Interest, institutions and ideas on Food Fraud P in the context of the discourse on Reflexive Modernisation : the case of the European meat industry

(1)

(2)

Mary had a little lamb, And when she saw it sicken, She shipped it off to Packingtown, And now it’s labelled chicken.

New York Evening Post (1906)1

(3)

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my great appreciation to my research project supervisor, Dr. Robin Pistorius, for his instant reply to any of my doubts and worries. His valuable and constructive advice and his willingness to give his time when I needed it most have been very much appreciated.

Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Rosa Sanchez Salgado, for accepting to be my second reader.

I wish to thank Erik for his unconditional support and his help with the layout of this thesis. I know I can always count on him. The same words go to Crystal, thank you both for your endless words of encouragement. Allison and Joss, thank you for making the time to proofread my thesis.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to acknowledge the great support provided by my family.

Lisanne Evers June 26, 2014

(4)

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Structure of Thesis ... 12

Figure 2 - Fraud Triangle……….. 37

Figure 3 - Determining Underlying Components………. 41

Figure 4 - Discourse European Media……….. 46

Figure 5 - Current Discourse on Role Food Fraud Prevention………. 51

Figure 6 - Extended Discourse on Role Food Frau Prevention……… 61

List of Tables

Table 1 – Industrial Society vs. Risk Society ... 25

(6)

List of Abbreviations

ACFE Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

CLITRAVI Liaison Centre for the Meat Processing Industry in the European Union

DE Germany

DG SANCO Directorate-General for Health and Consumers

EC European Commission

EP European Parliament

EFSA European Food Safety Authority EMI European Meat Industry

ENVI European Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service

EU European Union

FD&C Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FSA Food Standards Authority

FSAI The Food Safety Authority of Ireland

GECAFS Global Environmental Change and Food Systems GMA The Grocery Manufacturers Association

NL Netherlands

NVWA [Dutch] Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit

(English: the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority) OVV [Dutch] Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (English: Safety Board)

RASFF Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed UECVB European Livestock and Meat Trading Union

UK United Kingdom

UMMC University of Maryland Medical Center

US United States

USP US Pharmacopeial Convention

VSV [Dutch] Vereniging van Slachterijen en Vleesverwerkende bedrijven (English: Association of Slaughterhouses and Meat Processing plants)

(7)

(8)

1.1. Introduction to the Chapter

Chapter one presents an introduction to the topic of this thesis, including the main research question. This chapter also elaborates on the motivation and aim of this research, which is to cover the gap in the current literature. Finally, the methodology and structure of the research are provided, including the sub-questions that are answered in chapter two and three.

1.2. Topic Introduction

Lately, food fraud has garnered much attention due to recent incidents such as the horsemeat scandal in 2013 when the FSAI found horse DNA in beef burgers (FSAI, 2013). It became quickly apparent that these incidents were not confined to Ireland alone. Other incidents include the renaming and mislabelling of seafood (US research found in 2007 that more than half of the sampled ‘wild’ salmon were actually farmed (Jacquet & Pauly, 2008: 313)), or the recent fraud cases as reported by the ENVI that include ‘the marketing of ordinary flour as organic flour, of battery cage eggs as organic eggs, of road salt as food salt [...] and the use of methanol- contaminated alcohol in spirits’ (ENVI, 2013: 3). Not to mention the distressing melamine-scandal of 2008, in which the Chinese government announced that infant milk powder was tainted by melamine, a synthetic protein that has been added to conceal a low protein content or dilution with water (Foodwatch, 2012). The added melamine, a chemical that is usually used in plastics, caused more than 290,000 poisonings and the death of at least six babies (Xiu & Klein, 2010: 462). In addition, USP, a newly founded global database consisting of ‘independently documented examples of food fraud’, has recently added up to 800 new records in an effort to address these issues (Avery, 2014: 2)

Although these recent scandals received much attention from the media, making it seem as if food fraud is a “new” topic, the first signs of food adulteration can be traced back to the eighteenth century, when bakers in the United Kingdom were known to add chalk to the flour in order to whiten the bread, and increased the weight of loaves with mashed potatoes, pipe clay and even sawdust (Shears, 2010: 199). Other examples include coffee adulterated with wheat and chicory in the 1850s (Wilson, 2009: 121), or the addition of substances such as lead and copper to jellies and sweets to make them look brighter (and therefore more appealing to children) said the German chemist Fredrick Accum in his 1820 book ‘A Treatise on Adulterations of Food and Culinary Poisons’ (Accum, 1820).

(9)

At the time of Fredrick Accum, consumers were not as well informed about the food they consumed as the consumers of today. However, even though food is now safer than ever before, the observed trust of European consumers is low (ENVI, 2013: 8). With one third of the European citizens not trusting the information provided by food labels (ENVI, 2013: 8), major paradox exists that the actual risk of a food fraud incident is much lower compared to the eighteenth century. ‘Through large scale bulletins in the media, we have learned about food scandals that threaten both our health and our environment’ (Almas, 1999), making consumers unsure about who they can trust. Ulrich Beck (1992) argued more than twenty years ago that we are moving from an ‘industrial society’ to a ‘risk society’, with the industrial society being structured through social classes and the risk society being individualised (Beck, 1992: 137). This individualisation process is strongly connected to the well-known theory of Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1994) on ‘reflexive modernisation’. With this in mind, the current debate on food fraud prevention needs to be examined in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation, addressing these changes in the realm of ideas, institutions and interests on food fraud that are growing in recognition and concern. Therefore, the main research question is stated as follows:

In the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation, what underlying component of decision-making and interaction of interests, institutions and ideas can best explain the role of food fraud prevention in the EMI?

Although the individual of this day and age has the ability to make informed choices in what he or she wants to eat, he or she is always taking risks when making a decision; we make these decisions believing in the experts that are informing us as there is no way to see or believe in the risks that present themselves to us (Franklin, 1998: 1). As food production and transformation has moved away from the eyes of the average consumer, ‘the consumer is no longer able to interpret the sensorial messages of food as a trusty sign of its nature’ (Fonte, 2002: 17). In the light of the ‘conflicting information from experts and politicians whom we can no longer trust to keep us informed’ (Franklin, 1998: 1), the individual must start choosing for his or herself. This increases the number of choices, which in turn means not more but less freedom since ‘making choices is compulsory’ (Almas, 1999). Ultimately, ‘even if the real risk is

(10)

decreasing, the perceived risk is increasing because there is a greater range of choice’ (Almas, 1999).

