation *no. 2 pasture period only 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 5.4. Optional “mountain product” quality term time spent and routes of each animal, which also ensures that formal requirements are met. In view of this documentation, the Before the final part of the questionnaire, on the basis of the requirement is easily verifiable for companies based in mountain answers already given, the respondents were given a brief pre- areas and for those based in flatland areas. sentation of the labelling system proposed by the European In terms of feedstuffs, the statement suggests that fulfilment Union and the relative requirements. This resulted in a number of would be easy (only a couple of companies said that 30-35% of observations which can be summed up as follows: although a dry matter is not sourced from the mountain area), although significant portion of the sample (7 companies) did not know some limitations are seen in the difficulty of being able to support about the European initiative before the questionnaire, 9 out of these declarations an effective document. Some mentioned the 11 companies believe that these provisions could be easily met Quaderno di Campagna as the instrument which contains infor- by farms operating in mountain areas, whether or not they prac- mation about the type and quantity of agricultural production in tise transhumance. However, some respondents said that imple- a company, but leaves the issue of the origin of feed purchased

Q UA LI TY 102 V ol . 16 , N o. 144/F eb ru ar y 2015 access to success FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT from third parties. Another criticism of the second requirement is 7. Conclusions the difficulty calculating the required percentage of dry matter content. In the past, the application of European quality systems has Interviews with various subjects also highlighted the need to led to mixed results. While the financial economic results achie- know the possible costs arising from implementation of the ved by the quality agro-food sector in several European countries European Union labelling system. While the first requirement can cannot be ignored (Ismea Qualivita, 2013; Tiberius and Diniz, be checked by consulting documents already present on farms, 2012; Bouamra- Mechemache and Chaaban, 2010), however the second requirement might lead to several costs. If the Qua- those results could be further improved, for example, in terms of derno di Campagna is not sufficient, companies interested in commercial strategies (Arfini e Capelli, 2009), volume (Tiberio using the term would have to ensure their feedstuffs come from and Diniz, 2012), cost (Tudisca et al. , 2014) or structure of the mountain areas, in addition to managing a document system to offering (Antonelli and Viganò, 2014). The same structure of trace the feed. The proposed certification system, further reduced European quality systems has been criticised. For example, the producers’ inclination to include the “mountain product” term. European quality system disciplining traditional recipes (TSG) did When it comes to the place of processing, there should be no not get the expected results, mainly owing to a weak link between complications for companies operating in a mountain area which product and territory (Peira, 2014). manage the entire production chain. For companies operating in However, as far as the “mountain product” is concerned, the flatland areas, much will depend on the interpretation given by initiative of the European Union is praiseworthy. The creation of Member States to the derogation for “processing operations” a labelling system for these products should support local outside of the “mountain area in question .” economies and integrate the tangible elements of which they are It is also worth noting the comments of the dairy owner, who made up, more generally as a “territorial brand” (Pencarelli and mentioned the need to evaluate the interests of mountain farms Forlani, 2006). For this to happen, draft legislation aimed at in documenting the uniqueness of their mountain milk, and the creating quality instruments should be followed and supported by desire of potential consumers to buy mountain dairy products. careful planning of activities on the part of stakeholders, inclu- There are two particular aspects that should be mentioned ding local authorities, proceeding with the necessary timing and about the quantity of Toma produced and compliance with the precautions (Tregear et al. , 2007). production specification rules: compared with previous obser- If implemented consistently, agro-food products from moun- vations (Bonadonna et al. , 2014), there was an increase in tain areas could be enhanced by the initiative. This presupposes overall production in the 2011-2013 period, both in terms of the need to assess the applicability of the requirements to weight and the number of forms. At the same time, a number of broader mountain areas and all sectors affected by EU Delegated dimensional inconsistencies still remain, because, for market Regulation no. 665/2014 and to establish whether or not reasons and depending on the availability of raw materials, pro- consumers are effectively interested. ducers do not always comply with the provisions regarding the weight of the form, heel and/or diameter. Q-as

References

[1] Antonelli, G. and Viganò, E. (2009), L’economia dei prodotti agroalimentari tipici tra vincoli tecnici e sfide organizzative , Italian Journal of Agronomy, 4 (3), 125-136. [2] Arfini, F. and Capelli, M.G. (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] Banterle, A. and Stranieri, S. (2008 ), Information, labelling, and vertical coordination: An analysis of the Italian meat supply networks , Agribusiness, 24 (2), 320-331. [4] Belliveau, S. (2005), Resisting global, buying local: Goldsmith revisited , The Great Lake Geographer, (12) 1, 45-53. [5] Bernues, A., Olaizola, A. and Corcoran, K. (2003), Labelling information demanded by European consumers and relationship with purchasing motives, quality and safety of meat , Meat science, (65) 3, 1095-1106. [6] Bonadonna, A., Aceto, P., Peira, G. and Varese E. (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] Bonadonna, A., Peira, G., Varese, E. and Vittone P. (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] Borra, D., Garoglio, P., Massaglia, S. and Mazzarino S. (2012), Marchio e valorizzazione dei prodotti tipici e locali , Micro & Macro Marketing, XXI (3), 461-478. [9] Bouamra-Mechemache, Z. and Chaaban, J. (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] Brown, C. and Miller, S. (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] Cappelletti, G.M., Varese, E. and Bonadonna, A. (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] Cholette, S. (2011), Addressing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with food distribution: a case study of Californian farmers’ markets , Economia agro-alimentare, 3, 145-168. [13] Coley, D., Howard, M., Winter, M. (2009), Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches , Food Policy, 34, 150-155. [14] Dansero, E. and Puttilli, M. (2014), Multiple territorialities of alternative food networks: six cases from Piedmont, Italy , Local Environment, 19(6), 626-643. [15] Dupuis, E. M. and Goodman, D. (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 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0234&from=EN. [17] Forssell, S. and Lankoski, L. (in press), The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination through ‘‘alternative’’ characte- ristics , Agriculture and Human Values, DOI 10.1007/s10460-014-9516-4.

