Can consumption create a better natural and social environment? | 315 Mini-Discussion 3

by Posted on

Foodthink’s Perspective

As mentioned previously, consumers are often too disconnected from the point of production to truly understand the quality of their food, making it difficult for them to effectively safeguard their rights. To address this, Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) practices have emerged within China. PGS emphasises that various ‘stakeholders’—including producers, consumers, and sellers—should collaborate to negotiate and co-create the concepts and rules governing food quality and consumption.

By analysing the philosophy of this practice and its current development in China, we aim to use this International Consumers’ Day (3/15) to further reflect on the social value of consumer behaviour and make better choices in the future.

I. The Principles of PGS

Compared to the mainstream market, PGS seeks to rebuild direct links between small-scale producers and consumers, granting consumers a greater right to information and providing smallholders with a stronger voice, together creating a perception of food value that differs from that of the mainstream market. This is precisely why alternative food systems are considered ‘alternative’.

● During my doctoral research, I (right) participated in several PGS farm visits for the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market. Here, Chen Liye (left) of Hebei’s Wocuiyuan Farm and Li Shu (centre) from Xihu, who uses the farm’s flour to make mantou, are introducing me to the farm.

PGS is based on two primary principles. The first is an opposition to one-size-fits-all production standards. Production is inherently a matter of adapting to local conditions; therefore, standardised rules cannot encompass the diverse production practices used across different regions. Forcing producers to adhere to such standards only marginalises diverse production methods and impacts local ecosystems. This also erodes the agency of the producers and may lead them to manipulate production data simply to meet these standards.

Furthermore, the inspection cycles designed for organic certification in China are better suited to large-scale monoculture. Many smallholders engage in diversified planting and rotate different crop types more frequently; the measurement processes required for certification cannot align with such production schedules. This is one of the key reasons why it is difficult, or even undesirable, for smallholders to seek certification.

● A key part of PGS is conducting farm visits to allow all stakeholders to reach a consensus on quality.

The second principle is that if unified production standards are inapplicable, we must instead seek standards based on specific communities or collectives. PGS believes these specific standards should be jointly decided by producers and local consumers, who develop a mutual understanding to form a code of conduct they can all endorse.

This requires thorough communication and understanding between consumers and producers, ensuring consumers fully grasp the realities of production. On this basis, consumers and producers can discuss production norms—namely, what kind of products can be expected and what constitutes a ‘good’ product. Production and consumption then proceed according to these norms. Information transparency is achieved through this process of collaborative consultation.

For example, if consumers wish to eat fruit and vegetables grown without pesticides or chemical fertilisers, producers will explain that such produce may have insect holes, may not look perfect, and may cost more to produce. A rational consumer will understand that it is unrealistic for food to be cheap, safe, and aesthetically perfect all at once, and will make choices that suit their own needs when consuming.

● Yingying from Chengde Lianxiang Farm explains to visiting consumers the pest damage affecting the tomatoes.

II. The Dilemma of PGS

In practice, however, there is a tension between PGS and mainstream market norms.

Firstly, there is a mismatch between input and output; that is to say, the relationship between rights, responsibilities, and benefits is not as seamless as in conventional commercial, social, or political systems. The organisational costs of PGS are very high, yet there is no corresponding direct economic return. This creates a problem of incentive: who is willing to invest the effort to organise PGS? And what reward can be expected after investing this time, travel, and communication cost?

We can compare the reward mechanisms of PGS with those of certification. Certification systems essentially establish market exclusivity. Certification bodies receive a direct economic return, while those certified obtain the certification—their ticket into an exclusive market—and a relatively high price premium.

However, participatory guarantee is a community-based activity; therefore, the codes of conduct and outcomes it establishes are assets of the entire food community, shared by its members.

Take the PGS of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market, the most mature example in China. Even if a consumer does not personally participate in a PGS farm visit, if she knows other consumers have, hears them say a producer is good, and sees the site visits and outcomes on social media, she will choose a producer based on this reputation.

Similarly, for producers, not every single one may participate in monitoring other farmers, but as long as farmers are recognised by consumers through this method, that recognition translates into the market’s reputation, which all participants in the market can share.