Despite the long history of food fraud, it is argued that current incidents need a new approach in the present expanded and global food industry, which grows increasingly complex and more difficult to regulate. The benefits of globalisation, such as EU trade agreements and economies of scale, changed the way food is produced and distributed with chains of food production spreading over many different countries. Because of this expansion and increasingly complicated modern food supply chains, the risk of food fraud has increased to include ‘entire global populations’ (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R158). John Spink and Douglas C. Moyer (2011) assume that, although the scale and impact of food fraud has expanded, the scope of food fraud may have remained the same over time (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R158). However, the significance of food fraud in today's globalised world is about facing the question whether we want to see ‘food as a product or as sheer commerce’ (de Lange, 2014). Continuing in the words of Harry Paul, Inspector General of the NVWA, ‘I am afraid that legal provisions have replaced our values’2 (de Lange, 2014). Corresponding comments are made by Maria Fonte (2002), who claims that it has become normal to think in terms of risk, with these risks being ‘amplified by the specialized, concentrated and transnational character of the food system’ (Fonte, 2002: 17). Although Maria Fonte (2002) focuses on the dynamics of food consumption, her recognition that food consumption is subject to the individualisation process of reflexive modernisation is apposite to the topic of this thesis on food fraud and its prevention. The way food fraud is dealt with in the current globalised world, with experts ‘dumping their contradictions and conflicts at the feet of the individual’ (Beck, 1992: 137), makes it hard for consumers to trust in the food industry and its institutions. Although the recent food fraud scandals that are increasing in severity have alarmed the authorities3, a modern approach is needed to analyse these incidents, namely in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation. Realising the ambiguity of the term4, the research question is framed as such.

2_{Translated from Dutch: ‘we staan voor de vraag of we voedsel als product zien of puur als handel”. [...] “Ik vrees}

dat wettelijke bepalingen onze waarden hebben vervangen’ (de Lange, 2014).

3_{Recent scandals have improved the focus on food fraud by, among other, the ENVI, FSA, GMA and the OVV}

(ENVI, 2013; FSA, 2007; GMA & A.T. Kearney, 2010; OVV, 2014).

4_{Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1994: 91) define different processes and phases that collaborate in} creation of reflexive modernisation: ‘modernity destroys tradition. However […] a collaboration between modernity

(11)

The complexity and international character of the food chain has to be broken down into an analysis in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernity. The individualisation process is forcing us to make decisions, with recent food fraud incidents demanding active participation through ‘all layers of social, political and economic activity’ (Franklin, 1998: 8). Not only do states and the food industry need to collaborate, consumers and the media also play a significant part in establishing the role of food fraud prevention. This enforces the argument that ‘every value chain participant has a role in preventing fraud’ (GMA & A.T. Kearney, 2010: 1). As ‘individuals’ play a bigger part in risk society in comparison to the focus on ‘specialists’ in industrial society, it produces a greater complexity in the modes of interaction and the institutions within which actions take place (Cox, 1981: 126).

Therefore, it is argued that the dimensions of interests, institutions and ideas can form a

framework for understanding this complexity, in an effort to distinguish between these layers by

comparing the sociological analysis of risk perception, ‘de-traditionalization’ and ‘individualisation’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994), with the political and economic analysis on policy-making and ‘risk society’ in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994).

Considering the severity of food fraud, the question arises: ‘what distinguishes this era of food production from previous times’ (Loeber, Hajer, & Levidow, 2011: 148)? The straightforward observation that the increase in food fraud is mainly due to the increased complexity and ‘cross-border character of the food chain’ (ENVI, 2013: 9), is seen as incomplete. The interests and institutions of states and ‘societal actors’ within which policymaking occurs, are usually seen as responsible for policy outcomes (Skogstad, 1998: 465). However, few scholars would consider how ideas, too, perpetually influence policy outcomes (Skogstad, 1998: 465). The idea that recent food fraud incidents could result from a “new” type of risk unifies the role of food fraud prevention with the discourse on reflexive modernisation. Figure one depicts the indicated structure of this thesis, with the arrows emphasising its interrelatedness. The influence of interests, institutions and ideas are considered to be the independent variable in this thesis, assuming that the dimensions influence the role of food fraud prevention in the EMI.

and tradition was crucial to the earlier phases of modern social development’. Also reflexive modernisation is seen as a continuing process of historical change’ (Cox, 1981: 129).

(12)

Figure 1 - Structure of Thesis

Relevance of EU Context in Food Fraud Prevention

To illustrate the influence of interests, institutions and ideas and to uncover the actual impact of reflexive modernisation, an empirical approach is provided via the use of a case study on the EMI. The role of food fraud prevention in an EU-context is relevant for the following reasons: (a) EU regulation is a unique case in that it affects most elements of a food production chain when comparing to any national regulation. Although several food production chains include imports from outside of Europe, EU regulation generally applies to these imports as well. (b) In a recent report by the ENVI, the European Parliament acknowledges that ‘combating food fraud is a relatively new issue on the European agenda, and that in the past it has never been a key priority for legislation and enforcement at EU or national level’ (ENVI, 2013: 4). The report highlights the need for better insight into the ‘scale, incidence and elements of food fraud cases in the EU’ (ENVI, 2013: 4). This makes an interesting study as it marks the transition from an industrial society to a risk society. Finally, (c) the characteristics of the EU apply to the reflexive modernisation theory, including terms such as ‘welfare-state’ and ‘modern society’ (Beck, Bonss

(13)

& Lau, 2003). ‘The shock of living in a risk society’ (Beck, 1998: 9), as Ulrich Beck describes it, is exemplified through incidents such as the European horsemeat scandal.

The focus on the highly relevant case of the EMI within the EU is firstly based on its current social context. The highly publicised horsemeat scandal proved the discrepancy between regulation and practice in the EMI as wrongly labelled horsemeat had been entering the food production chain (EC, 2013). Second, its ubiquity5 throughout the EU allows the scrutinisation of each level of analysis in the components of interests, institutions and ideas in the context of reflexive modernisation.

1.3. Aim

This thesis has two central objectives. The first and foremost objective is to link the current literature on food fraud prevention to the discourse on reflexive modernisation, concentrating on the problems of ‘risk’ and ‘risk perceptions’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994). This will give a more articulate picture on the transition of food fraud prevention in reflexive modernity, and capture its rationale rather than studying the relative importance of food fraud incidents. Through ‘deconstruction’ and ‘reconstruction’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 202), the aim is to construct the ‘new’ dynamics of food fraud and its prevention at the beginning of the 21st century. In addition, this thesis aims to uncover the economical, political and social contexts that frame the policy on food fraud so as to gain a better sense of the role of food fraud prevention in the EMI. Only an integrated approach to the study of the food fraud will enable us to understand the motivations behind an actors’ behaviour and the conditions of reflexive modernisation under which such developments take place.

