Summary
In July 2002, the regulation and labelling scheme for Protected Designation of Origin (PDO),
Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) was set
up in Norway modelled on corresponding systems in the EU. The scheme enables protection
under law of product designations for foodstuffs with a special geographic origin, tradition
and characteristics. The aim of the scheme is to prevent copying of product names, to increase
the variety of foodstuffs available, and to add value to Norwegian food production. It is also
intended to provide sufficient information to consumers and to preserve important knowledge
of Norwegian food and food culture. Positive experiences with similar schemes in EU
countries were an important argument for the governmental authorities when the scheme was
introduced in Norway. As of January 2013, twenty-three Norwegian- and two Italian products
have been granted PDO, PGI or TSG in Norway.
The starting point for the study was a wish to describe and understand how the scheme for
protected designations was introduced and subsequently administrated and used in Norway
based on existing schemes in the EU. The data basis for the study included interviews with 30
persons and an extensive quantity of documentation. During the data collection and analysis it
became clear that administrators, producers, consultants and others make a significant and allround effort to adapt the scheme to Norwegian food culture, and Norwegian food culture to
the scheme. My identification of this work, its scope and significance, was important in terms
of my decision to make people’s work on cultural adaptation the main concern of my study.
Adaptations are a repeated theme in research on PDO, PGI and TSG, both in international and
Norwegian literature. There are many that claim, and demonstrate, that adaptations of various
types are necessary in order for this type of labelling schemes to work in different countries
and different food cultures. Nonetheless, there are few, if any, who have studied and
conceptualized the work of adaptation as a whole, and identified the adaptations necessary to
turn PDO, PGI and TSG into a well-functioning food labelling system. With such a starting
point, it was necessary to establish a more nuanced system of concepts. The system of
concepts developed in analysis of the Norwegian case, elucidates earlier scientific
perspectives. Through development and use of this new system of concepts, it is possible to
identify, understand and describe how the adaptations take place, who carries them out, what
characterizes them, and what consequences and implications they have.
The mutual work on adaptation of the scheme to Norwegian food culture, and also of
Norwegian food culture to the scheme, is defined as cultural adaptation work (CAW) and
constitutes the core element in the system of concepts established. The various ways in which
the actors adapt the scheme to Norwegian food culture, and Norwegian food culture to the
scheme, is understood and defined as different adaptation practices. The most central of these
are translations of meaning, social reorganisations and material transformations. The
adaptive practices form an interplay, in which the different practices affect each other.
Adapted regulations involve reorganisation of producers, who then change their products, and
so on.
The historic contextualisation of the adaptation work is linked primarily to a development in
Norwegian food culture termed Food Specialisation of Norway. Food specialisation refers to a
development whereby the focus on new food qualities is increasing and becoming more
central. This development started around the mid-1980s and is still ongoing.
The analysis shows that the actors’ work on different adaptations during introduction,
administration and use of the Norwegian scheme for PDO, PGI and TSG is important. They
occur because opinions, forms of cooperation and products in Norway and Norwegian food
culture do not always coincide with the food-cultural conditions which the EU scheme was
founded. A specific vocabulary or language makes it possible to communicate the foodcultural understanding that forms the basis for the scheme in the EU. This understanding
involves, inter alia, that the relationship between tradition and the food’s place of origin, is
considered meaningful and important in terms of the product’s quality. In Norway there is
lack of both the vocabulary and food-cultural know-how in line with the food-cultural
preconditions that form the basis for the scheme in the EU. The work of establishing and
translating a corresponding vocabulary and understanding in Norwegian food culture has,
therefore, been particularly important during introduction, administration and use of the
scheme, and in respect of food specialisation in Norway generally since its introduction in the
1980s. As in the EU, the requirement for cooperation between producers is a condition in the
Norwegian regulation. Such forms of cooperation are not, however, always established
amongst those producers applying for PDO, PGI or TSG. The work of creating and
reorganising such new organisation forms in Norwegian food culture has, therefore, also been
crucial. In Norway as in the EU it has also been considered important that the scheme is
meant exclusively for products of high quality. In some cases, the products for which
labelling is being applied for do not initially meet these quality requirements. The work of
creating and transforming products that satisfy the regulation’s conditions have, therefore,
also been important during administration and use of the scheme.
The consequences of the adaptation work are, to varying degrees, in line with the aims of the
scheme. The analysis shows how the adaptation work brings with it a new vocabulary and
new food-cultural knowledge. This makes it possible to communicate and understand links
between food, people and place, which have previously not been emphasised in Norwegian
food culture. Hence, the new vocabulary and understanding are in line with the scheme’s aims
of preserving important knowledge about Norwegian food and food culture. It appears,
however, that the adaptation work also promotes innovation and sometimes alienates
producers from their own products in the course of the application process, which conflicts
with the aim of preserving knowledge. The adaptation work also includes adjustment of the
product name, and the demarcation of geographic origin moves from being determined by
valleys and other natural boundaries, to being defined based on municipal boundaries. This is
consistent, to varying degrees, with the intention of giving sufficient information to
consumers and preserving important knowledge about Norwegian food and food culture.
Another consequence of the adaptation work is that it plays a part in products becoming more
similar, which again results in fewer product types. This also conflicts with the scheme’s aim
of contributing to increased variety of foodstuffs. As a whole, the scheme is often described as
being modelled according to the European system. If one views the scheme as a consequence
of the adaptation work, it appears, however, to be a tailor-made Norwegian model with
European profile.
Identification of the adaptation work and its consequences has political, food-cultural and
theoretical implications. The scheme is balanced, between being a political tool for
developing Norwegian food production and value-adding, at the same time as from a legal
perspective it is associated with the corresponding body of law and the scheme in the EU. If
the scheme is excessively adapted to the Norwegian context, it may risk losing its credibility
and validity in the EU. If it is excessively adapted to the European scheme, it may be
perceived as cumbersome and meaningless for Norwegian producers, retailers and consumers.
The priorities of politicians and administrators in adaptation considerations have
consequences. Hence, knowledge of the cultural adaptation work of PDO, PGI and TSG can
contribute to a better political and administrational foundation for governing the scheme, and
what function it should have. Another implication of the adaptation work and its various
consequences is that the scheme has an ambiguous influence on development of Norwegian
food culture. On the one hand the labelling scheme contributes to an increase in abundance
and a new understanding of food, when—through new language and new knowledge—old
and new products are placed on the food-cultural agenda. On the other hand, the scheme is a
rational agricultural-political tool that contributes to standardisation and innovation in respect
of Norwegian food and food culture. The identification and development of the theory of
cultural adaptation work produces three theoretical implications: Firstly, the theory can be
used and further developed in future studies of PDO, PGI and TSG. Secondly, the theory of
cultural adaptation work is an appropriate point of departure for further developing and
streamlining the understanding of previously identified adaptations or translations, both
within research on the scheme and more generally. Thirdly, the conceptual work can related
to other theories of social science.
Cultural adaptation work takes place in the interplay between people’s translations of
language and knowledge, reorganisation of social relationships and transformation of things.
The interplay takes place in the tension between the global and the local, the old and the new.
Administrators of the scheme in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Norwegian Food
Safety Authority and The Norwegian Agricultural Quality System and Food Branding
Foundation take into consideration both the EU’s and WTO’s body of rules, at the same time
as they also adapt the scheme into a Norwegian context and local Norwegian food culture.
Correspondingly, food producers adapt their traditions and products to the new regulation’s
conditions. Hence, the adaptation practices have significance beyond being adaptations of
language and knowledge, social relationships and the materiality. When they are used to adapt
the relationship between global and modern rules and traditional local products, they become
simultaneously strategies and actions, which makes it possible to adapt the global to the local,
tradition to innovation and vice versa. An understanding and experience of cultural disorder
and cultural order appears to be a fundamental precondition for the adaptation work.
Definitions of order and disorder vary depending on context, but without an understanding
and experience of this tension, the cultural adaptation work may appear as meaningless or
non-reflexive practice.
The development of the study from descriptive to concept-developing can be summarised in a
three-part main conclusion: I) On an empirical level it describes how the scheme depends on
cultural adaptation work in order to work in Norway. It also shows how the adaptation work
and how its various consequences contribute to the scheme having an ambiguous influence on
development of Norwegian food culture. II) On a theoretical level, a new conceptual
framework is developed. The system of concepts stems from identification of the cultural
adaptation work, and expands the understanding of introduction, administration and use of
PDO, PGI and TSG in Norway. The system of concepts can also be transferred to studies of
similar schemes in other countries. More generally, it can be considered to be transferred and
developed in relation to other theoretical perspectives and studies of other phenomena and
forms of cultural adaptation work. III) On a superior level, the study shows how the foodcultural adaptation work constitutes a link between modern global legislative arrangements
and traditional local products. In more general terms, the cultural adaptation work is a
necessary link between the local and global, and the modern and the traditional.