Standards and Certification - Re-Thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing World - page 40

security discussions along the whole organic agrofood chain. A more systemic and
holistic approach to the global food system, one in which the IFOAM Principles can
ground the integration of all actors in a more systemic way, could reach the roots of
todays food related problems. Consequently, there is need for discussions on how
to bring them closer into standards and certification procedures, specifically when it
comes to social and economic justice.
Since the introduction of organic standards and certification in 1967 by the
UK's Soil Association (Schmid and Lockeretz 2007 ) the standards and certifi-
cation schemes have generated considerable debate. On one hand, standards and
certification offer a system of 'trust' between consumers who are unable to reach
first-hand production. On the other hand, trust has also eroded between consumers
and producers in part as the original organic values have been minimized or ignored
(Alrøe et al. 2006 ; Goodman and Goodman 2007 ; Schmid and Lockeretz 2007 ). As
Hatanaka discussed, standardization may create a situation in which it is no longer
necessary to connect with the farmer but one that requires trust in an ambiguous
middleman.
Hatanaka as well as Loconto and Van der Kamp raise an essential question. At
what point does the reliance on scientifically based standards lead to the loss of
trust between farmers and consumers? Even a well-established control mechanism
(standardization through the multiplicity of production methods) is unable to
ensure that farmers fulfill standards. Yet, informal control that builds consumer
trust independent of external certification through direct farmer-consumer relations
seems difficult to implement in an expanding and largely urban organic market. As
Freyer and colleagues argue, so far standards are fulfilled, is open to whether they
respect the IFOAM Principles, specifically those referring to social and economic
justice.
In summary, there are three positions to consider. One is that certification only
builds trust through communication and a shared discussion among farmers and
consumers, a process that is excluded by mainstream certification process. The
participatory guarantee system (IFOAM Norms 2012 ) may offer one useful instru-
ment for building trust. An external certifier could take on primary responsibility
for managing this common agreement and thereby safeguard trust. Second, there
is a need to build trust and guarantees through external control processes. These
could assume different forms and procedures in different parts of the world, and
opens space to interpret standards and certification differently. There could be a
multiplicity of approaches for assuring organic that represent an opportunity, but
also a risk for principle based practices. Third, such diversity might also offer ways
to bring the IFOAM Principles of fairness and care to center stage of standards
and certification procedures. Specifically when reflecting on the issue of feeding the
world, both Principles are indispensable.
What is obvious in all three contributions however, and in different ways, is
that the IFOAM Principles provide guidance on how to interpret standards and
certification procedures that is not generally acknowledged in organic practices.
Bringing them more into the center stage of the debate, could serve as a value-based