Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Small and Medium Enterprises
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of the Concept of Agroecology in Europe: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Hospitality and Tourism Online Review Research: A Systematic Analysis and Heuristic-Systematic Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Coexistence of Multiple Worldviews in Livestock Farming Drives Agroecological Transition. A Case Study in French Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) Cheese Mountain Areas
Open AccessArticle

We Don’t Want to Be Officially Certified! Reasons and Implications of the Participatory Guarantee Systems

1
Agroecology, Food Sovereignty and Commons Research Group, Cordoba University, Sociology Unit, C5 Building, Campus Universitario Rabanales, Universidad de Cordoba, 14080 Cordoba, Spain
2
IESA/CSIC-JA, Campo Santo de los Mártires 7, 14004 Cordoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 1142; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041142
Received: 27 February 2018 / Revised: 28 March 2018 / Accepted: 28 March 2018 / Published: 10 April 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mapping Agroecology in Europe. New Developments and Applications)
Official organic regulation in Europe is based on the third-party certification system to guarantee organic products. Many critics and dissatisfactions have motivated the emergence of other guarantee systems, based on an intense implication of producers and, in some cases, consumers and other local actors, involved in localised agri-food systems. They are called Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), and are not recognised as valid guarantee systems by the official organic regulation. In the present paper, we analyse the main differences between the PGS and the third party certification system, deepening on their differentiated social and political implications. We conclude that the procedures behind PGS generate numerous positive impacts in the territories related to local producers (and consumers) empowerment and localised agri-food systems drive, while their implications make them not considered as a substitute to third party certification system, unless certain conditions of social consolidated groups and agroecological and food sovereignty perspective of food system take place. View Full-Text
Keywords: localised food systems; organic certification; food democratization; food communities localised food systems; organic certification; food democratization; food communities
Show Figures

Scheme 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Cuéllar-Padilla, M.; Ganuza-Fernandez, E. We Don’t Want to Be Officially Certified! Reasons and Implications of the Participatory Guarantee Systems. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041142

AMA Style

Cuéllar-Padilla M, Ganuza-Fernandez E. We Don’t Want to Be Officially Certified! Reasons and Implications of the Participatory Guarantee Systems. Sustainability. 2018; 10(4):1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041142

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cuéllar-Padilla, Mamen; Ganuza-Fernandez, Ernesto. 2018. "We Don’t Want to Be Officially Certified! Reasons and Implications of the Participatory Guarantee Systems" Sustainability 10, no. 4: 1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041142

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop