The trouble with authenticity: separating ideology from ... - Springer Link

Agric Hum Values (2010) 27:239–247 DOI 10.1007/s10460-009-9250-5

The trouble with authenticity: separating ideology from practice at the farmers’ market John Smithers • Alun E. Joseph

Accepted: 5 June 2009 / Published online: 20 November 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Farmers’ markets have enjoyed a resurgence in the past two decades in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. This increase in popularity is attributed to a host of environmental, social, and economic factors, often related to the alleged benefits of local food, alternative farming, and producer–consumer interactions. Steeped in tradition, there are also widely held assumptions related to the type of food and food vendors that belong at a farmers’ market in addition to the type of experience that should take place. There remains a need to explore and analyze these fundamental aspects of the farmers’ market and to consider how they influence their formation and function. This paper argues that discourses of authenticity are central to the identity of the farmers’ market, and that they are constructed differently ‘‘from above’’ by those seeking to regulate farmers’ markets in particular jurisdictions and ‘‘from below’’ by managers, producers, and consumers at individual markets. A literature-based discussion is complemented and grounded by consideration of institutional statements regarding authenticity and of key results from a survey of managers, food vendors, and customers at 15 farmers’ markets in Ontario, Canada. It is demonstrated that while the general discourse about authenticity at the farmers’ market is built around strict, almost ideological assumptions about the presence of ‘‘local food’’ and those who produce it, community-level responses reflect considerable diversity in the interpretation and composition of the farmers’ market. It is suggested that a binary view of authenticity, where some farmers’ markets are cast as ‘‘real’’ and others presumably not, is highly J. Smithers (&) A. E. Joseph Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Ontario N1G2W1, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

problematic as it tends to ignore a large and important middle ground with multiple identities. Keywords Local Food Farmers’ market Authenticity Re-sellers Regulation CertificationOntario

Introduction Our certified farmers’ market concept offers the local, Ontario producer easy access to a diverse urban marketplace and a level playing field, where resellers are neither welcome nor permitted. Our markets will be bona fide producer-based and will champion the cause of real farmers and producers across the province (FMO 2007). Markets for agricultural produce have been a feature of rural and urban settlements for centuries, but the branding, social elevation, and commercial promotion associated with contemporary Farmers’ Markets (FMs) is a relatively new phenomenon in North America (Feagan et al. 2004; Hinrichs et al. 2004; Wolf 2005). Over the past several years the qualities of the archetypal ‘‘new FM’’ have been well rehearsed in public advocacy and scholarly reporting—with markets presented in positive and largely unproblematic terms that establish their linkage to local farming and food and assert their alterity or ‘‘otherness’’ in relation to the commercial food retail sector. However, as the recent statements above imply, drawn from the 2009 iteration of Farmers’ Markets Ontario Rules and Regulations for Certified Farmers’ Markets, the FM is also a site of contestation and complexity. One of the most visible flashpoints seems to concern who is, and is not, a ‘‘real’’ farmer and thus a ‘‘legitimate’’

123

240

J. Smithers, A. E. Joseph

vendor with ‘‘authentic’’ local food. Clearly, concern for these issues is rooted in the belief that the integrity and viability of the FM is dependent on clarity and conformity in each of these areas (Coster 2004). Less clear is the matter of who (or what institutional entity) will provide that clarity and ensure conformity. Taken together, this strongly inter-related package of issues forms the core of an expanding discourse and a de facto project—a discourse and a project that may hold as much potential to devalue individual FMs as it has to develop them. Notwithstanding the indisputable popularity and potency of the FM brand, the actual development of FMs in regions and communities throughout North America and elsewhere reflects a varied and contingent set of experiences; a situation that has, to date, received insufficient attention among those seeking to understand and describe the FM phenomenon. In this paper, we seek to call attention to, and stimulate reflection on, an issue that lies at the heart of the ‘‘new FM’’ discourse and the associated struggle for identity and legitimacy at FMs, both collectively and individually: authenticity. The concept of authenticity cuts across philosophy and practice in local food systems and is central to the branding and positioning of the FM relative to other components of the food retail system. Indeed, it is apparent in many jurisdictions (e.g., New Zealand, Great Britain, Australia, numerous Canadian provinces and US states) that vigorous attempts are underway to frame the FM for the public in a way that establishes its difference from the food retail mainstream—with authenticity as a lynchpin in this attempt. For example, the founding documents of the recently formed body Farmers Markets New Zealand (2006), speak directly to this point. The first two (of five) charter goals are: • •

To facilitate the formation of a network of authentic Farmers’ Markets throughout New Zealand To clearly define the concept of an authentic Farmers’ Market and facilitate the development of this model in the cities and provinces of New Zealand

