(PDF) "Organic" Rice: Different Implications from Process and Product Environmental Verification Approaches in Laos and Thailand

(PDF) "Organic" Rice: Different Implications from Process and Product Environmental Verification Approaches in Laos and Thailand
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Introduction
Methods
Conclusions
References
FAQs
All Topics
Geography
International and Area Studies
"Organic" Rice: Different Implications from Process and Product Environmental Verification Approaches in Laos and Thailand
Ian G Baird
2024, Agriculture and Human Values
visibility
description
14 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
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 naturesociety 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.
Key takeaways
AI
Process-based verification in Thailand emphasizes comprehensive documentation and inspections, while product-based verification in Laos relies on residue testing.
Environmental verification systems significantly structure rice production practices in Thailand and Laos, affecting environmental and health outcomes.
FTS's process-based certification yields higher organic rice productivity (360-500 kg/rai) than non-organic farming (290 kg/rai).
IDP's product-based certification allows limited chemical fertilizer use, creating potential health risks despite consumer health emphasis.
Consumer values shape and legitimize different verification systems, influencing agriculture and naturesociety relations in Southeast Asia.
Related papers
Certification of Organic Agriculture for rice production in Indonesia
Yuanita Windusari
Sains Tanah - Journal of Soil Science and Agroclimatology, 2017
To make better the life, it is required safety foods for health. The health foods can be satisfied by organic farming. Organic farming is farming system based on biomass recycling or eliminating the use of materials as a synthetic agrochemical inputs. To determine whether the result of rice called as an organic product needs to be certified by the Organic Certification Board (OCB). According to the Indonesian National Standard (INS) 6729: 2013, organic farming systems (OFS) are not only limited to not use material agrochemical synthetic, but must meet the requirements of OFS in rice production ranging from cultivating, handling, storage, processing, transportation, labeling, marketing, production facilities and other materials that are allowed start on farm to off farm should be separated from conventional agriculture. The farm is just a negate the use of synthetic agrochemicals without regard to the cultivation process and the system of post-harvest organic results are said to be premium food which is not as organic food, because organic food is food produced from OFS by applying processing practices to preserve the ecosystem of sustainable, control of weeds, pests, diseases, selection and crop rotation, water management, land preparation and planting and the use of biological materials. Thus the system of organic agriculture is a holistic management system to improve and develop the agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. The first step that must be done is the conversion of land for food crops from anorganic to organic farming for 2 years did not get the requisite amount of agrochemical applied to the soil for annual crop and 3 years for perennial crops. If agriculture in paddy soil can control the conventional farms into OFS, then the resulting rice is as an organic product.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The environmental efficiency of non-certified organic farming in China: A case study of paddy rice production
Sébastien Marchand
China Economic Review, 2014
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Determinants Influencing Adoption of Geographical Indication Certification: The Case of Rice Cultivation in Thailand
Chuthaporn Ngokkuen
2010
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Nature's Market? A Review of Organic Certification
Shaila Seshia Galvin
Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 2011
As organic food becomes more widely available, great faith is placed on the seal or logo that certifi es organic status. Th is article treats the mark of certifi cation as a starting rather than an end point, critically reviewing literature from diverse national and regional contexts. Exploring questions concerning the extent to which organic cer-tifi cation assists or undermines the goal of ecological sustainability, abets the advance of large-scale agricultural capital, and supports the livelihood of smallholder farmers, the article considers the theoretical foundations, methodologies and modes of inquiry that have guided studies of organic agriculture and certifi cation. It brings this research into conversation with literatures on audit cultures, quality, and with ongoing nature-culture debates. Th rough critical review of the literature and the author's extensive fi eldwork with organic smallholders in northern India, the article suggests possible directions in which the literature may be expanded and advanced.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Multifunctionality and agrarian transition in alternative agro-food production in the global South: The case of organic shrimp certification in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