The second objective is about clarifying the existing causes of food fraud in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation. The current literature on food fraud prevention predominantly centers on food safety instead of food fraud prevention (ENVI, 2013: 9; Spink & Moyer, 2011: R158). This emphasises the importance of analysing the role of food fraud prevention in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation, as ‘food fraud risk is based on a completely different set of motivations [and] [...] has fundamentally different properties than food safety’s traditional bad bugs, bad chemicals, and physical hazards’ (Spink & Moyer,

(14)

2011: R159). These causes of food fraud are established through the analysis of the interests, institutions and ideas of the main stakeholders. In combination with the case study on the EMI, this objective provides an analytical lens for understanding the driving forces of food fraud and for uncovering which of these forces explain the role of food fraud prevention. Furthermore, the aim of these causes is to offer an interdisciplinary approach towards food fraud prevention as the laws and regulations covering food fraud are inherently complex, creating both ‘coverage gaps and overlaps that impede food fraud enforcement efforts’ (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R162).

1.4. Motivation

The first interest in this topic springs from its great influence on the overall food system; combined with losses in revenue it poses a real threat to the trust and safety of consumers (Spink, 2011a: 184). Not only could consumers lose confidence in the food industry, they are put at risk of suffering physical harm (Gallagher & Thomas, 2010: 347). The impact of food fraud is often underestimated.

The second need in uncovering the influence of food fraud prevention in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation in the EMI is because of the extended food chains of the latter, with links crossing many borders. The stretching of food production chains due to globalization and insistent consumer demands make this topic increasingly important and undeniable. The current theories on food fraud need to be extended in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation by considering the enlargement of global food chains that increase the complexity of food fraud. Finally, the recent media attention that has sparked the international debate on the elements food fraud has been an incentive to focus this thesis on food fraud prevention. Observed controversies and different parties placing the responsibility at one another make it seem as if food fraud has several sides to the story.

1.5. Gap in Literature

Research on food fraud is rather recent; Peter Scholliers (2008) argues that this has to do with the ‘fogginess’ of food fraud, in contrast to the ‘high visibility [...] of quantitative food problems’ (Scholliers, 2008: 5). Besides, current interest and literature on food fraud commonly lacks a ‘core research question or theoretical approach’ (Scholliers, 2008: 4).

(15)

The current discourse on food fraud incidents is often immediately linked to food safety6_,

making it seem as if these terms are inherently connected. However, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, a food safety incident has inherently different causes when compared to a food fraud incident (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R159). Although food safety may be jeopardised as a consequence of food fraud, the motivation/cause and the result/effect of food fraud needs to be treated separately when evaluating a food fraud incident. This misconstruction in most of the current literature on food fraud and its prevention is seen as an opportunity for this thesis to clarify through the analysis of the interests, institutions and ideas of the main stakeholders, as; ‘to prevent the public health threat, the focus must shift from the consequence to the cause or motivation’ (Spink, 2011b: 199). Besides, the ENVI resolution on fraud in the food chain mostly notes economic interests as a contributing factor to the increase of food fraud, pointing at the ‘complexity’ and ‘cross-border character’ of the food chain, and acknowledges the late interest of the EU in food fraud prevention to be a contributing factor (ENVI, 2013: 5). However, social factors and consumer perspectives, such as changes in lifestyle and consumption, are not taken into account in this resolution. Therefore, these factors will be highlighted in this thesis.

Furthermore, we need a new language to describe the food fraud incidents in context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation. As said, food fraud incidents are often immediately linked to food safety. ‘We [...] become slowly conscious that although things still look the same and have the same form, behind the scenes they are not working in the way we have come to expect’ (Franklin, 1998: 2). Comparing the discourse of the industrial society and the risk society, the problem of food fraud has two different solutions: if we see the increase of food fraud as a ‘consequence of a breakdown of traditional order’, it might lead to strengthening the existing institutions and relationships resisting to change and building on an ‘idealized notion of community (Franklin, 1998: 2). However, this form of security is based on ‘how people should

6_{The melamine scandal of 2008 is often referred to as a food safety incident i.e.; ‘A major food safety incident in}

China was made public in September 2008. [...] Melamine had been deliberately added at milk-collecting stations’ (Gossner, Schlundt, Ben Embarek, Hird, Lo-Fo-Wong, Beltran, Teoh & Tritscher, 2009: 1803). Maree Gallagher and Ian Thomas (2010) describe the melamine scandal as a ‘food safety event’, while recognizing that the adulteration was done ‘with the intention of deceiving consumers for profit’ (Gallagher & Thomas, 2010: 351). Other misconceptions are made by Linn Viktoria Rampl, Tim Eberhardt, Reinhard Schütte and Peter Kenning (2012), who recognise a ‘rising number of food safety scandals’, including the melamine scandal (Rampl, Eberhardt, Schütte & Kenning, 2012: 254). Even the Chinese government announced to launch a ‘new national food safety drive following a wave of recent damaging revelations over melamine-tainted milk products in the country’; with the Chinese Vice Premier admitting that ‘serious problems remained with the country’s food safety system’ (Harrington, 2010).

(16)

live and on the obligations they should feel towards each other [..] [and] endeavours to build the ideas of trust and responsibility into institutions that are themselves rapidly changing and are incapable of responding as we imagine they used to’ (Franklin, 1998: 2). The role of food fraud prevention in context of the discourse on risk society is the seen as the second solution and focus of this thesis. This thesis recognises that a new language is yet to be applied to food fraud and its prevention, a language that ‘resonates with our experience and can take us forward into the unknown, opening up the possibility of living creatively with risk and uncertainty’ (Franklin, 1998: 2).

Lastly, food fraud prevention in the EMI can only be fully understood through a systematic framework that analyses the role that interests, institutions and ideas have in policy outcomes. Although there is well-developed literature that documents the policy changes of food fraud prevention in welfare states (For example: Moore, Spink & Lipp: 2012; Spink & Moyer, 2011; Shears, 2010; Gallagher & Thomas, 2010), this literature has rarely considered the intersections between these policy changes, or the interaction and decision-making process of interests, institutions and ideas. Although these might have been highlighted separately, there has been no systematic framework for investigating how these multiple factors have influenced food fraud prevention in the EU, nor on their interplay.