Indeed, the notion of authenticity is pervasive in the charter statements of many emerging FM bodies, and is a staple in the presentation of the FM in many forms of public communication—media based and other (Chalmers et al. 2009). Unfortunately, the apparently uniform enthusiasm that exists around authenticity as a core value and source of identity at the FM is not always matched by agreement on what it means and on what terms it is achieved and verified. Alternate or malleable local constructions of authenticity have the potential to create not only inconsistency and uncertainty in selling and purchasing practices but also tensions within the structure of FM organizations and even

123

inside individual FMs. Both situations are problematic, but especially the latter as struggle over this point has the power to destabilize relations and divide FM players on all sides. This is particularly true when institutional actors seek to clarify, codify, and perhaps enforce the meaning of authenticity for managers, vendors, and patrons alike. The potential on-the-ground manifestations of the tensions noted above go well beyond the level of philosophical debate and administrative posturing. Consider the following excerpt from the cover story in the Ontario agricultural trade publication, Better Farming, in August 2005: This year, markets in Huntsville, Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, and Rosseau all pulled out of Farmers’ Markets Ontario. FMO and Huntsville market chairman Lorne Kingston tell two very different stories about why the relationship there fell apart. Chorney (FMO executive director) says resellers ‘‘dominate’’ the markets and legitimate farmers are being driven out of business. Kingston says the problem is FMO itself and its ‘‘autocratic’’ rules. Kingston says the 100% local vendors rule for belonging to FMO is unrealistic. The growing season there is too short for vendors to depend solely upon their own produce. Kingston says that FMO’s executive-director Chorney replied that 100% compliance within three years was necessary and that ‘‘transgressions’’ would not be tolerated. If the market were found to be out of compliance with the rule, membership and insurance would be cancelled in mid-season. ‘‘We couldn’t accept that. It would put our market in jeopardy,’’ Kingston says. Huntsville severed connections with FMO as of June 1 and has since found its own insurance policy (Stoneman 2005). When read in its entirety, it emerges that the article from which this passage is drawn is not the story of a rogue FM wishing to eschew the ideals and conventions of the FM movement; nor is it about the imposition of institutionallevel imperial rule. Instead, it speaks to the desire of a small group of FMs to implement practices and deliver a real or ‘‘authentic’’ experience in ways that balance principle and practicality—on their own terms. On the opposing side of this exchange resides a fervent belief that the lack of adherence to organizational-level rules in some FMs will ‘‘cheapen the brand’’ for all. This particular situation, and probably many like it, seems to be characterized by defensible positions on both sides—thus making it difficult to determine easily which party has got it right. The question of authenticity, central as it is to the valorization of the FM as the signature venue for trade in local food, is clearly more nuanced and certainly more divisive than the impression frequently given by advocates or

The trouble with authenticity

analysts to date. As suggested above, it has the power to unify FM actors in common purpose or pit them against each other—a dynamic in which pressures and process of standardization and hybridity collide. As suggested at the outset, despite the assertions of its various FM associations, there is complexity and contingency around the notion of authenticity as it relates to food and folk at the FM. In this paper, we juxtapose this emerging complexity against the evident certainty that seems to imbue the statements of those seeking to shape the current FM and to guide its evolution. Specifically, we seek to identify and challenge assumptions—about the meaning of local, the demands and expectations of consumers, and the attitude of vendors and managers—underlying recent assertions regarding authenticity at the FM. There is no intention to supply anything like the last word on authenticity. Instead, we hope to problematize authenticity—and in so doing entice others, from the scholarly and/or practitioner communities, to move towards a more critical engagement with this foundational issue. Such engagement is needed to resolve, or at least illuminate, a variety of emerging tensions and challenges at the FM specifically and in the alternative food economy more generally.

A starting point While it is true that many FMs possess an idiosyncratic quality where practice and personality have evolved incrementally over time, the identity and mandate of the contemporary FM, as suggested above, is also something that is very much under construction—both locally and at an institutional level. Within this effort, we distinguish two intertwined dimensions of authenticity; one a ‘‘bottom up’’ approach embedded in the operational details of markets and within the purview of local managers, the other, a ‘‘top down’’ ideologically driven initiative to define and regulate so-called ‘‘real’’ FMs. This distinction is critical in understanding the implications of the authenticity question for individual FMs and for the future of FMs as a collective phenomenon. At the level of daily practice, individual FMs navigate a series of issues relating to the simultaneous desires for diversity and regularity of food products, the need for consumer confidence concerning the provenance of food and the presence of farmers, the need to create a climate for business that provides adequate returns for vendor participants and the market itself, and an experience that meets the expectations of consumers. This both permits, and even encourages, diversity in the characteristics of FMs, as individual markets find their own comfort level in the presence of different types of producers and sellers of food—a situation that is welcomed by some and highly problematic for others. At the ideological level, these

