Serious consequences

Within the gastro-panic the seriousness of the actions of folk devil imitators

is also magnified through statements indicating the widespread nature of the problem

and prophecies of doom, which are predictions indicating the likelihood of the

phenomenon becoming worse as well as an emphasis on the negative consequences

that could ensue if it is not controlled. This has the effect of further enhancing the

political salience of the threat by emphasizing the urgency of the issue in order to

persuade policy-makers and negotiators to act.

To begin, for many in Italy the case of Parmesan represents a problem

perceived to be part of a widespread global trend plaguing contemporary society otherwise known as the ‘Made in Italy’ (Ross 2004; Di Maria and Finotto 2008;

Bertoli and Resciniti 2012) phenomenon. This is where illegitimate producers and

manufacturers around the world evoke the intangible attributes of Italianness, which

is generally associated with high quality, in order to capitalize on the attached

premiums by luring unsuspecting consumers to buy inauthentic products that were

not actually produced in Italy. Claims-makers have asserted that such actions have

140

of thousands of jobs, and missed opportunities by Italian businesses on billions in

trade revenue at home and around the world due to unfair competition from lower- quality ‘Italian’ products of non-Italian origin (Ministry for Economic Development

2012: 3; Owen 2007; Monti 2014; Parliamentary Questions 2013). And Nicoletti,

Platania and Privitera (2007: 1) state that the fabrication and copying of traditional food products is “a growing and increasingly dangerous phenomenon” eliciting

severe economic and social consequences that warrant immediate governmental

attention.

Some also point out that an increasing number of counterfeit products are

being seized at the border (McMahon 2005; FareAmbiente 2013; Parliamentary

Questions 2012c), which calls attention to the fact that the problem is getting worse

through the increased free movement of goods. Consumers both in Italy and abroad are declared to be the ultimate “victims” of counterfeiting activities (Olmsted 2012)

and a recent report (Coldiretti/Eurispes 2013) stated that, “Nearly one Italian in five

(18 percent) was the victim of food fraud in 2013…” leaving consumers “more worried than ever before…” Mara Bizzotto demonstrates concern over this issue in

correspondence addressed to the European Commission:

“‘Italian sounding’ products, i.e. products which are marketed and named in such a way as to sound Italian, having some features of the original brand, but not originating in Italy, are causing considerable economic damage to Italian-made products and Italian registered designation of origin (RDO) and protected designation of origin (PDO) products. They are also harming Italy’s image, especially in relation to the culinary excellence of our regions” (Parliamentary Questions 2012b).

Her statement draws attention to both the negative material and immaterial

consequences of such actions, in the form of economic damage and harm to the very image of Italy’s quality products as a whole, to such an extent that concern is being

141

problem can be demonstrated through a response to an American Parmesan winning

the best US cheese award in 2009:

“The American Parmesan…is just the tip of the iceberg of a widespread phenomenon throughout the world…The countries where the imitations are more successful are the U.S., Australia and New Zealand but what worries the most is the trend in emerging countries like China where the ‘Made in Italy' imitations arrived prior to the original and are likely to affect growth. The foreign market penetration of low quality imitations as well as directly affect the Italian entrepreneurs, severely damages the image of ‘Made in Italy', both on traditional and on emerging markets. Worldwide - concludes Coldiretti - the fight against the food pirates that falsify the territorial identity of products should be carried out under the WTO, with the aim of extending the protection of geographical indications...” (Italian Food Net 2009, original emphasis).

The gastro-panic discourse in this passage is evident. First, it suggests that these

actors are highly concerned and perceive this to be a pervasive and seriously harmful

problem, which is indicated through phrases such as ‘tip of the iceberg’, ‘widespread phenomenon’, and referring to ‘worries’ that ‘severe damage’ could occur in both

established and emerging markets. Hostility is also invoked as they draw attention to the need to ‘fight’ the folk devils, here denoted as ‘food pirates’, and the inevitability

of the phenomenon becoming worse if action is not taken at the global level. The

imitation of products is securitized as threatening Italian entrepreneurs and damaging

the image of Italian products, which is then used to justify the extension of GI

protection as a means of dealing with the problem.

For Italian actors, widespread imitation has not been the only problem but

attempts by illegitimate folk devils to verify the genericity of Parmesan at the

European level and institutionalize an international standard in the CAC are also

indicative of worse things to come. These attempts were perceived as constituting a

direct threat to the European status quo that has been built around the protection of

food product names through GI schemes. The PRC expressed concern that if

142

in the European court that “the whole European system of geographical indications

would be put in jeopardy” and it “would mean dismantling the entire system of

Geographical Indications established in Europe…with huge repercussions on

producers and consumers, who would be without any protection against deceptive

designations and publicity" (PRC 2007b).

In addition, regarding the attempt within the CAC the PRC (2005) securitized

the proposal as an “attack against geographical indications” where Parmesan was

only the beginning. They declared that its success would set a dangerous precedent

and lead to the genericization of countless other protected terms around the world,

putting an important referent object in the form of the entire international system of

GIs at risk. This is a similar expression of foreboding that followed German attempts

to declare the genericity of Parmesan within the EU, though taken at a global rather

than an EU level. The PRC (2005) went on to state that:

“The objective is for the Codex Alimentarius Commission to finally dismiss the "Parmesan" proposal and resume the existing "Hard Grated Cheese" norm, which would assure the respect of the rights of all producers and consumers, and the principle of protection of territorial products and people's food cultures. The Codex meeting attracts the interest of numerous associations that highlight the risk of losing national sovereignty on food related issues: a key matter that requires fully shared norms.”

This passage indicates that the PRC perceived the security of a number of elements

within the food system including producers, consumers, the legitimacy of GI system,

and even national food sovereignty, to be endangered by the proposal. The

elaboration of a prophecy of doom whereby the declaration of Parmesan as generic

would delegitimize the entire system of GIs indicates that they viewed this event as a

threat to the security of the system as a whole. Such prophecies are used to

emphasize the seriousness of the behavior in order to legitimize action taken against

143

Next, claims-makers have stressed that there is more at stake than political-

economic damage but that gastronomic heritage, traditions, and culture are in danger

(McMahon 2005; Brown 2008; Personal interview, May 24, 2013b; Personal

interview, February 27, 2013) if certain products are lost:

“We won’t just lose market share…We lose a culture, because the typical product is not just a quality product. It’s a product coming from a region, from a culture, from a human experience…For sure, if you lose this kind of product you will lost a little part of Italian, Spanish, French, Greek culture” (Holley 2002).

Italians take the diversity of their cuisines and products very seriously and citizens in

each area of the country take immense pride in their respective gastronomic

traditions (Parasecoli 2003, 2004). Traditional products have continued to disappear in part due to the spread of European and global standardization and “as regional

products gradually disappear, they are replaced by foreign foods, foreign tastes; the

universal and rationalized is now imported into the European periphery as the exotic” (Seremetakis 1994: 3). Deepening concerns in Italy over the imitation of

Parmesan are linked to these wider structural processes and contribute to feelings of

insecurity where “a fear of cultural homogenization has manifested itself in a politics

of taste, based around the protection of ‘endangered foods’” (Leitch 2010: 458) such

as Parmigiano-Reggiano.