1.6. Methodology

The kinds of research techniques that are used in this thesis are qualitative of kind and threefold: data will be gathered through the means of literature review, a discourse analysis and a case study of the EMI. The decision to mostly disregard quantitative methods has been made as this will not lead to gaining an understanding of the role of food fraud prevention. Uncovering the prevalent processes in the food production chain is something that cannot be processed through quantitative analysis. This thesis is inductive of kind and uses a positivist lens aimed at uncovering the causal relationships between the classical dimensions of interests, institutions and ideas. These dimensions will serve as different angles in uncovering the role of food fraud prevention in the EMI. It is hypothesised that multiple dimensions play a part in answering the main research question. This expectation is based on the positivist way of reasoning in which several possible causal relationships are assumed. The following sections present the justification of the choice of methods being (a) literature review, (b) discourse analysis and (c) a case study.

(17)

Through the critical evaluation of the existing literature on this topic, the aforementioned gap in the literature has been identified. This thesis attempts to synthesize the existing theories on food fraud prevention and reflexive modernisation and build on these theories. Through the use of different sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles, newspapers, books and government reports relevant information is gathered. Nevertheless, the process of literature review revealed a lack of consistency in the discourses used on this topic. Hence the choice of a discourse analysis is made.

The discourse analysis performed in the case study is identified as: ‘an ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categories through which meaning is given to social and physical phenomena, and which is produced and reproduced through an identifiable set of practices’ (Hajer, 2013). The discourse analysis aims to unravel the discrepancy between what is written on paper and what is conversed in practice. It is crucial to learn from discursive changes as ‘ideas of adulteration have radically changed over time’ (Wilson, 2009: x). Bee Wilson, writer of the book ‘Swindled - The Dark History of the Food Cheats’ (2009) found that in the 1850s, salt was listed as an adulterant while salty butter today is sold without any suspicion (Wilson, 2009: x). Also, as Wilson (2009) noticed: ‘the opposite pattern prevails now, as many ingredients once seen as harmless - saccharine, food colourings, trans fats [...] - come to be redefined as adulterants’ (Wilson, 2009: x). By acknowledging that adulteration has a long history we also acknowledge that food fraud cannot be solved completely. On top of that, as mentioned before, adulteration today is much more complex and severe than it was in the 1850s.

Derived from the book on discourse analysis by James Paul Gee (2005), the following ‘task’ of the so-called ‘seven building tasks of language’ is selected as being appropriate to frame this analysis (Gee, 2005: 11-13): the building task “politics (the distribution of social goods)” uses language to build, or convey, a perspective on social goods (Gee, 2005: 12). This ‘task’ realizes that ‘how a matter is phrased has implications for social goods such as guilt and blame, legal responsibility or lack of it, or good or bad motives’ (Gee, 2005: 12). The corresponding discourse analysis question that is posed while analysing the historical discourses on food fraud is: ‘what perspective on social goods is this piece of language communicating (i.e. what is being communicated as to what is taken to be “normal,” “right,” “good,” “correct.” “proper,” “appropriate,” “valuable,” “the ways things are,” “the way things ought to be,” “high status or low status” [...]?’ (Gee, 2005: 12). The way language is used in the context of reflexive

(18)

modernisation is important for understanding today’s role of food fraud prevention in the EMI. As mentioned, food fraud prevention touches upon a variety of disciplines. A discourse analysis can aid in linking the dynamics of these disciplines, showing how food fraud prevention becomes a policy discourse or how it has developed over time (Loeber, Hajer & Levidow, 2011: 151-152). Besides, approaching food fraud in terms of discourse means being concerned with how a certain development or incident becomes an ‘event’ when it is loaded with meaning (Loeber, Hajer & Levidow, 2011: 151).

The case study is an intensive focus on the EMI. The selection of this highly relevant case is due to its current social context. This case allows for the scrutinisation of each level in the whole production chain and applies this to the prevailing dimensions of interests, institutions and ideas in context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation. The levels within the whole production chain include the meat producing and meat processing parties, its supervision and its legal framework. Delimiting the EMI to the red meat chain will narrow down the focus toward the recent horsemeat scandal, as this case has proven its ubiquity thus being suitable for analysis. Other meat products, such as chicken meat, are initially not part of this research. Although the findings of the selected case study cannot be generalised to other areas of study, a better understanding of the role of food fraud prevention is useful for further research in other areas.

1.7. Structure

To meet the said mentioned objectives, this thesis is divided into the following chapters, which include the sub-questions that drive each chapter.

The second chapter of this thesis gives an insight into the theoretical framework. This chapter describes the theory of Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1994) on reflexive modernisation, including a critique and its relation to food fraud prevention. Furthermore, the dimensions of interests, institutions and ideas are conceptualised, considering their connection to food fraud prevention. The sub-questions that motivate this chapter are: (1) how would the understanding of reflexive modernisation inform about the way the EMI is coping with food fraud, and who are the main stakeholders? And, (2) how would the method of analysing the interests, institutions and ideas of the main stakeholders assist in explaining the role of food fraud prevention in the context of reflexive modernisation?

(19)

Chapter three presents the case study of the EMI. The corresponding sub-question serves as an introduction to this case: (3) in what manner do the EU, the EMI and the European consumers organise themselves in response to the risk of food fraud in the EMI? Then, the case study is applied to the discourse on reflexive modernisation, separating this chapter into three sections; the first section focuses on the role of institutions, the second stresses the importance of institutions and the third analyses the influence of ideas. This analysis is instigated by the following sub-questions that are dealt with in a separate section including preliminary conclusions: (4) in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation, how do interests, institutions and ideas of the EU, the EMI and European consumers influence food fraud in the EMI? And finally, (5) applied to food fraud prevention in the context of reflexive modernisation, how do the components of interests, institutions and ideas influence each other?

The conclusive chapter four provides a short summary of this thesis and answers the main research question subsequently.

(20)

(21)

2.1. Introduction to the Chapter

This chapter is divided into two parts, and is set up to establish the theoretical framework. The relevance of this chapter is that (a) it determines and defines the focus of the research question; (b) it identifies and tests the relationship between the theory of reflexive modernisation and the role of food fraud prevention in combination with the dimensions of interests, institutions and ideas, and (c) it provides a starting point for the case study on the EMI that will be dealt with in chapter three.

The first part recognises and conceptualises the terms and relationships of the theory of Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1994) on reflexive modernisation applied to food fraud prevention, including the conceptualisation of the main stakeholders whom will be analysed in the case study of chapter three. In addition, a theoretical background on the change from industrial society to risk society is provided. This part is designed to answer the first sub question: How would the understanding of reflexive modernisation inform about the way the EMI is coping with food fraud, and who are the main stakeholders?