241

complexities seem to be dismissed and even denigrated in favor of an approach that seeks to impose uniformity as a way of guaranteeing success as a ‘‘real’’ FM. With this fundamental distinction in mind, we first approach the challenge of distinguishing these two aspects of authenticity, and of teasing out their implications for the nature and future of FMs, through an exploration of published organizational statements and the (limited) literature that has dealt explicitly with the issue. However, while an appropriate starting point, this approach raises as many questions as it answers—particularly in relation to the demonstrated expectations and actions of FM vendors and patrons. Thus, in order to highlight some of the ground level contingencies surrounding authenticity, we balance this material against evident conditions at FMs in the Province of Ontario. This is accomplished via a focused reexploration and expansion of some recently reported findings from research by the authors. Taken together these separate approaches provide the basis for an empirically informed or ‘‘grounded’’ discussion. In the case of ideologically based perspectives on the nature of the FM (the ‘‘top down’’ dimension of authenticity) we draw on published scholarship, a content analysis of web-based materials, organizational policy statements, and media reporting of statements by key institutional actors. In the case of market practices (the ‘‘bottom up’’ dimension of authenticity) we drill down on a subset of findings from a recent broad-purpose investigation of vendor and shopper practices and beliefs at 15 FMs across the Province of Ontario (Smithers et al. 2008). This is supplemented with insights from a separate and subsequent content analysis of FM websites and a targeted survey (in 2007) of six FM managers eliciting their views on the practical challenges of regulating authenticity while maintaining the commercial viability of the market in order to give voice to the evolving (locality-based) experience of the FM. The remainder of this paper is organized in three major sections. We begin by examining, in turn, the notion of authenticity being advanced ‘‘from above’’ by FMO (and by similar organizations elsewhere) and that being developed ‘‘from below’’ at individual FMs, each through the lens of the broad understanding of the nature of the local food-FM nexus in the international literature. Second, we expand on this critique by drawing on the survey data emerging from a broad scale exploration of FMs in Ontario and from our engagement with market managers and web-based material. Third, we offer some summary reflections on the authenticity debate in Ontario, draw out some speculative implications for the broader understanding of the FM as a component of the current and future retail landscape for food, and consider briefly some open questions and related challenges for both research and practice.

123

242

Unpacking authenticity I: the view from the top down In Ontario, debates (or perhaps more often, pronouncements) concerning authenticity at the FM have focused on the importance of having local primary producers at the market. Farmers’ Markets Ontario (FMO) has previously defined a true FM as ‘‘a seasonal, multi-vendor, community-driven organization selling agricultural food, art, and craft products, including home-grown produce, home-made crafts, and value-added products where the vendors are primary producers’’ (Chorney in Stoneman 2005). Statements from FM organizations elsewhere advocate a similarly strong and explicit stance on the importance of vendors being local primary producers—often placing this requirement at the center of their constructions of authenticity. In Australia, the first entry in the Victoria Department of Primary Industries Guide to the Establishment of Farmers Markets, under the heading Authenticity, states that ‘‘all produce must be sold by the person, family member or farm-based employees who grew, reared, caught or made it (value-added) i.e., a principal producer or representative who is directly involved in the production process. Resellers are not permitted to be vendors’’ (Adams 2003). In British Columbia, a [read ‘‘authentic’’] FM is defined as ‘‘…a market comprised exclusively (100%) of vendors who make, bake grow or raise the products they sell, of which a majority of vendors are selling farm products of British Columbia origin’’ (British Columbia Association of Farmers’ Markets 2007). In the UK, ‘‘a farmers’ market is a market in which farmers, growers or producers from a defined local are present in person to sell their own produce, direct to the public. All products sold should have been grown, reared, caught, brewed, pickled, smoked or processed by the stallholder (Certified Farmers’ Markets in the UK 2002). The notion of certifying FMs as real carries with it a requirement for active regulation as a means of excluding reselling, the consequences of which are often described using highly evocative language: ‘‘Shoppers come to the market, not expecting stuff to be trucked in from elsewhere. They expect nice fresh farm produce local produce…If we’ve got some hotdogs running down to the food terminal and bringing back stuff and passing off as farmers, what do we have? We have something that is awfully bad’’ (Chorney in Stoneman 2005). Increasingly, regulation— enforcement of local and primary—is becoming stricter and more intrusive. Taken to its logical conclusion, the process of defining and verifying authenticity ends with the desire to regulate authenticity through formal certification—and indeed, this is now happening in several jurisdictions including the United Kingdom (National Farm Retail Market Association 2008) and Ontario (Farmers’ Market Ontario 2007).