Steffanie Scott
Processes of globalisation in the conventional food provision system have had widespread negative impacts on small-scale farmers. Yet, alternative food networks, which are characterised by more sustainable production/consumption practices and fairer trade relations, have increasingly been 'going global' and, in the process, have been integrating small-scale farms in the South. One such high-value export-led commodity is certified organic shrimp. International third-party certification schemes are becoming popular as a tool to verify the intangible attributes of such commodities. Using concepts of multifunctionality and agrarian change, this paper examines the implications of introducing an international environmental certification programme to a site where the 'peasantry' has been preserved and has limited integration in the global agro-food system. Drawing on a case study that examines the first certified organic shrimp production project in Vietnam, this paper concludes that the current movement towards post-productivism in the global North has potential to keep local farming practices in the global South by justifying the value of peasant-like production methods through international certification. As a result, the development path of agrarian transition might be reshaped into a form not necessarily pursuing industrialisation. This leads to the new interpretation of pre-and post-productivism beyond the North and South divide.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Opening the Green Box: How Organic became the standard for alternative agriculture in Thaialnd
Peter Vandergeest
This discussion paper explores how a conceptual framework drawing on political ecology and science studies might contribute to understanding trends and tensions in alternative agriculture in Thailand, and by extension, other global south sites. The paper is drawn from a collaborative writing project on alternative agriculture, organic food, and agrofood standards in Southeast Asia, which is in turn part of a larger project on agrarian transitions in Southeast Asia.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
A Participatory Analysis of the Control and Certification System in the Italian Organic Rice Value Chain
Elena Pagliarino
Sustainability, 2021
Italy is the leading European rice producer. The transition to organic farming of rice farms could represent a solution for environmental protection, as well as for their economic sustainability, consumer safety, and as a measure of climate mitigation. However, there are currently several weaknesses in the control and certification system. The objective of the current study was to propose advice for improving the control and certification scheme in the organic rice sector. The goal was achieved by adopting a qualitative methodology based on participant observation at stakeholder meetings and community-led workshops, and information collected in focus groups and deep interviews with relevant local actors. The findings show that there are some solutions to mitigate the weakness of the Italian certification scheme. The study also contributes to improving the Italian organic rice sector by highlighting that a revision of procedures and sanctions alone is not enough, and that an ethical ...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Environmental evaluation of organic rice: A case study in the Philippines
Shihomi Aksoy
Analysis, 2002
In this thesis, we discuss the organic rice production and consumption situation in the
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGE OF ORGANIC CERTIFICATION SYSTEM IN NEPAL
Basanta Rana Bhat
The demand for organic certification is gradually increasing in Nepal although it is in early stage. Organic certification is a written assurance given by an independent third party about the production methodology and quality of products to confirm special requirements. Certification brings opportunities for protection of local resources, better market access, improvement of worker and consumer health, and eventually enhancement of living conditions of rural communities.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Unraveling the Differences Between Organic and Non-Organic Thai Rice Farmers' Environmental Views and Perceptions of Well-being
Alex Kaufman
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2015
Food production, a critical aspect of human development, depends on the regulating and supporting services of the ecosystem. However, the expansion and intensification of agriculture to meet rising human consumption levels have played havoc with ecosystem provisioning services by way of climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and water pollution. Development experts argue that modern agricultural methods also have led to the exodus of farmers from rural to urban areas and the disintegration of rural social safety nets. Few studies have explored the impacts of a shift to modern agricultural methods on farmers' wellbeing from a holistic perspective. This research sheds light on organic and non-organic farmers' environmental views, well-being, and production
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Agriculture and Human Values (2024) 41:1417–1430