The second part applies food fraud prevention to the dimensions of interests, institutions and ideas and describes how the discourse on reflexive modernisation is related to these dimensions. As the first part will prove, individuals play an increasingly important role in reflexive modernity, causing all layers of society to influence food fraud prevention. This produces a greater complexity in the modes of interaction and the institutions within which

actions take place (Cox, 1981: 126). Therefore, it is argued that the dimensions of interests,

institution and ideas can form a framework for understanding this complexity. For this reason,

the second sub question that is answered as an outcome of the second part is: How would the method of analysing the interests, institutions and ideas of the main stakeholders assist in explaining the role of food fraud prevention in the context of reflexive modernisation?

Before continuation, it is important to realise the definition of food fraud as a ‘collective term used to encompass the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging; or false or misleading statements made about a product, for economic gain’ (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R157). Noting that this definition includes the words ‘intentional’ and ‘economic gain’, clearly separates this definition from a food safety incident which is an ‘unintentional act with unintentional harm’ (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R157). It is relevant to make this distinction, considering that a food safety

(22)

incident has inherently different causes than food fraud (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R159). For the sake of generalisation, food fraud is seen as an overarching concept including terms such as ‘adulteration’, ‘tamper’, ‘over-run’, ‘theft’, ‘diversion’, ‘simulation’ and ‘counterfeit’ (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R162).

2.2. Identifying Reflexive Modernisation in relation to Food Fraud Prevention

This section identifies and tests the relationship between the theory of reflexive modernisation and the role of food fraud prevention as to determine and define the focus of the research question. After the theory of reflexive modernisation is defined, this section is divided into four parts: first, the discourse of ‘risk’ is explained, after which the difference between industrial society and risk society is determined. These two parts serve as a basis for the third and fourth part considering that the third part applies the set out definitions to the role of food fraud prevention, expanding on the question why the role of food fraud prevention needs to be analysed in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation. The fourth and final part of this section serves as a starting point for the case study on the EMI in chapter three, in that the main stakeholders in the EMI are identified and put in the context of industrial society and risk society.

First introduced in the 1990s, reflexive modernisation is defined as ‘the possibility of a creative (self-)destruction for an entire epoch: that of industrial society’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 2). With ‘creative (self-)destruction’, Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1994) mean the victory of Western modernisation (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 2). This new stage of reflexive modernisation entails that progress can turn into self-destruction, that one kind of modernisation ‘undercuts’ and changes another (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 2). Furthermore, reflexive modernisation is not necessarily about collapses that signal ‘social upheavals’, but also indicates ‘strong economic growth, rapid technification and high employment security’ that will move industrial society into a new epoch (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 3). ‘Reflexivity’ in this sense means ‘to differentiate it from and contrast it with reflection’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 6). In other words, reflexivity means that as an actor examines itself, it changes itself in the process of reflection. Calling on the transition from industrial society to risk society, reflexive modernisation then means ‘self-confrontation with the effects of

(23)

risk society that cannot be dealt with and assimilated in the system of industrial society - as measured by the latter’s institutionalized standards’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 6).

Before turning to the relation of reflexive modernisation and food fraud prevention, the related concepts on the discourse of ‘risk’ and the industrial society versus the risk society are elaborated upon.

2.2.1. Establishing the Basis: Distinguishing Between Risks

In order to answer the main research question in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation it is crucial to distinguish between risks, as risks in reflexive modernity have a different meaning than risks in previous periods.

A risk is defined as a hazard that is ‘actively assessed in relation to future possibilities’, meaning that the discourse of risk comes in wide usage in future oriented societies (Giddens, 2002: 22). ‘The notion of ‘risk’ is central to modern culture today precisely because so much of our thinking has to be of ‘as-if’ kind’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: vii).

In the context of industrial society, risk was supposed to regulate the future, however, ‘our very attempts to control the future tend to rebound upon us, forcing us to look for different ways of relating to uncertainty’ (Giddens, 2002: 26). Anthony Giddens (2002) distinguishes two types of risk that are important to address for further analysis. The first is called ‘external risk’, which is experienced as ‘coming from the outside, from the fixities of tradition or nature’ such as a natural disaster (Giddens, 2002: 26). The second is called ‘manufactured risk’, meaning that ‘risk is created by the very impact of our developing knowledge upon the world’ (Giddens, 2002: 26). Manufactured risks are directly influenced by the intensifying globalisation (Giddens, 2002: 26). An example could be global warming, or, in this case, the increase/extent of food fraud. The importance in this distinction is that it also starts the separation of the discourse on risk in industrial society and the risk society, as risk might not seem be any different than risk in previous periods.

(24)

2.2.2. Establishing the Basis: Industrial Society vs. Risk Society

The distinction between industrial society and risk society needs to be clarified as it marks the change in the dimensions on interests, institutions and ideas7, which will be discussed in chapter 2.3. The following text sums up the relevant factors that explain the need to analyse food fraud in terms of risk society. According to Ulrich Beck, reflexive modernisation means that the change of industrial society implies a ‘radicalization’ of modernity, breaking up the premises and contours of industrial society (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 3). ‘The concept of risk society designates a stage of modernity in which the threats produced so far on the path or industrial society begin to predominate’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 6).

The first factor continues on the last point made in the previous sector. In industrial society, human beings were mostly worried about external risks, such as bad harvests, plagues or famines (Giddens, 2002: 26). However, at a certain point ‘we started worrying less about what nature can do to us, and more about what we have done to nature’ (Giddens, 2002: 26). According to Anthony Giddens (2002: 26) this marks the transition from external to manufactured risk, or, from industrial society to risk society. In the first instance, risk seems no more than a part of an ‘essential calculus’, where much remains as given or as fate (Beck, 1998: 12). However, in the second stage, new types of ‘incalculability’ emerge in which the production of risks is the ‘consequence of scientific and political efforts to minimize them’ (Beck, 1998: 12). This ‘manufactured uncertainty’ is paradoxical as ‘the more we try to colonize the future, the more likely it is to spring surprises on us’ (Beck, 1998: 12).

The second difference between risks in an industrial society or risk society is that people no longer choose to take risks in the latter; risks are ‘thrust upon us’ (Beck, 1998: 12). What used to be a job for specialists is something we now all have to engage in (Beck, 1998: 12). Ulrich Beck defines risk society as ‘a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself’ (Beck, 1992: 21). As these modes of determining risk have broken down, the legitimacy of institutions, economies and science is thrown into question (Beck, 1998: 16). ‘The less we can rely on traditional securities, the more risks we have to negotiate’, which means that ‘the more risks, the more decisions and choices we have to make’

(Beck, 1998: 10).

