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