“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product
environmental verification approaches in Laos and Thailand
Ian G. Baird1
Accepted: 18 February 2024 / Published online: 1 March 2024
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024

Abstract
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 naturesociety 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.
Keywords Environmental certification · Rice · Organic · Nature-society relations · Thailand · Laos

Introduction
Environmental certification and other environment-related
verification systems are intended to lead to structural
changes, and are typically expected to decrease environmental impacts, increase environmental benefits, or lead to
a combination of both, depending on the objectives and the
particular approach adopted. It goes without saying that environmental verification—including environmental certification—is supposed to have environmental implications, but
what counts as environmental verification is not always clear.
In various parts of the world, especially in the United States
and Europe, there has been considerable debate about the
implications of organic certification systems for agriculture.
This includes considering how conventionalization of the
organic verification system has led to a bifurcation of organic
* Ian G. Baird
[email protected]

Department of Geography, University of WisconsinMadison, 550 N. Park St., Madison, WI 53706, USA

farmers, with some large-scale producers becoming more
mainstream, while a smaller group maintains a more ideological and less commercial stance regarding organic agriculture (DeLind 2000; Guthman 2004a, b; Constance et al.
2008; Dabbert et al. 2014; Fouilleux and Loconto 2017).
This paper builds on these previous debates by addressing
the implications of two quite different approaches to environmental verification, and in the context of Southeast Asia
rather than the United States and Europe. While it is well
known that there are differences in certification and other
verification systems, it is contended here that those differences are more substantial, even in the same region, than
most recognize. One can be considered process-based certification, while the other is product-based verification. So,
how do these different approaches work, and how do their
associated structures lend themselves to different values and
associated ways of environmental verification? Finally, how
do these approaches affect the ways that we understand the
environment, agriculture, food and even health and environmental safety?

Vol.:(0123456789)

1418

Over the last few decades, there has been dramatic
changes in lowland rice cultivation practices in both Thailand and Laos. These relate to the technologies used (such as
tractor use instead of water buffalo use), changes in practices
(such as broadcasting instead of transplanting), and changes
in inputs (more chemical fertilizers and herbicides) (Rambo
2017; Watanabe 2017; Pandey et al. 2012; Kumar and Ladha
2011; Grandstaff et al. 2008; Fukui et al. 2000; Konchan
and Kono 1996). There is increasing farmer interest in cultivating rice using no or only low quantities of chemical
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Some in Thailand are
even developing their identities based partially on the indigenous varieties of rice that they cultivate and protect in-situ
(Yamyim et al. 2020).
In northeastern Thailand and southern Laos, the geographical focuses of this paper, farmers are becoming incrementally more interested in low chemical farming, often citing the environmental and human health benefits to farmers
of this kind of lowland rice cultivation (Baird et al. 2022;
Hérique 2019; Phiboon and Faysse 2019; Amekawa 2010;
Setboonsarng et al. 2006). In addition, there is increasing
interest in low or no chemical rice, including by consumers in Thailand (Baird 2024; Chouichom and Yamao 2010;
Sangkumchaliang and Huang 2012; Jitrawang and Krairit
2019; Kantamaturapoj and Marshall 2020; Roitner-Schobesberger et al. 2008) and in Laos (Shattuck 2021; Baird et al.
2021, 2022; Vientiane Times 2018, 2019, 2021d; Pimmata
2018), but also by people in other parts of the world (Siegmann 2022). Moreover, the aging and increasingly healthconscious middle class in China has shown increased interest
in the environment and health, for both altruistic concerns
and self-interest (McCarthy 2015).
Illustrative of the changes that are occurring, the central
government of Thailand has recently banned some of the
most dangerous pesticides and herbicides (Tanakasempipat
2020; Khunsong and Peck 2019). There is also much more
emphasis being given by Thai media to organic farming
methods. While there is an increasing interest in organic
food and thus organic certification by many and for a variety
and combination of reasons, the ways that different parties
approach environmental verification for exporting rice from
Thailand and Laos considerably differ. Here, I define environmental verification as forms of monitoring and testing
that are intended to ensure positive impacts on the environment, including in farming areas but also in relation to
the health of consumers, and frequently both, since they are
often interrelated.
While it has long been recognized that export markets
and consumer demand have the potential to use forms of
transnational governance to significantly shape and structure
agricultural markets, including those that small-scale peasant farmers engage with (Bartley 2018), in this paper I consider how two different types of environmental verification

I. G. Baird

systems associated with China (product-based), on the one
hand, and Europe and the United States (process-based) on
the another, are leading to different on-the-ground outcomes
in terms of their effects on farming practices in northeastern
Thailand and southern Laos, but also the ways people think
about the environment and farming.
A process-based verification system depends on comprehensive data collection about all on-farm activities, including detailed farmer self-documentation of on-farm activities
carried out throughout the year, detailed on-farm inspections to verify reports, and annual farmer interviews. In other
words, a holistic process of farming is emphasized, but produce is not subjected to specific lab testing for chemical
residues, unless required by national governments. Such testing is typically associated with product-based certification,
which relies much less on holistic assessment of on-farm
activities, and more on laboratory testing of agricultural
products for chemical residues. Product-based certification
is often focused primarily—but not entirely—on consumer
health. Environmental management is often entangled with
consumer health issues, as good environmental management
is frequently linked with good health outcomes for consumers; process-based certification is partially based on consumer health, but there is a more significant focus on farmer
health and especially environmental issues.
Both these forms of environmental verification are driven
by consumers, as the standards for organic certification are
dependent on the market for exported products, and what
standards and ways of legitimating them are considered the
most desirable and credible. They also depend considerably
on the values of consumers. These standards and practices
differ greatly between China on the one hand, and Europe
and the United States on the other, based largely on different
consumer values, and varying approaches result in important
structural differences and ways of viewing nature-society
relations, which have more fundamental implications for
the development of farming practices and livelihoods. My
argument is that the particular approaches adopted when
conducting environmental verification for rice are crucial for
understanding how agrarian change is variously occurring
and being framed in lowland rural communities in northeastern Thailand and southern Laos.