7_{Ulrich Beck theorises that these two states of ‘interconnected processes’ have altered not only the ‘epistemological}

(25)

Third, while industrial society has a drive to conquer the natural word, with a belief in progress, in risk society one becomes conscious that certain changes are not working in the way we have come to expect (Franklin, 1998: 2). The security of industrial society is based ‘on how people should live and on the obligations they should feel towards each other’; endeavouring to build the ideas of trust and responsibility into institutions that are incapable of responding in risk society (Franklin, 1998: 2). Risk society takes the ‘reality of everyday life as its starting point, recognizing that we need a new language to describe what is happening to us’ (Franklin, 1998: 2). This difference explains the importance of distinguishing between industrial and risk society as both portray a different viewpoint on preventing issues such as food fraud. Industrial society builds on an idealised notion of community whereas risk society opens up the possibility of ‘living creatively with risk and uncertainty’ (Franklin, 1998: 2).

Lastly, a distinction is made between the knowledge and impact of risk. In industrial society, risks are ‘not the subject of public knowledge and debate and are not at the centre of political conflict’ (Beck, 1998: 17). In risk society, the risks of industrial society dominate in public and private debates, with institutions producing and legitimising risks they cannot control (Beck, 1998: 17).

In conclusion, in the transition from industrial society to risk society, the former sees and criticises itself as risk society (Beck, 1998: 17). However, in the industrial society decisions are still made on the ‘pattern of simple modernity’, as seen in the points made above, whereas in risk society debates and conflicts are being ‘superimposed on interest organizations, the legal system and politics’, meaning that modernity becomes reflexive (Beck, 1998: 17). Table one presents an overview of the above-mentioned factors, which will be elaborated upon in relation to food fraud prevention in the forthcoming chapters.

Table 1 – Industrial Society vs. Risk Society

Industrial Society Risk Society

Worried about external risks Worried about manufactured risk

Risks are calculable Risks are incalculable

Accepting future Colonising future

(26)

Risk is a job for specialists We all have to engage in risk

Trust and responsibility in institutions Legitimacy of institutions, economies and scientists thrown into question

Builds on an idealised notion of security Opens up the possibility of living creatively with risk and uncertainty

Risks are not the subject of public knowledge and debate and are not at the centre of political conflict

Risks dominate public and private debate, with institutions producing and legitimising risks they cannot control

2.2.3 Food Fraud Prevention in the Context of the Discourse on Reflexive Modernisation: How is the Risk of Food Fraud New?

The theory on reflexive modernisation argues that we are moving from an ‘industrial society’ to a ‘risk society’, with industrial society being structured through social classes and risk society being individualised (Beck, 1992: 137). Through placing the role of food fraud prevention in the context of both industrial society and risk society, this section argues why it is important to analyse food fraud and its prevention in terms of the latter.

Food fraud is not new. Adding foreign substances and chemicals to food has been happening since the time of the very first traders; ‘whenever there is the lure of an easy profit there will be people ready and willing to exploit others’ (Gallagher & Thomas, 2010: 348). In the 19th century, an enormous increase in food adulteration was noted, which writers ascribed to ‘lowered ethical standards in business and government’ and the ‘sudden development of analytical chemistry’; the development of the microscope, enabling chemists to identify foreign substances in foods also contributed to this increase (Hart, 1952: 13). The same period and the period thereafter experienced a massive increase in laws, which F. Leslie Hart names the ‘legislative period’ (Hart, 1952: 13). John Spink and Douglas C. Moyer list the U.S. Pure Food and Drug act of 1906 and the FD&C in 1938, which was ratified after a deadly adulteration with diethylene glycole, not to mention the several international food standards and regulations such as the Codex Alimentarius, the Food Chemicals Codex and the EU directives (Spink & Moyer, 2013: 31). However, even as these laws continue to evolve, the risk to food fraud persists (Gallagher & Thomas, 2010: 348; Hart, 1952: 13; Spink & Moyer, 2013: 31).

(27)

So how is the risk of food fraud new? The answer to this question and the difference between food fraud in industrial society and food fraud in risk society will now be explained.

Food fraud prevention in industrial society is mainly based on food safety concerns stemming from external risks; the food industry traditionally focuses on supply chain efficiency and on food safety incidents (Moore, Spink & Lipp, 2012: R125). The ENVI also acknowledges that, whereas EU food law specialises in the area of food safety there is no framework in place specifically to target food fraud (ENVI, 2013: 3). ‘While there is a long history of food safety improvements, evolving risks [...] have hampered progress in addressing food fraud’ (Spink & Moyer, 2011: R158). What has changed in the transition from industrial to risk society? First of all, the focus of food safety (external risk) to food fraud (manufactured risk). Secondly, with the emergence of international food standards and organisations such as the EU as the basic framework for food politics, states and local communities have lost much of their authority to guarantee food safety (Zachmann & Østby, 2011: 1). The focus on risk became part of a higher level and ‘the identification of trustworthy food’ was no longer a part of these communities (Zachmann & Østby, 2011: 1). ‘This shift coincided with a growing distance between the field and the fork, stemming from the industrialization of the food system’, in which not only food items but also the food chain changed drastically (Zachmann & Østby, 2011: 1). In an attempt to make the risks of food calculable, industrialised food chains increasingly relied on the ‘mechanization of natural reproduction’ (Zachmann & Østby, 2011: 2). Referring back to the previous section, Industrial society builds on an idealised notion of community (Franklin, 1998: 2). Indicators such as ‘strong economic growth, rapid technification [...] can unleash the storm that will sail or float industrial society into a new epoch’ (Beck, Giddens, Lash, 1994: 4). Radical changes such as the expansion of the food chain, but also the ‘almost monopoly of supermarkets for food purchasers, the pre-packed foods and the general diffusion of convenience food (take-away, ready-made meals, and fast-food shops), the weakening of traditional meal structure, and the corrosion of cooking skills’ influence the way people conceive of food (Scholliers, 2008: 3-4). This changing food environment leads to an ‘upheaval in the snail’s pace of the conventional occupational, political and private order of things’ (Beck, Giddens, Lash, 1994: 4). With globalisation playing a big part in this changing environment, resulting in a food system with an increasing number of actors and institutions mediating between the links of producing, processing, preserving and purchasing food (Zachmann & Østby, 2011: 2) it becomes

(28)

increasingly difficult not to doubt the legitimacy of institutions, economies and science. In conclusion, in contrast to the type of risks that present themselves in industrial society, the risk of food fraud has moved to become a part of risk society.