Simply put, the contributions of consumers and farming friends to PGS are not all the same, yet everyone shares the results of this oversight equally. This raises a question: if you can obtain the benefits without contributing, how do you incentivise these actors not to free-ride, and who should bear the cost of organising PGS? Is it the consumers? Or the social organisations that coordinate the producers and consumers? What proportion should be borne by the producers who rely on the market’s reputation?

The second limitation is that PGS has inherent constraints on its scale. Because the organisational costs and intensity of interaction are so high, it cannot be replicated quickly like a fleeting transaction in a market; it can only be implemented among specific groups of people. In other words, it can only guarantee a few specific producers within a small market and a group of consumers that is very small compared to the mainstream market. It is based on the formation of a locally rooted consumption community—a relatively stable and tight-knit social network.

However, the business model of the current mainstream market dictates that one must grow larger and larger, otherwise market share will be lost to competition. One must constantly attract new customers by reducing costs and introducing new products. Can the market guaranteed by PGS withstand the impact of the scale-driven business models emphasised by the mainstream market?

● In settings such as farmers’ markets, consumers can communicate directly with producers to obtain production information. However, the number of consumers willing to go out to buy groceries is dwindling under the impact of e-commerce.

III. Compromises in PGS Practice

Faced with high participation costs, a limited market, and relentless competition, PGS often makes compromises in practice regarding the form and frequency of participation. The end result is often insufficient for consumers to acquire deep knowledge of production, nor does it allow them to establish knowledge-sharing or a consensus on production standards with the producers.

The most typical organisational forms of PGS we observe today are farm visits and regular updates on farm production. Both of these activities involve significant organisational costs.

For example, before a PGS farm visit, market staff must carry out extensive preliminary preparations, issue announcements, and then lead consumers to the production site.

During the visit, organisers must guide consumers through the farm’s overall production process, while the farmer explains each stage. Afterwards, consumer feedback must be collected. From the organisers’ perspective, this requires a substantial investment of both time and manpower.

● After every PGS visit, the Beijing Organic Farmers Market invites participants to fill out a feedback form to collect their perceptions and feedback on the farm’s production.
● A page from a feedback form completed by a Beijing Organic Farmers Market consumer after a PGS visit. It shows that a comprehensive understanding of the farm’s production information is required during the visit, with each piece of information corresponding to the principles and techniques of ecological agriculture.

By contrast, on some other platforms, the form of PGS has been greatly simplified, to the point where it is hard to distinguish it from more straightforward marketing methods. For example, live streams have replaced first-hand farm visits, and in some cases, regular production updates are abandoned entirely. Or, when a platform introduces a new producer, they may share the producer’s story alongside soil and product test reports, using these to substitute for the tracking and monitoring of production. In reality, this is highly similar to the marketing methods of supermarkets like Whole Foods: by ‘performing’ information transparency and showing images of specific production processes, they present a facade to the consumer, while the consumer remains far removed from the producer.

● Zhiqiang from Chengde Lianxiang Farm showing the soil to a PGS visit group from the Farmers Market. Observing, smelling, and touching the soil first-hand, and decoding the information conveyed through these senses, reflects soil quality more comprehensively than a soil test report.
Another practical issue is that many producers have their time consumed by production and management, leaving them without sufficient energy to organise or even participate in PGS. This weakens the ‘peer review’ function, as well as the role of mutual learning and exchange that PGS is intended to facilitate.

IV. The Dilemma of Consumer Participation

From the consumer’s perspective, dedicating what little free time they have to PGS—especially considering the pressures of work and life—is a significant commitment. On a deeper level, we must also consider exactly which consumers are participating in PGS.

In my observation, women make at least 60% to 70% of the decisions regarding food consumption in the household. Whether they are homemakers or working mothers, they share a common thread: they shoulder the responsibility for shopping and cooking, among many other duties.

Many female consumers have expressed that they only began paying attention to organic ingredients after having children. This implies that parenthood is a major watershed in their lives, becoming one of the primary lenses through which they organise their existence. In China, parenting is an immense source of pressure, particularly for the middle class. The drive for “intensive parenting” falls almost entirely on women, leaving a mother’s daily schedule tight and exhausting.

Yet, this labour is not always acknowledged or appreciated within the home. I once asked a mother, who paid such meticulous attention to the diet of her children and the whole family, what her husband’s attitude was. She replied: “As long as Dad doesn’t make things harder, that’s enough.”