123


FARMA, the National Farmers’ Retail & Markets Association independently assesses and certifies farmers markets round the country to make sure they’re the ‘‘real deal’’ so you can be confident you are buying the freshest, most local produce possible, supporting your local community and economy, and helping the environment by reducing food-miles (National Farm Retail Market Association 2008). At Ontario’s first certified FM (recently opened within Toronto’s designated ‘‘greenbelt’’), ‘‘certification will include, but not be limited to, each farmer undergoing a third-party certification inspection, show(ing) proof of a farm business registration number, and post(ing) a sign at each market stall to identify the location of their farm and what they grow’’ (FMO 2007). The concept of third party certification is, of course, fraught with (highly politicized) complications and consequences of its own. In as much as certification has the power to confirm which FMs are in compliance with requirements and thus ‘‘legitimate,’’ by extension, the absence of certification has the potential to imply the opposite. The broad rationale for certification is well established and has been played out in detail in the realm of organic food. Its purpose, generically, is a good one—to provide assurance to consumers that the food product they are purchasing is what it purports to be—and to protect certified farmer-vendors from the fraudulent actions of competitors who may claim they are something they are not. Yet attention to the politics of certification in the organic farm sector also tells us that some organic farmers, notwithstanding their adherence to the principles and practices of organic (and related) agriculture, have elected to forego formal certification for a wide variety of reasons—sometimes in the conviction that neither they nor their food products require the bestowing of legitimacy from an outside authority whose authority they don’t accept (DeLind 2000; Michelsen 2002). Conceptually then, certification and the process of ‘‘proving it’’ more generally, has a positive theoretical purpose and a communicative power that appears to operate easily at aggregate levels of analysis. However, its ability to permit inferences concerning the legitimacy or authenticity of individual ‘‘organic’’ producers is problematic. The potential parallels to the certification of FMs seem obvious and intriguing. While these, and similar initiatives provide glimpses of what is (sometimes) meant by authenticity and the methods through which it is confirmed, they seldom elaborate on why such measures are needed—and even more rarely why they are needed at the level of complete compliance. Looking to the international literature, we find a three-part rationale for regulating (as opposed to promoting) the preeminence of local food at the FM. First, as an


entrepreneurial consideration, there is value in creating (and thus codifying, communicating, and enforcing) the alterity of the FM (Holloway and Kneafsey 2000; Kirwan 2004). From a strategic (marketing) perspective, the key points in describing this difference are usually: the opportunity for direct engagement with producers, access to local products, assurance (implied or expressed) of food quality, and the ability to partake in the cultural capital attached to the market as a distinctly recognizable community institution. Such criteria are important as they form the basis for not only the construction and regulation of the FM by managers, but also establish expectations, or the rules of conduct, for food vendors. Second, it can be argued that concerned consumers in search of ‘‘good food’’ place value on the alterity of the FM. Connell et al. (2008) note that ‘‘… the semantics of ‘good food’ gets bundled into a ‘local food systems’ package, wherein organic is good, family-scale farming is good, local is good, natural is good, and shopping at farmers’ markets is good.’’ Of particular significance within this chain of reasoning is the assumption on the part of such ‘reflexive consumers’ that quality and the local are related in some strong and significant way, such that local becomes a synonym for quality (Holloway and Kneafsey 2000). However, we note that Miele (2006) has challenged the hegemony of reflexive consumption—by which individuals define themselves through active engagement with the attributes of that which they choose to purchase. She suggests that the desire to buy local food and to have a face-to-face relationship with producers may be less important for many visitors to FMs than novelty and social atmosphere. A third factor, increasingly important in Ontario and no doubt elsewhere, is the importance of external regulation visa`-vis public health requirements and the specter of potential penalty or liability. In the face of increasing levels of regulation and scrutiny, the operational aspects of most FMs, particularly those with refrigeration requirements, is probably seldom as casual as it might appear from the outside looking in. Much of the recent scholarly work on the FM as a direct marketing phenomenon has been geared to theorizing or empirically clarifying these and similar notions—particularly the first and second issues noted above.

Unpacking authenticity II: seeing from the bottom up The scholarly literature and institutional statements explored above, while by no means comprehensive, helps us characterize and understand the general meaning of authenticity as seen and operationalized from above. However, the literature tells us much less about authenticity explicitly when we shift our focus to ground level at the FM. In research dealing with the motivations of food