Prevention of food fraud cannot depend on the traditional food safety strategies (Spink & Moyer, 2013: 36). The concept of risk society raises the issue of redetermining standards of ‘responsibility, safety, monitoring, damage limitation and distribution of the consequences of damage’ that are attained so far, taking notion of the risk potential (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 6). The problem in this, is that the potential risk escapes ‘sensory perception’ that cannot be determined by science; ‘the definition of danger is always a cognitive and social construct’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 6). ‘The discourse of risk begins where trust in our security and belief in progress end’ (Beck, 2000: 213). The risk of food fraud has become not simply a matter fate, but a matter of decisions, science, politics and industries (Beck, 1998: 10). A discourse

analysis by Peter Scholliers (2008) found that, in ‘recent articles in Appetite ‘‘fear’’ appears 13,

‘‘trust’’ 21, ‘‘safety’’ 29, ‘‘quality’’ 58, and ‘‘risk’’ 78 times as keywords’ (Scholliers, 2008: 4). Scholliers found that ‘new concepts have been launched, such as the ‘amplification of risk’ and ‘news spirals’ that related to the role of the media, or ‘risk generator’ and ‘risk regulator’ (Scholliers, 2008: 4). These findings correspond to the theory on risk society in which risks dominate public and private debate; ‘so modernity becomes reflexive’ (Beck, 1998: 17). In terms of food fraud and its prevention, an example could be the increase in consumers requesting traceability information on food packaging (Loureiro & Umberger, 2007: 508). Or, the popularity of campaigns such as the Dutch diary industry campaign ‘Campina farmer-days’8

(Campina, unknown), in which consumers get the possibility to see where the milk they drink is coming from. Due to the increased complexity of the global food production chain, the risks of food fraud have become incalculable. In an effort to colonise the future, the USP conducted a global research project to review food fraud incidents and detection test methods (Spink & Moyer, 2013: 34; Moore, Spink & Lipp, 2012). However, according to Ulrich Beck (1998), these type of scientific methods of approaching the risk of food fraud are inconclusive and politicians should not simply take advice of the ‘shifting scientific reasoning’, presupposing testing before putting into practice (Beck, 1998: 14). This can be explained in terms of food fraud by taking the example of the USP; food fraud incidents first need to happen in order to review its effect. Beck

(29)

argues that the lesson of risk society is that politics and morality have to gain priority over scientific advice as it becomes inconclusive in the dimensions of time and space (Beck, 1998: 14). Whereas these detection methods focus on the type of adulterants and contaminants, methods of deterrence that aim to understand the fraudsters and their motivation (Spink & Moyer, 2013: 33) should be part of the new language of risk society. The latter is seen as a method of opening up the possibility of ‘living creatively with risk and uncertainty’ (Franklin, 1998: 2). For example, with the detection methods of food labelling, the consumer still has to choose whether to believe one label or expert over the other. ‘It is not the case any more that all experts agree and that the public food control institutions will tell you what to do’ (Almas, 1999). As the increased scientific knowledge provides more information, it makes the world more complex as well (Beck, 1998: 13).

Food fraud prevention in the context of the discourse on reflexive modernisation addresses these factors as ‘new areas of unpredictability’ that are created by the ‘very attempts that seek to control them’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: vii). Modernisation not only entails rising technological rationalisation but also includes the ‘change in societal characteristics [...], changes in lifestyle [...], change in the structures of power and influence, in forms of political [...] participation, in views of reality and in the norms of knowledge’, making food fraud and its prevention part of a much deeper process that entails the entire social structure (Beck, 1992: 50). As this social structured is layered in different levels of analysis, these are now established.

2.2.4. Main Stakeholders in the EMI

The fact that risk society influences all layers of society, makes it even more important to address and conceptualise the main stakeholders that are present in the case of the EMI, and to see how each level of analysis is influenced by risk. ‘The concept of risk society designates a developmental phase of modern society in which the social, political, economic and individual risks increasingly tend to escape the institutions for monitoring and protection in industrial society’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 6). Therefore, the following part distinguishes between what is seen as a political risk, an economic risk and a social/individual risk, in the form of (1)

(30)

the EU9_{portraying the political risk, (2) the EMI representing the economic risk and the (3)}

European consumers depicting the social and individual. One of the key aspects of the discourse on reflexive modernisation is that society is individualising (Beck, 1992: 127), which is why the perspective on the consumer level is considered to be crucial in the case study. Karin Zachmann and Per Østby (2011) also divide ‘state agencies, food providers on the market as well as consumers and their representatives’ in three groups that have to collaborate in order to make sure food is safe (Zachmann & Østby, 2011: 2). Corresponding to the view of Peter Scholliers (2008) who argues that present-day regulations and norms with regard to safe food result from developments that are the consequence of past power relations between producers, traders, scientists, consumers, the media, and local and national authorities (Scholliers, 2008: 4-5). ‘Risk society is forcing us to make decisions’ (Franklin, 1998: 8). What are the decisions of the main stakeholders based on? The established fact that food fraud is a manufactured risk means that it is generated by each stakeholder in the process of modernisation. In what manner do the EU, EMI and the European consumers organise themselves in response to the risk of food fraud? The following overview will show how the stakeholders either build on an idealised notion of security or if they apply the discourse on reflexive modernisation.

(1) EU - Political Perspective

Actors involved: political authorities (EP, EC, ENVI, DG SANCO), government officials, scientific experts (EFSA)

In the circumstances of risk society, there is a new ‘moral climate of politics, marked by a push and a pull between accusations of scare mongering on the one hand and of cover-ups on the other’ (Giddens, 2002: 29). From a government perspective it is difficult to legitimise risks that cannot fully be controlled; if the EU takes a risk of food fraud seriously it must be widely publicised, yet if the risk turns out to be minimal, the EU will be accused of scaremongering (Giddens, 2002: 29-30). Either way, the EU is caught up in ‘risk management’ (Giddens, 2002: 34). Ulrich Beck (1998) claims that politicians are in a bad position in that they are struggling to catch up with technological developments (Beck, 1998: 15), however, with scientific institutions such as the EFSA, the EU attempts

9_{Due to the inability of generalising all national governments in the EU, each respond differently to the risk of food}

(31)

to play a more influential part in the role of food fraud prevention. Beck (1998) on the other hand, defends the view that these institutions have been set up to create security, in an attempt to localise risks and dangers (Beck, 1998: 20); these notions are tied to the belief that the risks we face can still be captured by the industrial notions of safety (Beck, 1998: 17).

(2) EMI - Economical Perspective

Actors involved: EMI, lobby groups (CLITRAVI, UECVB)

According to Ulrich Beck (1998), the industry possesses a double advantage; ‘it has autonomy in investment decisions and a monopoly on the application of technology’ (Beck, 1998: 15). Reider Almas (1999) argues that producers groups become much more varied in risk society due to the process of individualisation; modern producers have to ‘carve out their own niches’ (Almas, 1990). This might have a negative effect on the institutional power of the overall EMI in relation to the EU institutions.

