Thanks to an Incubator grant, Utrecht University (NL) is hosting the Follow the Food seminar series. The project is led by Martijn Huysmans (Utrecht School of Economics) and aims to trace the workings of the global food system by following several products with a so-called Geographical Indication (GI).
In Follow the Cheese, the first of four seminars, long-time Foundation collaborator Cristina Grasseni (introduced by Prof. Huysmans) delivered a lecture comparing and contrasting the premises and results of using geographical indication for alpine cheese with a transhumant tradition (a seasonal movement of livestock up and down the mountain). The audience represented a diverse array of fields, including social impact, food law, geography, responsible innovation, veterinary medicine, organization studies, agroforestry systems and cultural anthropology.
Geographical Indications and Quality
In his introduction, Huysmans described the Search Experience Credence Potemkin Placebo (SECPP) model of quality, highlighting how GIs operate within this system. Essentially, GIs are labels that indicate that a product has qualities or characteristics due to its geographical origin. However, he pointed out that the perception of quality through GIs is not always straightforward. Whether a product marked with a GI truly signifies quality can depend on various factors, including consumer expectations and their personal definition of quality.
Huysmans explained how quality is subjective and varies geographically. What one culture values as high quality in a product may differ from another. For instance, US consumers may place little weight on the origin of the product if that does not affect its taste, making it difficult for GIs to serve as a universal mark of quality across borders.
GIs, Sustainability, and Animal Welfare: A Complex Debate
Huysmans also touched on the connection between GIs, sustainability, and animal welfare. This is a complex and often misunderstood topic. He noted that just because a product has a GI label does not necessarily mean that it is produced more sustainably or with better animal welfare standards. This could be a misconception among consumers who associate local or traditional production methods with higher ethical standards (the so-called halo effect).
Follow the Cheese: The Case of Taleggio and Strachitunt
Cristina Grasseni’s talk provided a broader perspective on how authenticity, heritage, and survival intersect in the world of GIs, and how local cheese-making traditions have become battlegrounds for cultural and economic identity.
Cheese as a Window into Heritage and Authenticity
Grasseni began by highlighting that authenticity, while often constructed socially, culturally, and legally, is not just a vague concept. It’s a tangible quality for which producers actively fight and which brings very real consequences. By juxtaposing the cases of Taleggio and Strachitunt, she illuminated how GIs serve as markers of distinction and tools for boundary-making, helping to create a vision for the future of regional products.
The Reinvention of Strachitunt: A Cheese War
A particularly captivating aspect of Grasseni’s talk was what she called the “war of Strachitunt”. Historically, Stracchino cheese—derived from the Bergamo dialect word “strac”, meaning tired—was made from the milk of tired cows after they descended from the highlands. Strachitunt, a specific type of stracchino, was reinvented by local producers to claim a smaller and more exclusive region of origin than that of Taleggio, the lowland descendent of Stracchino cheese.
Grasseni framed this reinvention as part of a post-transhumant movement, where producers are not just reviving old cheese-making traditions but adapting them to modern market dynamics. In doing so, they are staking a claim to their heritage, not just to protect their craft but to ensure their survival in a globalized food economy. As one local cheesemaker poignantly remarked, “We need to find a marketable space and occupy it, otherwise… I will see my place die.” This statement underscores how “rethinking livelihoods through cheese is not just about marketing—it’s about political imagination”.
Broader Implications for Heritage and Political Imagination
Grasseni’s exploration of these cheese case studies served as a powerful metaphor for the broader dynamics at play in the heritage food sector. She argued that the reinvention and survival of products like Strachitunt shows how food is not just about taste or tradition—it’s also about finding ways to keep rural livelihoods alive in a rapidly changing world.
the reinvention and survival of products like Strachitunt shows how food is not just about taste or tradition—it’s also about finding ways to keep rural livelihoods alive in a rapidly changing world
Animal Welfare, Generational Dynamics and Other Questions
Rebecca Nordquist raised a question about the role allocated to cows in GIs. Grasseni responded by addressing the journey of the Holstein cows that are commonly found in Italy. She explained that after the Second World War, European cattle were essentially re-imported from the U.S. in the form of semen from breeds that had been originally exported there in the 19th century. This anecdote reflects how modern breeding associations exert substantial power over dairy breeders, shaping not only the welfare of the animals but also the economic landscape of local cheese production.
Strachitunt can only be produced using milk from the Italian Brown cow, however the dominance of industrialized breeds such as the Holstein points to the broader tension between local food heritage and globalized farming practices.
When asked about the fate of the cows within the dairy production protocols, Cristina Grasseni noted a troubling oversight: “What is included in the protocol of production about the cows pertains mainly to their diet.” This statement highlighted a significant gap in the industry’s focus, pointing to a lack of attention to animal welfare in formal production standards. This raises important questions about how producers can better advocate for the welfare of the animals they work with, ensuring that their practices align with evolving consumer expectations.
A critical question also arose about why animal welfare seems to not be addressed within the industry. Grasseni explained that while there is a sensibility around animal welfare, it is not perceived as an urgent societal debate at the moment. She emphasized that this doesn’t indicate a complete lack of sensibility in practice but rather reflects the reality that animal welfare is not as debated or influential in consumer choices in Italy compared to other regions.
Cristina Grasseni stressed the need for producers to better communicate their animal welfare practices. She remarked, “Producers should really learn how to put it out there! Because they are doing a lot for animal welfare!” Over the years, producers have gradually improved their ability to articulate their practices and the welfare of their animals (such as outdoor grazing), which is crucial for creating a market that values humane treatment.
Generational Dynamics in Cheese-Making
Another question delved into the generational dynamics of cheese-making. Grasseni acknowledged that it is very difficult to generalize these dynamics, providing an example of how a father may be obsessed with progeny breeding, while his sons may not share the same enthusiasm. This generational contrast doesn’t always follow a clear trajectory, which complicates the narrative around succession and tradition in cheese production. Cristina emphasized the importance of working with people who can engage in meaningful conversations, as fostering dialogue across generations can bridge gaps and help sustain traditional practices.
fostering dialogue across generations can bridge gaps and help sustain traditional practices
Authenticity, Alliances, and Boundaries in Cheese Production
Grasseni’s talk didn’t just stop at cheese-making traditions—it dove deeper into the ethnographic insights of how producers and communities navigate the tension between authenticity and survival. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a new lens through which to view these dynamics, with “solidarity purchase groups” becoming more popular as consumers sought to support local producers during lockdowns. This appeal to local consumers marked a departure for the GI products, once seen as niche and elitist. This shift opened up new spaces for alliances, with local food producers seeking solidarity as a means of survival.
However, she pointed out that food producers face a crucial decision: should they create alliances or erect boundaries? While GIs can be tools for building community, they can also generate conflict by setting boundaries around who can use certain names and how. According to Cristina, this tension is essential to understanding the role of GIs in local food economies. Too big of a scale and producers risk losing their market edge; too small, and they risk becoming an elitist version of authenticity, accessible only to a niche market.
To read more about the “Cheese War” and the ‘crafty’ nature of geographic indications, underlining the relevance of innovative skilled practice to future-making, in ways that inevitably affect and in turn re-produce relevant communities and working landscapes, take a look at Cristina Grasseni’s research on Val Taleggio or the book The Heritage Arena: Reinventing Cheese in the Italian Alps (2017).
The second seminar in the series takes place on Monday 18 November. In The Power of Place? Apricots between Heritage and the Market in Central Asia, rural sociologist Irna Hofman and environmental historian Flora Roberts consider the past, present and future of apricots in the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan.
Interested participants can register here with a report to follow on this website.