243

consumers, the centrality and meaning of authenticity becomes somewhat opaque and it seems that both material and symbolic factors are important in purchasing decisions. Studies have shown that perceptions of freshness and, on that basis, improved flavor, are important for many shoppers at the FM (Lacy 2000; Feagan et al. 2004). Baber and Frongillo (2003) extend this list of motivations by documenting interest in food safety, diversity of product, and the social value of interaction with vendors and other shoppers. Further to this, research by Halweil (2002) articulates a stated desire among FM patrons to support farmers and, by extension, the sustainability of local agriculture, with their food dollar. Beyond these more tangible issues lies evidence of concern for the wider implications of food choices. Among some consumers, there is a belief that participation in initiatives like the FM provides an outlet for their dissatisfaction with the alleged exploitive qualities of both the global food system and the acultural nature of food, as well as their concerns for the environment, which they see as linked to the food system (Lacy 2000; Griffin and Frongillo 2003; Weatherell et al. 2003). On the producer side, Griffin and Frongillo (2003) found that farmers involved in FMs in New York State are frequently motivated by perceived economic opportunities (more sales, better prices, etc.) in their initial decision to attend, but eventually acknowledge the importance of collaboration and (healthy) competition with fellow vendors. In this research it was suggested that the market is seen often as a functioning whole, rather than a series of discrete stalls, where the success of individual vendors is at least partly determined by the success of the wider venture. In such settings, the behavior of some vendors may affect others, and with this in mind it is likely that issues of vendor compliance are of concern as much to sellers as shoppers. While the international literature allows us to appreciate the basis for increased regulation of authenticity and suggests (either explicitly or implicitly) some of its elements on normative grounds it says little about how authenticity plays out on the ground in the weekly experiences of the Farmers’ Market. A separate, and largely unexplored it seems, line of inquiry concerns how participants in both the vendor and shopper camps assert, verify, and perhaps even negotiate authenticity in different localities. However, some of our own recent research, though not explicitly directed to this purpose, has alerted us to the presence of contingency on this issue and provided selected glimpses into the way in which local people engage selected elements of authenticity at their FM. We thus turn briefly to this case study of FMs in Ontario (Smithers et al. 2008) and to a complementary survey of six market managers, as a means of probing for additional level insights into authenticity among consumers, vendors, and in the overall market experience.

123

244

Interpreting authenticity in practice: insights from research and practice As part of a larger multi-faceted study, data were collected in 2004 and 2005 across a sample of FMs in Ontario for the purpose of exploring how, why, and with what beliefs and expectations consumers and producers operate within the space of the FM. In this section we return to a subset of these findings to tease out, and expand upon, those discoveries that speak to either the certain or contingent nature of ‘‘authenticity-in-practice.’’ The FMs selected in the original analysis included both seasonal and year-round operations and exhibited diversity in their physical arrangement and setting, age, size, numbers of vendors, and product line. Data were collected via direct engagement with customers, producers/farmers (hereafter referred to as vendors), and market mangers during and immediately after normal FM hours. On the consumer side, 237 shoppers provided responses to questions designed to collect information on purchasing habits, motivations for attendance, beliefs, and the basis of choices concerning food at the market, and beliefs and strategies concerning food vendors. Women accounted for the majority of respondents (58%) and the sample was dominated by shoppers in the 35–64 age group (48%), with younger shoppers (18–34) accounting for 24% of respondents and retirees (age 65?) the remaining 28%. Geographically, respondents were predominantly ‘‘local’’ people (72.6%), where local was defined as residence in the town or city hosting the FM. On the vendor side, 84 individuals (of the 86 approached) took part in the research. Data collection included both completion of a questionnaire and an extended period of in situ observation through which the researchers were able to witness how issues that logically link to authenticity were communicated (or not). The research instrument solicited information not only on the vendor and the produce on offer, but also on how vendors read the concerns and priorities of shoppers. Market managers formed a source of institutional context and holistic perspective on the dynamics of each of the markets. Transcripts from these interviews were reanalyzed in order to capture specific reflections on authenticity (usually expressed via analog terms such as ‘‘legitimacy’’ or ‘‘real’’)—and enriched via the analysis or individual FMs’ web-based materials and additional interviews with market managers in 2007. These latter contributions are not isolated as discrete ‘‘findings’’ in this paper, but are important in contextualizing and sharpening our interpretation of earlier findings as well as informing our wider concluding reflections. In the survey reported by Smithers et al. (2008), the most frequently stated motivation for shopping at the FM was the desire to support farming in general and local