Environmental certification
There is now an expansive literature that is critical of various
aspects of environmental certification, both internationally
and in particular reference to Thailand (Guthman 2004a;
Vandergeest 2007, 2009; Vandergeest and Unno 2012; Nie
et al. 2018; Bartley 2018; Zezza at al. 2020; Jahn et al. no
date). Chayes and Chayes (1995) wrote about how new
regimes of sovereign control have been asserted through

“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification…

international regulatory agreements, the precursor to privately developed environmental certification systems, what
Eden and Bear (2010) call “third sector global environmental governance.” A good example of this was use of dolphin
safe certification to fundamentally alter fisheries internationally in order to protect dolphins and other aquatic animals
(Baird and Quastel 2011).
Much of the literature about environmental certification
has focused on credence attributes, which can be defined as
qualities that cannot be easily observed by consumers after
purchase, making it difficult for them to assess their utility. This makes certification of those credence attributes a
way of ensuring that consumers have the necessary information needed to make reasonable decisions about potentially
important credence attributes. This is especially the case for
goods with high credence attributes (Kim 2012).
Credence attributes relate to an array of factors and products, and include such things as place of origin, organic,
locally grown, environmental friendly, food safety, and
health claims (Kaiser 2009). There is no doubt that credence
or believability are paramount values when it comes to commerce and trade. The credence attribute literature has especially focused on the agriculture and food sectors (Klinger
et al. 2022). Many credence attributes, including animal welfare, fair trade, environmental sustainability, and place of origin are sometimes broadly grouped into the category “ethical
preferences”, with researchers often analyzing public goods,
with a particular emphasis on perceptions and preferences
(Goddard et al. 2013). In addition, a review of many studies
related to credence values found that there are significant differences in “willingness to pay” estimates between groups of
people, mainly based on consumer perceptions of credence
attributes and local conditions (Yang and Renwick 2019).
For example, American cultural affinities to dolphins played
a significant difference in willingness to pay in the American
context, as compared to many other countries. The cost of
managing certification systems can be significant, thus testing the willingness to pay of consumers (Dabbert et al. 2014).
There has also recently been more research done about
the crucial roles that firms, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and government regulatory agencies play—either
independently or jointly as experts—in diagnosing and providing treatment in credence goods markets (Sheldon 2017).
This, once again, could be clearly seen in relation to dolphin
safe tuna, where a few small NGOs were able to have a significant impact on consumer attitudes (Baird and Quastel 2011).
Credence attributes have become increasingly important
in the United States and Europe, especially for organic products and in relation to food safety (Lee and Hwang 2016;
Maesano et al. 2020). However, recent research shows that
they have also become important for newly developed economies, such as in China, and in relation to various attributes,
the most important being food safety, an attribute that is