It can be argued that food fraud originates from this level of analysis, do business itself profit from the successes and hazards it has created? (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 50). In risk society, one might argue that this is not the case, as the legitimacy of economies is thrown into question (Beck, 1998: 16). However, in industrial society, the trust and responsibility is in institutions (Franklin, 1998: 2), blaming them for fraudulent activities. According to the principles of industrial society ‘the farmer produced, [...] while the government protected the national markets. Government experts also took care of the risks, and we all believed in what they said’ (Almas, 1999). But as a consequence of the processes of modernisation, risk increased and the farmer became more reflexive (Almas, 1999).

(3) Consumers - Social Perspective

Actors involved: consumers, the individual, media, social groups

Not only producers groups but also consumer groups become much more varied than before due to the process of individualisation (Almas, 1999). Individuals are now expected to master the risk of food fraud without being able to make these decisions on a well-founded basis (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 7). Today, ‘people are not being

(32)

‘released’ from feudal and religious-transcendental certainties into the world of industrial society, but rather from industrial society into the turbulence of the global risk society’ (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 7). In risk society, consumers are expected to live with a broad variety of different and contradictory risks; while this ‘liberation’ is taking place under the general conditions of ‘the welfare state’, it makes the individual the subject of entitlements and obligations (Beck, Giddens & Lash, 1994: 7-8). Risks and their dilemmas have entered deeply into our everyday lives (Giddens, 2002: 34), as the ‘setting free’ of the individual not only lead to more freedom, but also to more difficulties of choosing (Almas, 1999).’Through large-scale bulletins in the media, we have learned about food scandals that threaten both our health and our environment’, raising problems such as: whom can we trust (Almas, 1999)? In industrial society the government took care of the risks for you, but the ‘reflexive burden’ in risk society is placed on the shoulders of the consumer (Almas, 1999). ‘Whenever someone decides what to eat [...] that person takes a decision in the context of conflicting and changeable scientific and technological information’ (Giddens, 2002: 31). This is the case with food fraud as well; even if the food item is labelled with traceability codes, the consumer still has to make the decision whether to trust these labels or not. The more food fraud scandals appear, the more the consumer will experience these factors of risk society. As soon as consumers leave the state of trust, they enter a state of increased choice, at that point it does not matter if the real risk is decreasing, the perceived risk is increasing because of this increased choice (Almas, 1999).

As scientists frequently disagree with each other, particularly in situations of manufactured risk (Giddens, 2002: 31), the reflexive individual must construct its own ‘expert panel’ which would not be possible without the media (Almas, 1999). As food fraud becomes a hot topic in the media, the wide public is informed without delay when a problem is detected (Scholliers, 2008: 3). Relating to the construction of an expert panel, Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1994: 16-23) speak about ‘sub politics’, which entails a new type of field in which social movements meet to reflect upon the risks in risk society. The sentiments of insecurity that are derived from the media attention could lead to a change in eating behaviour that involves ‘vivacious food sensitivity’, such as the search for organic food (Scholliers, 2008: 4).

(33)

Ulrich Beck (1998: 10) theorises that, sociologically, there is a difference between those who take risks and those who are victims of risk. Implying in this case that consumers are victimised by risk, does this always apply? Maria Fontes’ (2002: 15) argument that the ‘predominance of service’ (retailing, catering, restaurant) and the ‘convenience food’ for the microwave oven in late modernity might make this a contested issue. As structured family meals lose importance and food is increasingly consumed outside the home (Fonte, 2002: 15), it leaves more room for the risk of food fraud in that the transformation of food consumption has augmented the possibilities of individual choice (Fonte, 2002: 17). These statements make the reflexive consumer as a concept ‘highly complex and fleeting’ (Almas, 1999). In response to the risks that are thrust upon us, people try to change lifestyles, ‘but these are not easy to change’ (Fonte, 2002: 17).

The above-mentioned factors show that the role of food fraud prevention is embedded in political, economical and social life. Table two incorporates these factors, including previous findings, creating a framework that is suitable for answering the first sub question. This table is also applied in the case study, serving as a method of uncovering the discourse of each stakeholder.

Table 2 - Main Stakeholders in Industrial and Risk Society

Main Stakeholders Industrial Society Risk Society

EU

Political authorities (EP, EC, ENVI, DG SANCO),

government officials, scientific experts (EFSA)

- Trust and responsibility in institutions

- Institutions have been set up to create security, in an attempt to localise risks and dangers

- Legitimacy is thrown into question - New moral climate of politics, marked by the dilemma of scare mongering or cover-ups

- Risk management

- Notions of new institutions are tied to the belief that the risks we face can still be captured by the industrial notions of safety

EMI

EMI, lobby groups (CLITRAVI, UECVB)

- Profit from hazards and risks it has created as political institutions bear the responsibility

- Possesses a double advantage as it has autonomy in investment decisions and a monopoly on the application of technology

(34)

- Industrialised food chains rely on mechanization of natural reproduction in an attempt to make the risks of food calculable

- Builds on an idealised notion of community

- Producers groups become much more varied due to the process of individualisation

- Do not profit from the risks it has created as the legitimacy of

economies is thrown into question

Consumers Actors involved: consumers, the individual, media, social groups

- Choose to take risk

- Risk is a job for specialists - Risks are not the subject of public knowledge and debate and are not the at the centre of political conflict

- Victimised by risk(?)

- Risks are thrust upon

- we all have to engage in risk - Risks dominate public and private debate, with institutions producing and legitimising risks they cannot control

- Consumer groups become much more varied than before due to the process of individualization

- Expected to master the risk of food fraud without being able to make these decisions on a well-founded basis

- Victimised by risk(?)

- More food fraud scandals will lead to experiencing more factors of risk society

- Despite the real risk is decreasing, the perceived risk is increasing because of increased choice - Could lead to a change in eating behaviour (i.e. organic food) - Constructs its own ‘expert panel’ (sub politics)

- Highly complex and fleeting

2.3. Interests, Institutions and Ideas

This part of the theoretical framework applies food fraud prevention to the dimensions of interests, institutions and ideas and describes how the discourse on reflexive modernisation is related to these dimensions. The influence of interests, institutions and ideas are considered to be the independent variable in this thesis, assuming that the dimensions influence the role of food fraud prevention in the EMI. As the focus on ‘individuals’ plays a bigger part in risk society, it produces a greater complexity in the modes of interaction and the institutions within which

Interest, institutions and ideas on Food Fraud P in the context of the discourse on Reflexive Modernisation : the case of the European meat industry

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Abbreviations