123


farmers in particular. The second most cited reason for patronage was much more instrumental in nature: the need to buy food, and for many people who signaled a shopping opportunity as their motivation for attendance there was evidence that the FM was not seen as ‘‘other’’ or ‘‘oppositional’’ space, but as a regular component in a mixed shopping strategy. Interestingly, the overwhelming tendency for these shoppers was to ‘‘get there early, get what you need and get out before the hordes arrive.’’ The third most common motive given for visiting the FM was the value of social interaction: ‘‘it’s nice to see the same people … they know me too. It gives you kind of a hometown feeling.’’ Thus, at this fundamental level of motivation, the evidence for reflexivity in consumer behavior is partial at best and we are left with the need to look more closely at the FM-local food connection. Among the more contestable notions concerning the FM is that the grounds for its distinctiveness are unambiguous and that shoppers largely define the ‘‘terms of engagement’’ through their expectations and requirements about local food. Two approaches were used in the survey to address this issue: first, an open-ended (and unprompted) discussion about expectations concerning food, farming, and the meaning of ‘‘local’’ at the FM and, second, Likertscale responses to four specific questions. A small majority of customers articulated one or more specific expectations, with those relating to organics and/or no spray food being the most common: ‘‘I expect it to be free of sprays and stuff…with the organic vegetables you know for sure, but no spray is okay too.’’ The expectation of local food was nearly as frequently cited by customers: ‘‘I’d rather buy from a farmer in the area than get it from who knows where.’’ Notably, ‘‘local’’ and ‘‘the area’’ were rarely, if ever, defined. The final expectation, noted at about the same frequency as those listed above, was food freshness. Perhaps the most notable result from this line of questioning was the relative lack of importance attached to whether or not the vendor was also the producer. Fewer than 5% of the customers (n = 256) in the survey expressed a clear (and unprompted) expectation that the vendor was also the person who grew or produced the food. In the words of one customer, ‘‘as long as it’s grown here, I don’t care who sells it.’’ However, when posed explicitly in a Likert-scale question, the expectation that the vendor is the producer emerged as being very important indeed (with nearly 75% of respondents electing for either ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘very important’’ as their response choices). In reconciling these apparently contradictory results, we believe that most customers at the Farmers’ Market take it as given that those selling food or food products there also grow or produce it—trust seems to trump the need for the details. Returning to the pivotal issue of ‘‘local,’’ the survey revealed a diversity of definitions among customers at the


FM. Perhaps more intriguing than this diversity is the degree to which customers frequently qualified or softened their responses: ‘‘I know they draw from a wider area. It’s OK. It’s still local to me’’ and ‘‘They’re just here doing their business. If they are local, great. If not that’s OK, I still know them.’’ Such qualifying statements were not solicited and, in fact, not part of the formal survey instrument—but were recorded as (more than) interesting asides. Together with the less than rigorous approach of consumers to the issue of who produces the food on sale, the malleability of the concept of ‘‘local’’ within ‘‘local food’’ casts further doubt on the prevalence of reflexive consumption at the FM. Such findings concerning the malleable nature of local have also emerged recently in an American study; it is reported that consumers value the concept of local, but are only mildly inclined to calibrate its boundaries (Darby et al. 2008). In the Ontario survey, it was reported that just over half (58%) of the vendors in their sample (n = 84) claimed that they grew (or otherwise produced) all of the food they sell at the FM. Hence, a relatively large minority (42%) of vendors were, to some degree, resellers. Significant variation was found to exist across markets in the sample, in large part because the rules governing the permissibility of reselling differ from market to market. Further, the operational practices of some FMs actually necessitate a certain degree of reselling. Market managers in both the original and supplementary surveys were candid in sharing that year-round markets often accommodate a stronger presence of resellers in order to provide fruits and vegetables throughout the winter months. In general, the presence of off-season commodities was accommodated for the presumed convenience of customers, and as a means of sustaining the FM as a viable commercial venture and to guard against the loss of core vendors in the ‘‘off season.’’ Though acknowledging that the practice of allowing reselling in the FM is controversial, most managers reported taking steps to be transparent in this regard— through labeling and quite often through the spatial organization of stalls. For example, many of the year-round markets were reserving specified (and usually preferable) spaces for known primary producers and allocating other spaces to resellers, hot food vendors, and craft sellers. Hence, some markets feature two distinct zones of retailing, raising the interesting possibility of the co-existence of spaces of authenticity and expediency within the same market setting. The continued presence of the latter seems to suggest that concerns with food provenance are not central for many customers. When asked why they thought customers attend the FM, echoing Miele (2006) more than half of the vendors chose to emphasize social factors as the primary determinant of attendance, and referred to such things as

245

visiting friends, chatting and enjoying the atmosphere. A subset of vendors maintained that the distinctiveness of food (notably freshness) was the main motivation for customers attending the FM. The remaining responses included access to organics, taste, and preferred production method. Notably, only 9% of vendors alluded to locality as the primary reason for customer attendance at the FM. Again, then, simple pointers toward the importance of authenticity are elusive.

