Summary

In July 2002, the regulation and labelling scheme forProtected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG)was set up in Norway modelled on corresponding systems in the EU. The scheme enables protection under law of product designations for foodstuffs with a special geographic origin, tradition and characteristics. The aim of the scheme is to prevent copying of product names, to increase the variety of foodstuffs available, and to add value to Norwegian food production. It is also intended to provide sufficient information to consumers and to preserve important knowledge of Norwegian food and food culture. Positive experiences with similar schemes in EU countries were an important argument for the governmental authorities when the scheme was introduced in Norway. As of January 2013, twenty-three Norwegian- and two Italian products have been granted PDO, PGI or TSG in Norway.

The starting point for the study was a wish to describe and understand how the scheme for protected designations was introduced and subsequently administrated and used in Norway based on existing schemes in the EU. The data basis for the study included interviews with 30 persons and an extensive quantity of documentation. During the data collection and analysis it became clear that administrators, producers, consultants and others make a significant and all-round effort to adapt the scheme to Norwegian food culture, and Norwegian food culture to the scheme.My identification of this work, its scope and significance, was important in terms of my decision to make people’s work on cultural adaptation the main concern of my study.

Adaptations are a repeated theme in research on PDO, PGI and TSG, both in international and Norwegian literature. There are many that claim, and demonstrate, that adaptations of various types are necessary in order for this type of labelling schemes to work in different countries and different food cultures. Nonetheless, there are few, if any, who have studied and conceptualized the work of adaptation as a whole, and identified the adaptations necessary to turn PDO, PGI and TSG into a well-functioning food labelling system. With such a starting point, it was necessary to establish a more nuanced system of concepts. The system of concepts developed in analysis of the Norwegian case, elucidates earlier scientific perspectives. Through development and use of thisnew system of concepts, it is possible to identify, understand and describe how the adaptations take place, who carries them out, what characterizes them, and what consequences and implications they have.

The mutual work on adaptation of the scheme to Norwegian food culture, and also of Norwegian food culture to the scheme, is defined as cultural adaptation work (CAW) and constitutes the core element in the system of concepts established. The various ways in which the actors adapt the scheme to Norwegian food culture, and Norwegian food culture to the scheme, is understood and defined as different adaptation practices. The most central of these are translations of meaning, social reorganisations and material transformations. The adaptive practices form an interplay, in which the different practices affect each other. Adapted regulations involve reorganisation of producers, who then change their products, and so on.

The historic contextualisation of the adaptation work is linked primarily to a development in Norwegian food culture termed Food Specialisation of Norway.Food specialisation refers to a development whereby the focus on new food qualities is increasing and becoming more central. This development started around the mid-1980s and is still ongoing.

The analysis shows that the actors’ work on different adaptations during introduction, administration and use of the Norwegian scheme for PDO, PGI and TSG is important. They occur because opinions, forms of cooperation and products in Norway and Norwegian food culture do not always coincide with the food-cultural conditions which the EU scheme was founded. A specific vocabulary or language makes it possible to communicate the food-cultural understanding that forms the basis for the scheme in the EU. This understanding involves, inter alia, that the relationship between tradition and the food’s place of origin, is considered meaningful and important in terms of the product’s quality. In Norway there is lack of both the vocabulary and food-cultural know-how in line with the food-cultural preconditions that form the basis for the scheme in the EU. The work of establishing and translating acorresponding vocabulary and understanding in Norwegian food culture has, therefore, been particularly important during introduction, administration and use of the scheme, and in respect of food specialisation in Norway generally since its introduction in the 1980s. As in the EU, the requirement for cooperation between producers is a condition in the Norwegian regulation. Such forms of cooperation are not, however, always established amongst those producers applying for PDO, PGI or TSG. The work of creating and reorganising such new organisation forms in Norwegian food culture has, therefore, also been crucial. In Norway as in the EU it has also been considered important that the scheme is meant exclusivelyfor products of high quality. In some cases, the products for which labelling is being applied for do not initially meet these quality requirements. The work of creating and transforming products that satisfy theregulation’s conditions have, therefore, also been important during administration and use of the scheme.

