DEFINING QUALITY
(by Carlo Petrini)
We all know that the
world of agriculture and food claims a lot of media attention.
Everyone — whether politicians, the food industry or
the smallest struggling farmers’ cooperative —
announces their aims and uses current punchy language. But
all too often they turn out to lack any strategic vision,
or are just mouthing meaningless and pointless clichés.
For example, everyone talks about quality
in various guises. The food industry’s ‘Guaranteed
quality’ just means the product is safe; ‘Good
traditional quality’, presumes a traditional product
will automatically be good quality; ‘aiming for quality’,
suggests quality is a panacea for all problems, the magic
slogan to persuade an increasingly difficult market.
We might improve matters if we all agreed
what quality is. If we all had the same idea of what is sound
and desirable — from both a producer and a consumer
point of view — we would not waste so much time talking
nonsense. The dictionary definition of quality says it is
‘the standard of something as measured against other
things of the same kind; the degree of excellence of something’,
and also ‘feature, distinctive attribute’.
So if we are talking about food and use the
word quality, what standards are we talking about? What type
of measurements? What features and attributes?
I would like to suggest an idea of quality
that was developed in the light of experience and is shared
within the Slow Food movement. It is a concept of quality
with three dimensions — the attributes of good, clean
and fair.
Good means the food has proper flavor, aroma
and appearance. We can recognize this qualitative attribute
when we stimulate and educate our senses, when we compare
different products and learn to choose the more gratifying.
But if this were the only attribute, we would just be a bunch
of elitist gourmands and lovers of a few impressive —
and expensive — delicacies.
So we need other attributes, such as clean.
Clean means sustainable. It means using production methods
that are not harmful for ecosystems or the soil, it means
respecting biodiversity and ensuring food is safe for human
health.
But there is also social sustainability.
This brings us to the third attribute, fairness and justice.
This requires food to be ethically sustainable and to use
production methods that do not exploit workers or drive out
other good products. It means fair prices for consumers and
also for producers, who have to survive and should receive
proper social and economic recognition.
Good, clean and fair: they are three simple
attributes but they would significantly reduce the number
of products accepted by consumers demanding this form of quality.
It is customers who would be the first to influence production
(if we all believed that ‘eating is an agricultural
act’, there would be no doubt about where power really
lies).
Is food that is fair and supportive necessarily
a quality product? It respects the work of small farmers and
often enjoys organic certification, but is it always good?
I can assure you that I have eaten products that were fair
and supportive but which were truly awful and inedible. Fair
and clean does not always mean good.
Does being organic equal quality? Clean and
good maybe, but if you look at California for example, they’ll
sell you peppers that are by no means miracles of nature at
horrific prices. Plus, there are thousands of Mexicans slaving
in the fields for a pittance. In short, a certain kind of
organic is often not fair.
Is top wine always quality wine? There are
some incredible wines produced in Italy and producers are
also able to make good profits, but is it right to disfigure
some of the most attractive areas with an invasive monoculture,
even planting vines facing north, instead of leaving woods
and meadows which would be more appropriate? In this case
the wine is good and fair but not clean.
If quality meant good, clean and fair for
all, a lot of people now selling their products with references
to quality would think twice. They would clearly be breaching
trade descriptions and could even be liable for prosecution.
"La Stampa February" 20th 2005
Adapted by Ronnie Richards
|