Discussion and possible directions [The local and social embeddedness of exchange at FMs] … is maximized when it is the actual producers selling their own selectively processed food to consumers who can directly relate to the place of production. However, in reality there is a degree of flexibility in the management of FMs, such as extending the radius from which producers must come… it would appear that there are few absolutes when it comes to defining this flexibility (Kirwan 2004, p. 411). On the basis of both the literature and the empirical evidence considered from Ontario, it seems that Kirwan’s caution about the assumption of absolutes should resonate within the debate about the regulation of authenticity at the FM. On the consumer side, both the literature and the survey support the view that FM customers typically wish to support farming and farmers/producers (preferably local) through the expenditure of at least some fraction of their total food dollar. Indeed, many customers felt they were creating social and economic value through their decision to shop at the FM. However, there are also strong indications in the Ontario case study that this extended benefit is infrequently calibrated or confirmed; a significant number of customers even fail to assure themselves that the vendor with whom they are dealing is the grower/producer of the food item in question. Though preliminary and partial, the findings of the Ontario survey suggest that many consumers believe or assume a series of (largely unspecified) benefits by virtue of their attendance—a testament perhaps to the current potency of the FM brand. It is noteworthy that when several of these alleged benefits were explored in relation to the specific actions that produce them (e.g., dealing with producers, supporting local, assurances of desired production methods, etc.), consumers seemed highly variable in their attention to these matters. Further, most of these supposed core concerns were somewhat malleable in their meaning and amenable to trade-off against other considerations—particularly where social capital was concerned.

123

246

Among the issues noted above, both the Ontario vendorcustomer survey data and the comments of market managers confirm the somewhat fluid nature of ‘‘local.’’ Indeed, one of the important, and frequently contentious, issues in the operation of specific local food ventures is the delineation of local. This geographical consideration finds prominence both in the construction and promotion of the market to a food buying public and in the codification of expectations or rules for vendor participation in the FM. Hence it has a communicative and a regulatory significance. In the Ontario survey, the notion of ‘‘local’’ emerged as both highly interpretive and uniformly desirable but also as variable in its absolute importance. In particular, it was noted that customers commonly supplemented a categorical definition of local with a qualifier that added ambiguity to the definition and de-emphasized the necessity that it be observed. Like local, the Ontario case study revealed conditions of vendor legitimacy to be diverse and dynamic. While it was found that consumers do sometimes engage sellers in conversations that deal with farming practices, the role of the vendor in the production of the food item, the geographical origins of their food and other farm-related issues, the impact of these considerations on the final decision to purchase was often difficult to detect. In some cases, data received from food vendors was used as the basis for purchasing decisions and in others it was seemingly received as information only—or not received at all. Those who expressed less attention to the details of the farm, the vendor or the food product generally substituted for these an inherent faith in the seller’s integrity, either on the basis of long-term personal familiarity or on the overwhelmingly positive reputation of farmers. We see this issue of trust as a moral imperative for regulation at the FM, at least of the provenance of food. Perhaps the most difficult and singularly divisive issue surrounding the authenticity debate at the level of individual FMs is the presence and persistence of non-local food products (both foreign and domestic) and resellers. Here we see an inherent challenge to the regulationist notion that FMs are the true embodiment of the principles and practices of local food systems—and that participating consumers, producers and organizers are strict and unyielding in their expectations concerning both food and food sellers. On the other hand, we do not by any means suggest that these values and practices are absent at the FM in Ontario or that ‘‘anything goes.’’ Engagement with vendors, shoppers and managers suggests that non-local food products and non-farming/non-producer vendors are not necessarily seen as a fraudulent element of many FMs in Ontario. Rather, they are seen as a presence that supplements, both socially and materially, the core human and food components of the market. Managers in both the original case study and in the supplementary interviews

123


conducted for this paper tended to speak of their markets as ‘‘predominantly farmers only’’ and ‘‘local whenever possible’’—reflecting appreciation of the desirability and importance of these features while at the same time speaking to the challenge of achieving critical mass in both commodities and vendors on a sustained basis. In contrast to all of this apparent complexity and contingency on the ground, the matter of authenticity seen from above (or beyond) through the lens of policy and programming is much clearer. It is believed that the demands of FM patrons are certain, non-negotiable and in perfect alignment with the tenets of local or alternative food systems. In this case, the meaning of, and conditions for authenticity are far clearer. The challenge then is not to understand its meaning but to promote, or apparently in some cases, enforce its adoption. This, of course, is a gross over simplification and these observations are not meant to be pejorative. One of the fundamental purposes of policy— any policy—is to articulate a vision and a goal. Seen in that light, the flavor and the details of the policy and charter statements reviewed in the preparation of this article seem logical and appropriate. Perhaps then the ‘‘trouble’’ with authenticity doesn’t lie in its conceptual importance, or even in its component elements, but rather in the manner in which it is deployed in the presentation, development, and lived experience of the FM. Reflecting on the conditions with which we are most familiar, we suggest that many of the presumed characteristics and concerns of local food systems, as reflected in the literature and in public discourse, are present in FMs in Ontario. However, these elements are found to vary in their meaning, their importance, and the degree to which they represent a set of absolute conditions for the participation of consumers, producers, and institutional actors. This is the empirical reality that confronts those seeking to impose their notion of authenticity—to create real FMs. At this time, and perhaps for the foreseeable future, authenticity remains a strong organizing principle that finds its expression in ways and by degrees that defy easy calibration. The open question of what constitutes a real FM is both a challenge and an opportunity for scholars wishing to better theorize the nature of authenticity (or quality, legitimacy, etc.) and to capture the geographical diversity and empirical richness of this important concept as it continues to evolve in practice and scholarship.

