World Food Policy Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 70
The Role of Proximity and Standards in Guaranteeing Vegetable Safety in Vietnam
Hence the farmer–consumer relationship
and exchanges enables a partial change of
credence attributes into search attributes
(which is also the function of labels
according to Caswell and Mojduszka
1996).
On the other hand, trust cannot
circumvent all risks of moral hazards. On
the whole, consumers show a little trust in
the safety of vegetables supplied to them.
The vegetable safety analyses show that
there are indeed excess pesticide residues
in all types of marketing chains, except for
organic vegetables. Some form of control
and certification, based on verifiable
documentation
processes,
appears
desirable to limit opportunistic behavior
and increase the outreach of quality
chains beyond local communities. The
problem with verifiable documentation
processes is that they add costs and
constraints to local farmers, and the
latter are not immediately rewarded
by consumer premium prices. Table 3
summarizes the basic characteristics of
personal interactions and expert systems
in relation to their ability to assure food
safety. The illustrations in the paper
show some success of initiatives based on
personal interactions in Southeast Asia,
whereas expert systems are more difficult
to set up. Some intermediary systems
combining internal control systems
with verifiable procedures and external
inspections—made by consumer groups,
trading companies, or public bodies—
have been documented as promising
options. These systems are based on
relational proximity, expert systems, and
labeling on the origin of vegetables as
ways to enhance consumers’ trust and
farmers’ commitments. One interesting
outcome relates to the combination of
systems based on relational proximity,
expert systems, and labeling on the origin
of vegetables as enhancing consumers’
trust and farmers’ commitments. Hence
relational proximity, standards, and
labels are complementary rather than
substitutes.
Some recommendations in terms
of research are now given.
First, a more rigorous impact
assessment of alternative marketing and
quality control strategies is necessary to
determine how trust and food safety can
be strengthened in the chain and at what
costs and risks for farmers. It implies
being able to compare, for the same type
of crops and farmers, different methods of
controlling food safety: for instance, direct
sales without ICSs, direct sales with ICSs,
contracts between farmer groups and
a consolidator supporting certification
costs, etc. It also involves panel data,
treatment, and control samples, which is
not easy in situations where direct sales or
certification may represent a small share
of farms.
Second, more action-research
as well as research in economics,
management, and agricultural sciences
are also needed to determine how the
role of farmer organizations involved in
ICSs, that of public authorities and that
of private buyers involved in external
certification can be combined in a such a
way that the characteristics of food safety
as a public good are efficiently tackled at a
reasonable cost.
Third, identifying conditions for
up-scaling of success stories in terms of
quality development involving smallscale farmers is also crucial. This implies
a more thorough investigation of the
links between mass and niche markets
69