The consequences of the adaptation work are, to varying degrees, in line with the aims of the scheme. The analysis shows how the adaptation work brings with it a new vocabulary and new food-cultural knowledge. This makes it possible to communicate and understand links between food, people and place, which have previously not been emphasised in Norwegian food culture. Hence, the new vocabulary and understanding are in line with the scheme’s aims of preserving important knowledge about Norwegian food and food culture. It appears, however, that the adaptation work also promotes innovation and sometimes alienates producers from their own products in the course of the application process, which conflicts with the aim of preserving knowledge. The adaptation work also includes adjustment of the product name, and the demarcation of geographic origin moves from being determined by valleys and other natural boundaries, to being defined based on municipal boundaries. This is consistent, to varying degrees, with the intention of giving sufficient information to consumers and preserving important knowledge about Norwegian food and food culture. Another consequence of the adaptation work is that it plays a part in products becoming more similar, which again results in fewer product types. This also conflicts with the scheme’s aim of contributing to increased variety of foodstuffs. As a whole, the scheme is often described as being modelled according to the European system. If one views the scheme as a consequence of the adaptation work, it appears, however, to be a tailor-made Norwegian model with European profile.

Identification of the adaptation work and its consequences has political, food-cultural and theoretical implications. The scheme is balanced,between being a political tool for developing Norwegian food production and value-adding, at the same time as from a legal perspective it is associated with the corresponding body of law and the scheme in the EU. If the scheme is excessively adapted to the Norwegian context, it may risk losing its credibility and validity in the EU. If it is excessively adapted to the European scheme, it may be perceived as cumbersome and meaningless for Norwegian producers, retailers and consumers. The priorities of politicians and administrators in adaptation considerations have consequences. Hence, knowledge of the cultural adaptation work of PDO, PGI and TSG can contribute to a better political and administrational foundation for governing the scheme, and what function it should have. Another implication of the adaptation work and its various consequences is that the scheme has an ambiguous influence on development of Norwegian food culture. On the one hand the labelling scheme contributes to an increase in abundance and a new understanding of food, when—through new language and new knowledge—old and new products are placed on the food-cultural agenda. On the other hand, the scheme is a rational agricultural-political tool that contributes to standardisation and innovation in respect of Norwegian food and food culture. The identification and development of the theory of cultural adaptation work produces three theoretical implications: Firstly, the theory can be used and further developed in future studies of PDO, PGI and TSG. Secondly, the theory of cultural adaptation work is an appropriate point of departure for further developing and streamlining the understanding of previously identified adaptations or translations, both within research on the scheme and more generally. Thirdly, the conceptual work can related to other theories of social science.

Cultural adaptation work takes place in the interplay between people’s translations of language and knowledge, reorganisation of social relationships and transformation of things. The interplay takes place in the tension between the global and the local, the old and the new.Administrators of the scheme in the Ministry of Agricultureand Food, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and The Norwegian Agricultural Quality System and Food Branding Foundation take into consideration both the EU’s and WTO’s body of rules, at the same time as they also adapt the scheme into a Norwegian context and local Norwegian food culture. Correspondingly, food producers adapt their traditions and products to the new regulation’s conditions. Hence, the adaptation practices have significance beyond being adaptations of language and knowledge, social relationships and the materiality. When they are used to adapt the relationship between global and modern rules and traditional local products, they become simultaneously strategies and actions, which makes it possible to adapt the global to the local, tradition to innovation and vice versa. An understanding and experience of cultural disorder and cultural order appears to be a fundamental precondition for the adaptation work. Definitions of order and disorder vary depending on context, but without an understanding and experience of this tension, the cultural adaptation work may appear as meaningless or non-reflexive practice.

The development of the study from descriptive to concept-developing can be summarised in a three-part main conclusion: I) On an empirical level it describes how the scheme depends on cultural adaptation work in order to work in Norway. It also shows how the adaptation work and how its various consequences contribute to the scheme having an ambiguous influence on development of Norwegian food culture.II) On a theoretical level, a new conceptual framework is developed. The system of concepts stems from identification of the cultural adaptation work, and expands the understanding of introduction, administration and use of PDO, PGI and TSG in Norway. The system of concepts can also be transferred to studies of similar schemes in other countries. More generally, it can be considered to be transferred and developed in relation to other theoretical perspectives and studies of other phenomena and forms of cultural adaptation work. III) On a superior level, the study shows how the food-cultural adaptation work constitutes a link between modern global legislative arrangements and traditional local products. In more general terms, the cultural adaptation work is a necessary link between the local and global, and the modern and the traditional.