1419

often linked to the environment, since practices that are seen
as being good for the environment are often also considered to be beneficial for human health. Moreover, in China
products with credence attributes that are most important to
consumers, such as food safety, have tended to have the most
sophisticated and expensive launch strategies, while those
less important to consumers, such as being ‘environmentally
friendly’, have tended to come with cheaper and simpler
launch strategies (Yang et al. 2021). One of the main points
of these scholars has been that different certification systems
frequently make claims about various aspects of a product’s
production, ones that consumers are unable to directly test
for through just examining the product.
Apart from this work on credence values, various authors
have considered the limitations of environmental certification systems, both richer and poorer countries. In the United
States and Europe, for example, there have been criticisms for
years about how organic certification has tended to advantage
larger and more commercial producers (DeLind 2000; Guthman 2004a; Constance et al. 2008). Moreover, Durst et al.
(2006) pointed out various challenges facing eco-labeling
and forest certification in developing countries. In addition, Bartley (2010, 2018) focused on limitations associated
with labor and forestry certification systems in Indonesia,
and Mutersbaugh (2004) singled out paradoxes associated
with service work in organic-coffee certification. Waldman
and Kerr (2014) also demonstrated that using environmental certification to regulate water pollution in relation to US
soybean and corn cultivation is unrealistic, making the point
that certifying supply chains is often extremely challenging.
Consumers, especially those in high importing parts of
the world, such as the United States, Europe, and China,
have considerable power to influence production processes
(Mastny 2003), for better or for worse. A good example of
this is, again, dolphin safe tuna, as Americans consume the
majority of canned tuna globally, and so had the power to
totally change the tuna fishery (Baird and Quastel 2011).
Tayleur et al. (2018), however, highlight spatial biases in
the location of environmental certification, including concentrations of certification programs that may be useful
for the environment but fail to benefit the poorest farmers.
Similarly, Oya et al. (2017) found that while there is insufficient evidence on the effects of certification systems on
socio-economic outcomes for farmers and wageworkers,
there is evidence that there were positive effects on prices.
Paradoxically, however, workers’ overall wages often do not
increase. More recently, however, Siegmann (2022) found—
with regard to fair trade certification of tea plantations in
South Asia—that certification sometimes serves as a reward
for workers’ commitment rather than management’s compliance to particular standards. In Thailand, internationally certified cooperatives of small-scale rice farmers has
increased profits for farmers (Baird 2024).

1420

I. G. Baird

Also related to Thailand, Peter Vandergeest (2007)
compared the efficiency of environmental shrimp farming
certification networks to local community and government
approaches for regulating aquaculture shrimp in southern
Thailand, finding that they were less efficient than certification methods, which are typically less capable of integrating community input into setting, monitoring and enforcing technical standards. For example, Baird and Quastel
(2011) wrote about how an environmental organization in
the United States imposed environmental values and certification standards, particular credence values, on other parts
of the world, especially in relation to tuna fishing and canning. Like Vandergeest (2007), Baird and Quastel (2011)
emphasized the problem of local people in Thailand not
being given a chance to provide input in relation to certification, and the difficulty of fitting international certification
standards imposed from above with local circumstances.
Becchetti et al. (2011) found that Thai rice farmers who were
enrolled in organic and fair trade certification programs had
significantly higher incomes from agriculture compared to other
farmers. Lee et al. (2020) examined consumers’ assessment of
geographical indication-labeled food in Thailand, particularly
in relation to Thai hom mali rice, finding that Thai consumers
are often willing to pay premium prices for rice with geographical certification, another credence attribute. Vandergeest and
Unno (2012), however, conceptualized agricultural certification
in relation to imposing neo-colonial control over agricultural
standards through certification standards developed in Europe,
the United States, and elsewhere. They used the concept of
“extraterritoriality” to conceptualize how environmental certification can serve to extend Western power onto countries such
as Thailand. Most recently, Baird (2024) examined how “certification nationalism” has affected an organic rice certification
program recently developed in Thailand. This system provided
local farmers considerable input into the development of certification standards, but turned out to be impractical because the
standards were not in line with the requirements of European
and American importers, thus making it difficult for project
certified rice to be exported at a premium organic price.
Crucially for this paper, while the literature regarding
environmental certification and credence values is expansive, this paper is focused on how significantly different
approaches to environmental verification related to credence
attributes are being devised, with an emphasis on exploring
process and product-based verification systems, and how
they affect farming practices in different ways.