This answer shocked me. It reflects the enormous responsibility women bear in domestic labour and the division of household tasks. The value of this work is often not understood by society, or even by the members of their own families. In such a situation, female consumers not only struggle to find the energy to participate in PGS, but any desire to do so may be dismissed by their families as unnecessary—with the suggestion that their time would be better spent accompanying their children to tuition classes.

● Group photos from previous PGS visits at the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market reveal that the vast majority of participating consumers are women. In this photo taken in September 2023 after a visit to the Happy Return Youth Farm in Hebei, the men present are almost exclusively there for work-related reasons.

Constrained by these factors, most consumers can only build a general impression of organic production through one or two farm visits, interactions with the producer or PGS organiser, or through the market site and the internet.

While this may already give them more knowledge of agricultural production than 99.9% of urban consumers nationwide, this impression is not based on the rigour of production knowledge—or, more accurately, it is rarely based on agricultural knowledge itself. Because many consumers, lacking a foundation in organic production, do not even know what to look for when they visit a farm; they may simply take a cursory glance, noticing things that seem novel, but remaining unable to critically evaluate the information provided by the producer.

● In truth, many consumers lacking basic production knowledge arrive at the farm just as I once did: “Where am I? What is this? What am I looking at? What should I be looking at?” In short, they feel somewhat lost.

Under these circumstances, consumer judgement is often “relational”. That is, they make relational and emotional judgements based on previously accumulated interpersonal interactions or cultural habits. For instance, a producer might say something, perform a specific action, or demonstrate a production process that leaves a deep impression, confirming the consumer’s existing judgement or preconceived notions about that producer. This alone is often enough for a consumer to conclude whether a person is trustworthy.

The consequence of this mode of judgement is that if consumers do not assess a producer’s credentials through agricultural knowledge, then for the producer, the basis for building a reputation in the market is not entirely rooted in production technique, but in the personal image they project during these specific activities.

● Farm machinery like tractors is always an eye-catcher; neither I nor Tianle, the editor of this article and a member of Foodthink, were immune to the appeal.

Wang Xin of Beijing Xiqing Farm once remarked that the rhetoric used to describe agricultural techniques is easy to learn, but not every farmer who masters this rhetoric can actually implement these skills in practice. At the same time, he feels that it is very difficult for consumers to distinguish between genuine technical expertise and mere sales talk.

In other words, PGS risks becoming just another symbol of “information transparency”, while the substance of participation is diluted. As long as a seller can provide an activity that resembles PGS in form—even if its organisational principles are not participatory and its purpose is not knowledge sharing—it will still give consumers the impression that “this is PGS”, or lead them to believe they have mastered the knowledge of quality and are making the correct consumption choice. Ultimately, however, the empowerment of both producer and consumer is not achieved. This phenomenon has become increasingly evident over the past few years amidst the surge of short videos and livestream shopping.

● Wang Xin of Xiqing Farm worries that consumers cannot distinguish between rhetoric and real technique.

V. Is PGS still necessary?

Research into alternative food systems has long pointed out that those alternative systems focusing entirely on food quality are often less resilient than those focusing on social relationships. This is because food quality is such a dynamic concept, the definition of which is often dominated by the most powerful players in the market.

The “alternativeness” of PGS lies not simply in proposing a different concept of quality, but in the fact that consumption is not its core purpose. Consumption serves the establishment of community relations. We do not participate in PGS purely to buy better products, but because we hope to build a better relationship between producers and consumers, or between producers, consumers, and social organisations. We believe that good relationships lead to good food, and that the act of consumption should be a daily practice of these better relationships.

This mirrors the ecological agriculture that PGS serves: ecological agriculture is not just about producing safe farm products, but about fostering a harmonious, rather than destructive, relationship between agriculture and the environment.

Participating in alternative food consumption, exemplified by PGS, in pursuit of benevolent and sustainable natural and social relationships is fundamentally different from the drivers of consumerism. If we stop believing that scaling up production is the only thing that matters—if we realise that our relationships with nature and other members of society can be reshaped—then perhaps we will rethink what consumption is truly for. PGS provides a window through which to rethink these patterns of social relationship.

Foodthink Author

Li Shumeng

PhD in Sociology from Cornell University (USA), Postdoctoral Fellow at the Asian Institute, National University of Singapore. Her research focuses primarily on value distribution and consumption ethics in food production.

 

 

Editor: Tianle

Published by Foodthink