References Adams, J. 2003. A guide for the establishment of farmers’ markets in Victoria. Report prepared for the AgWest Inc. Agri-business forum and the victoria department of primary industries. Melbourne. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au. Accessed 20 Jan 2008.

The trouble with authenticity Baber, L., and E. Frongillo. 2003. Family and seller interactions in farmers’ markets in upstate New York. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18: 87–94. British Columbia Association of Farmers’ Markets. 2007. Tips for markets—Shoppers, vendors, and markets. http://www. bcfarmersmarket.org/web/markets.htm. Accessed 14 May 2008. Certified Farmers’ Markets in the UK. 2002. Farmers’ market certification. http://www.farmersmarkets.net/. Accessed 13 May 2008. Chalmers, A.I., A.E. Joseph, and J. Smithers. 2009. Seeing farmers’ markets: Theoretical and media perspectives on new sites of exchange in New Zealand. Geographical Research 47 (3): 320– 330. Connell, D.C., J. Smithers, and A.E. Joseph. 2008. Farmers’ markets and the good food value chain: A preliminary investigation. Local Environment 13 (3): 169–185. Coster, M. 2004. Report on the role of ‘‘new generation’’ farmers’ markets. Department of primary industries. Victoria, Australia: Bendigo. Darby, K., M.T. Batte, S. Ernst, and B. Roe. 2008. Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis of locally produced foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90: 476–486. DeLind, L. 2000. Transforming organic agriculture into industrial organic products: Reconsidering national organic standards. Human Organization 59 (2): 198–208. Farmers’ Market New Zealand Association. 2006. What is a farmers’ market? http://www.farmersmarket.org.nz/home.htm. Accessed 14 May 2008. Farmers’ Markets Ontario. 2007. Real farmers, real local: Certified farmers’ market rules and regulations. http://www.farmersmarketsontario. com/UpLoad/File/2009_Rules_Regs_for_MyMarkets_7Apr09.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2008. Feagan, R., D. Morris, and K. Krug. 2004. Niagara region farmers’ markets: Local food systems and sustainability considerations. Local Environment 9: 235–254. Griffin, M., and E. Frongillo. 2003. Experiences and perspectives of farmers from upstate New York farmers markets. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 189–203. Halweil, B. 2002. Home grown: The case for local food. In a global market. Worldwatch paper number 163. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute. Hinrichs, C., C. Gillespie, and G. Feenstra. 2004. Social learning and innovation at retail farmers’ markets. Rural Sociology 69: 31–58. Holloway, L., and M. Kneafsey. 2000. Reading the space of the farmers’ market: A case study from the United Kingdom. Sociologia Ruralis 40: 285–299.

247 Kirwan, J. 2004. Alternative strategies in the UK agro-food system: Interrogating the alterity of the farmers’ market. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 396–415. Lacy, W. 2000. Empowering communities through public work, science, and local food systems: Revisiting democracy and globalization. Rural Sociology 65: 3–26. Michelsen, J. 2002. Organic farming in a regulatory perspective: The Danish case. Sociologia Ruralis 41: 62–84. Miele, M. 2006. Consumption culture: The case of food. In Handbook of rural studies, ed. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney, 344– 354. London: Sage. National Farm Retail Market Association. 2008. What is a farmers’ market and what makes them special. http://www.farmers markets.net/#special. Accessed 15 May 2008. Smithers, J., J. Lamarche, and A.E. Joseph. 2008. Unpacking the terms of engagement with local food at the farmers’ market: Insights from Ontario. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (3): 337–350. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.009. Stoneman, D. 2005. The conflict over farmers’ markets—Should they be producer only or allow in the resellers? http://www.betterfarming. com/2005/bf-aug05/cover.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2008. Weatherell, C., A. Tregear, and J. Allinson. 2003. In search of the concerned consumer: UK public perceptions of food, farming, and buying local. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 233–244. Wolf, M.M. 2005. Profile of farmers’ market consumers and the perceived advantages of produce sold at farmers’ markets. Journal of Food Distribution Research 36: 192–202.

Author Biographies John Smithers is a professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Guelph. His past research has explored various elements of farm and rural community change, and more recently the capacity of local food initiatives to support re-invigorated farm-community linkages. His current research is focusing on the nature and role of short food supply chains in local farm and food economies. Alun E. Joseph is a professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Guelph and Dean of the College of Social and Applied Human Sciences. His past research has dealt extensively with population dynamics and rural community change. His current research spans issues of both service provision for rural populations and processes of rural commodification associated with evolving population dynamics in contemporary rural landscapes.

123