"有机 "大米:老挝和泰国的过程和产品环境核查方法的不同影响

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Agriculture and Human Values Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1007/s10460-024-10556-5
Ian G. Baird
{"title":"\"有机 \"大米:老挝和泰国的过程和产品环境核查方法的不同影响","authors":"Ian G. Baird","doi":"10.1007/s10460-024-10556-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Approaches to environmental verification, broadly defined, including varieties of certification and testing, is always intended to change production processes, and cause structural changes. However, sometimes these approaches can differ substantially—based on values and objectives—and thus structure farming processes in varied ways. They can also affect nature-society relations, by determining what differences matter, emphasizing ways of assessing standards that are deemed important, and deciding whether those standards have been met. Here, I compare two types of environmental verification systems for organic and “safe” or “clean” rice, one in northeastern Thailand and the other in southern Laos. The approach used in northeastern Thailand is designed predominantly to gain access to Europe and the United States markets, and is dependent on regular and detailed farm documentation, inspections, and interviews. The other is more of a residue testing and marketing system, one that also has important environmental implications and is being applied for rice from southern Laos. I call the first process-based verification, and the second product-based verification. It is contended here that we need to consider how environmental verification in different forms variously structures production systems, although there are also other important factors, such as China-Laos relations. Crucially, these practices variously affect cultivation and production practices, and thus have important environmental implications, whether fully intended or not.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"41 4","pages":"1417 - 1430"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification approaches in Laos and Thailand\",\"authors\":\"Ian G. Baird\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10460-024-10556-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Approaches to environmental verification, broadly defined, including varieties of certification and testing, is always intended to change production processes, and cause structural changes. However, sometimes these approaches can differ substantially—based on values and objectives—and thus structure farming processes in varied ways. They can also affect nature-society relations, by determining what differences matter, emphasizing ways of assessing standards that are deemed important, and deciding whether those standards have been met. Here, I compare two types of environmental verification systems for organic and “safe” or “clean” rice, one in northeastern Thailand and the other in southern Laos. The approach used in northeastern Thailand is designed predominantly to gain access to Europe and the United States markets, and is dependent on regular and detailed farm documentation, inspections, and interviews. The other is more of a residue testing and marketing system, one that also has important environmental implications and is being applied for rice from southern Laos. I call the first process-based verification, and the second product-based verification. It is contended here that we need to consider how environmental verification in different forms variously structures production systems, although there are also other important factors, such as China-Laos relations. Crucially, these practices variously affect cultivation and production practices, and thus have important environmental implications, whether fully intended or not.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agriculture and Human Values\",\"volume\":\"41 4\",\"pages\":\"1417 - 1430\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agriculture and Human Values\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-024-10556-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture and Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-024-10556-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

广泛定义的环境验证方法,包括各种认证和测试,总是旨在改变生产过程,并引起结构变化。然而,有时这些方法可能会有很大的不同——基于价值观和目标——从而以不同的方式构建农业过程。它们还可以影响自然与社会的关系,通过确定哪些差异是重要的,强调评估被认为重要的标准的方法,以及决定这些标准是否得到满足。在这里,我比较了两种有机和“安全”或“清洁”大米的环境验证系统,一种在泰国东北部,另一种在老挝南部。泰国东北部采用的方法主要是为了进入欧洲和美国市场,并依赖于定期和详细的农场文件、检查和面谈。另一种是残留物检测和销售系统,这种系统也有重要的环境影响,目前正应用于老挝南部的大米。第一种是基于过程的验证,第二种是基于产品的验证。这里认为,我们需要考虑环境核查如何以不同的形式构成不同的生产体系,尽管也有其他重要因素,如中老关系。至关重要的是,这些做法在不同程度上影响了种植和生产实践,因此无论是否完全有意,都具有重要的环境影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification approaches in Laos and Thailand

Approaches to environmental verification, broadly defined, including varieties of certification and testing, is always intended to change production processes, and cause structural changes. However, sometimes these approaches can differ substantially—based on values and objectives—and thus structure farming processes in varied ways. They can also affect nature-society relations, by determining what differences matter, emphasizing ways of assessing standards that are deemed important, and deciding whether those standards have been met. Here, I compare two types of environmental verification systems for organic and “safe” or “clean” rice, one in northeastern Thailand and the other in southern Laos. The approach used in northeastern Thailand is designed predominantly to gain access to Europe and the United States markets, and is dependent on regular and detailed farm documentation, inspections, and interviews. The other is more of a residue testing and marketing system, one that also has important environmental implications and is being applied for rice from southern Laos. I call the first process-based verification, and the second product-based verification. It is contended here that we need to consider how environmental verification in different forms variously structures production systems, although there are also other important factors, such as China-Laos relations. Crucially, these practices variously affect cultivation and production practices, and thus have important environmental implications, whether fully intended or not.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agriculture and Human Values
Agriculture and Human Values 农林科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
97
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agriculture and Human Values is the journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. The Journal, like the Society, is dedicated to an open and free discussion of the values that shape and the structures that underlie current and alternative visions of food and agricultural systems. To this end the Journal publishes interdisciplinary research that critically examines the values, relationships, conflicts and contradictions within contemporary agricultural and food systems and that addresses the impact of agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices on human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity.
期刊最新文献
Books received Zied Haj-Amor, Dong-Gill Kim, and Salem Bouri: Sustainable agriculture adaptation strategies to address climate change by 2050 Xiao Han and Lei Wang: Organic agriculture and biodiversity in China Julie Guthman: The problem with solutions Vincanne Adams: Glyphosate and the swirl: An agro-industrial chemical on the move
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1