Do historical production practices and culinary heritages really matter? Food with protected geographical indications in Japan and Austria
Clicks: 499
ID: 24692
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
83.5
/100
499 views
368 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #1 of 6 articles by views in journal of ethnic foods
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background: Geographical indications (GIs) are collective intellectual property rights that protect food and other products uniquely linked to the production area, local geophysical conditions, and traditions, namely, with the terroir. Thus, GIs can contribute to the transmission and retention of culinary heritages and historical production practices.
Methods: Based on an analysis of application documents, we compare the historical linkages of all the Japanese and Austrian GI products. Although more than half of the Japanese applications refer to historical roots in the 20th century, the median of the Austrian GI linkages is in the 17th century. To closely examine these GI linkages, and to better understand their relevance to current cultivation practices, we compared three Japanese cases with roots of diverging depth to the first Austrian GI regarding motivations, geographical and historical linkages, and current cultivation practices and governance.
Results: The comparison found that all four products refer to the historical roots of the product name, the product varieties, or cultivation techniques. However, deeper roots did not automatically translate into higher priorities of protecting these historical linkages. The four in-depth case studies found that historic provenance and traditional production methods, although prominently highlighted in the official GI documents of all four GIs, were eclipsed by commercial motivations for GI protection and/or current production practices. In the cases analyzed, we found some potential mismatches between GI historical claims in registration documents and actual GI cultivation and GI management practices.
Conclusions: We conclude that our four GI cases do not represent “museums of production” or overly fixed perceptions of history. However, the collective action of the producer group has resulted in dynamic local cultivation practices without restricting innovation. The GI status has rather resulted in the protection of local farmers' collective action and old varieties than in the protection of old production methods.
| Reference Key |
gugerell2017dojournal
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Gugerell, Katharina;Uchiyama, Yuta;Kieninger, Pia R.;Penker, Marianne;Kajima, Shuichiro;Kohsaka, Ryo; |
| Journal | journal of ethnic foods |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.