Q U AL IT Y access to success Vo l. 16, No . 14 4/Fe b ru ary 2015 103 FOOD SAFETY MANAGEMENT

[18] Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A. and Mylan, J. (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 http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRA-Environmental%20Impacts%20of%20Food%20Production%20%20Consumption.pdf. [19] Gragnani, M. (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] Ikerd, J.E. (2011), Local food: revolution and reality , Journal of Agriculture & Food Information, 12 (1), 49-57. [21] Ismea Qualivita (2013), Rapporto 2013 sulle produzioni agroalimentari italiane DOP, IGP e STG , Available from http://www.ismea.it/flex/cm/ pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/8765. [22] Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers M. and Eves A. (2012), Globalisation and food consumption in tourism , Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (1), 171-196. [23] Manfredini, R. (2010), Il paesaggio alimentare: tutela e valorizzazione delle eccellenze italiane, Silvæ, 6 (13), 93-97. [24] Martinelli, L.A., Nardoto, G.B., Chesson, L.A., Rinaldi, F.D., Ometto J.P.H.B., Cerling T.E. and Ehleringer J.R. (2011), Worldwide stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes of Big Mac® patties: An example of a truly ‘glocal’ food , Food Chemistry, 127, 1712-1718. [25] Matusitz, J. and Lord, L. (2013), Glocalization or Grobalization of Wal-Mart in the US? A Qualitative Analysis , Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 10 (1) 81-100. [26] Nonini, D.M. (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 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2010: 341:FULL&from=IT. [28] Peira, G. (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] Pencarelli, T. and Forlani, F. (2006), Il marketing dei prodotti tipici nella prospettiva dell’economia delle esperienze , In Congresso Internazionale “Le tendenze del Marketing”, Venezia: Università Ca’ Foscari. [30] Percivale, F., Beltramo, R. and Peira G. (1996), La qualità dei prodotti alimentari. L’evoluzione della filiera agroalimentare verso la qualità del prodotto , De Qualitate, 50 (2), 87-94. [31] Peri, C. (2006), The universe of food quality , Food quality and preference, 17, 3-8. [32] Petrini, C. (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 http://www.provincia.torino.gov.it/agrimont/ file-storage/download/tipici/pdf/paniere_brochure_tipici.pdf. [34] Resano, H., Sanjuán, A. I. and Albisu L. M. (2012), Consumers’ response to the EU Quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences , Food Policy, 37(4), 355-365. [35] Santini F., Guri F. and Gomez y Paloma S. (2013), Labelling of agricultural and food products of mountain farming, JRC Scientific and policy reports, Report EUR25768EN, European Union, Available from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/mountain-farming_en.htm. [36] Saunders, C. and Barber, A. (2008), Carbon Footprints, Life Cycle Analysis, Food Miles: Global Trade Trends and Market Issues, Political Science, 60 (1), 73-88. [37] Schnell, S. M. (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] Sgroi, F., Di Trapani, A. M., Testa, R. and Tudisca, S. (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] Tiberio, L., Diniz, F. (2012), Agri-food Traditional Products: From Certification to the Market – Portuguese recent evolution , Regional Science Inquiry Journal, IV (2), 57-86. [40] Tosato, A. (2013), The Protection of Traditional Foods in the EU: Traditional Specialities Guaranteed , European Law Journal, 19 (4), 545-576. [41] Tregear, A., Arfini, F., Belletti, G. and Marescotti, A. (2007), Regional foods and rural development: The role of product qualification , Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 12-22. [42] Tregear, A., Kuznesof, S. and Moxey, A. (1998), Policy initiatives for regional foods: some insights from consumer research , Food Policy, 23(5), 383-394. [43] Tudisca, S., Di Trapani, A.M., Sgroi, F., Testa, R. (2014), Economic evaluation of PDO introduction in Sicilian orange farms , Quality – Access to Success, 15(139), 99-103. [44] Turner, B.S. (2003), McDonaldization: Linearity and Liquidity in Consumer Cultures , American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 137-153. [45] Van Ittersum, K., Meulemberg, M.T.G., Van Trip, H.C.M. and Candel, M.J.J. (2007), Consumers’ appreciation of Regional certification labels: a Pan-European study , Journal of agricultural Economics, 58(1), 1-23. [46] Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Contel, M., Scalvedi, L., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Gutkowska, K., Sulmont-Rossé, C., Raude, J., Granli, B.S. and Hersleth, M. (2010), How European Consumer define the concept of Traditional food: evidence from survey in six countries , Agribusiness, 26(4), 453-476. [47] Varese, E., Bonadonna, A. and Percivale, F. (2010), Il progetto ‘Piemonte Agriqualità’. La valorizzazione delle produzioni agroalimentari piemontesi , De Qualitate, XIX (6), 14-22. [48] Zeppa, G., Rolle, L., Di Blasi, Gi., Tallone, G., Spegis, I., Careglio, V., Comba, G., Gamba, L., Arru, R. and Giaccone, D. (2004), Caratterizza- zione della produzione tradizionale regionale dei prodotti Lattiero-caseari: Toma del lait brusc, Murianengo, Formaggio crosta rossa, Cevrin di , Quaderni della Regione Piemonte, 41, 26-29.

Q UA LI TY 104 V ol . 16 , N o. 144/F eb ru ar y 2015 access to success