21 pages., Credibility is particularly important in organic food systems because there are only marginal visual and sensorial differences between organic and conventionally produced products, requiring consumers to trust in producers’ quality claims. In this article I explore what challenges the credibility of organic food systems and I explore how credibility of organic food systems can be maintained, using the Danish organic food system as a case study. The question is increasingly relevant as the sale of organic food is growing in Denmark as well as globally, and consumers’ expectations of organics continuously evolve. The inquiry is threefold, first I outline a conceptual framework for understanding trust and credibility in the food system, secondly I explore the developments in Danish organic food systems and thirdly discuss the challenges and opportunities for maintaining trust in the Danish organic food system. In the analysis I indicate eight key challenges: (1) unrealistic expectations, (2) blind trust and little motivation for extending their knowledge, (3) consumers assess the overall credibility of organic products, (4) ambitious ethical principles, (5) new consumer groups introduce new expectations, (6) frozen requirements in a changing world, (7) growing imports and labelling and (8) multiple versions of organics and the diversity is growing, as well as four aspects which may maintain the credibility of organics if implemented: (1) coordinate expectations, (2) communicate requested information, (3) institutional reform and (4) open communication of pros and cons of organic production.
33 pages., Via online journal., The legitimacy of the dominant intensive meat production system with
respect to the issue of animal welfare is increasingly being questioned by stakeholders across the meat supply chain. The current meat supply is highly undifferentiated, catering only for the extremes of morality concerns (i.e., conventional vs.
organic meat products). However, a latent need for compromise products has been
identified. That is, consumer differences exist regarding the trade-offs they make
between different aspects associated with meat consumption. The heterogeneity in
consumer demand could function as a starting point for market segmentation, targeting and positioning regarding animal welfare concepts that are differentiated in
terms of animal welfare and price levels. Despite this, stakeholders in the meat
supply chain seem to be trapped in the dominant business model focused on low
cost prices. This paper aims to identify conflicting interests that stakeholders in the
meat supply chain experience in order to increase understanding of why heterogeneous consumer preferences are not met by a more differentiated supply of meat
products produced at different levels of animal welfare standards. In addition,
characteristics of the supply chain that contribute to the existence of high exit
barriers and difficulty to shift to more animal-friendly production systems are
identified. Following the analysis of conflicting interests among stakeholders and
factors that contribute to difficulty to transform the existing dominant regime,
different routes are discussed that may help and motivate stakeholders to overcome
these barriers and stimulate the creation of new markets.
18 pages., While in vitro animal meat (IVM) is not yet commercially available, the public has already begun to form opinions of IVM as a result of news stories and events drawing attention to its development. As such, we can discern public perceptions of the ethics of IVM before its commercial release. This affords advocates of environmentally sustainable, healthy, and just diets with a unique opportunity to reflect on the social desirability of the development of IVM. This work draws upon an analysis of ethical perceptions of IVM in 814 US news blog comments related to the August 2013 tasting of the world’s first IVM hamburger. Specifically, I address three primary questions: (1) How does the public perceive the ethics of IVM development? (2) How acceptable is IVM to the public relative to alternative approaches to reducing animal meat consumption? and (3) What should all of this mean for the ongoing development and promotion of IVM? Ultimately, it is argued that there is a strong need for facilitation of public dialogue around IVM, as well as further research comparing the acceptability of IVM to other alternatives.