rice-growing areas in mainland Southeast Asia, including
northern and southern Vietnam, northern Cambodia, central and northeastern Thailand, and southern Laos. This
particular paper, however, only considers two of these
sites: southern Laos, particularly Savannakhet Province,
and northeastern Thailand, including the six provinces of
Udornthani, Sakon Nakorn, Kalasin, Roi-Et, Amnat Charoen, and Ubon Ratchathani Provinces.
During the first year of the project, 2018, we conducted interviews with lowland rice farmers and government officials in southern Laos and northeastern Thailand,
to become generally familiar with the various ways that
farmers engage with and think about agrarian change in
lowland-rice cultivation areas. We particularly asked them
about how rice farming had changed over the last 20 years,
in terms of machinery, input, labor, markets, etc. Then, in
2019, we administered a survey to 240 household farming family representatives in 12 villages in six provinces
in northeastern Thailand, and again in 12 villages in four
districts in Savannakhet Province in southern Laos. These
data were assessed in detail in another paper (Baird et al.
2022). The data provide crucial contextual information
needed to assess verification measures considered in more
detail here, such as the relationship between certification
standards and the ways that farmers typically cultivate
rice.
Fieldwork in 2020 could not be conducted due to travel
restrictions related to the spread of COVID-19. However,
some remote information collection was possible. Then in
2021, I was able to travel to northeastern Thailand to conduct follow-up interviews with community leaders in all the
villages where the farmer surveys had been administered
in 2019. In particular, I asked questions about the changes
that have occurred. I also did other interviews with people
variously associated with rice cultivation in northeastern
Thailand, and I conducted interviews related to organic rice
cultivation cooperatives, particularly in Amnat Charoen
Province. During these interviews, I mainly asked about how
organic certification was obtained and maintained.
Thus, this paper is primarily dependent on data collected through semi-structured interviews conducted for
the project since 2018, but particularly in 2021 in northeastern Thailand as well as in 2018 and 2019 in Savannakhet, southern Laos, and in relation to remote communications in 2020. These interviews were supplemented
with additional data collection and the review of relevant
literature.

Methods

Organic rice certification in Northeastern Thailand

Beginning in 2018, we have been implementing a project
with the intention of better understanding how agrarian
change has occurred over the last 20 years in six lowland

In this section and the following one, both verification systems in Thailand and Laos are described. Table 1 provides
their main characteristics.

1421

“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification…
Table 1  Summary Comparison of Product and Process-Based Verification
Type of Verification

FTS Process-Based Verification

IDP Product-Based Verification

Verification
Primary Exports
Classification of Rice
Emphasis

Regular monitoring
Europe and the USA
Organic and fair trade certified
More emphasis on strict organic, environment and labor

Values
Differences

Safe for environment and workers
Fully organic, no chemical fertilizers or pesticides

Product testing for residues
China
Marketed organic and primitive (yuan shengtai)
More emphasis on rice quality and lack of
chemical contamination
Safe for consumers
Small amounts of chemical fertilizers allowed
if not detectable through testing

The first organic verification system examined is the certification system that Food Tech Solutions Co., Ltd. (FTS),
owned by Bruno Fischer, a German national living in Thailand, and the company’s network of organic lowland rice
cultivators in Amnat Charoen Province. It adopts a processbased approach. Fischer had considerable experience with
European organic markets before establishing FTS in Amnat
Charoen over ten years ago. Because the company focuses
on exporting to Europe, it has adopted a certification system that follows the CERES Certification of Environmental
Standards GmbH (Germany), a European-American style
of organic certification system, what I call process-based
organic certification.
In 2014, FTS started working with a network of smallscale organic farmers in Amnat Charoen. FTS mills and
exports the organic rice that it buys from its network of
farmers, which have been organized as a cooperative. The
company also buys other organic rice outside of the network,
and exports rice to Europe and the United States. As of May
2021, there were reportedly 520–600 farming families in
FTS’s network, with 12,000 rai1 of rice fields. There are
eight extension people working for FTS to conduct inspections and otherwise support the farmers. FTS also continuously rents a medium-sized rice mill for milling organic rice
for export, so that it can ensure that only organic rice is
milled at its facility (Baird 2024). FTS exports about 5,000
metric tonnes of organic rice annually, much less than Laos
exports to China (see below).
According to one board member of the farmer network
in Amnat Charoen that sells organic rice to FTS, only about
30% of those farmers who join their network end up staying
with it, as many find it difficult to follow the required rules to
be certified as organic, something that has also been the case
in other parts of the world (DeLind 2000; Constance et al.
2008; Fouilleux and Laconto 2017). For example, farmers
sometimes have to build substantial bunds to separate their
fields from those of non-organic farmers. This can take a lot

of effort and money. Some do not like their farming operations being regularly scrutinized. However, FTS believes
that organic rice farmers actually produce higher yields than
farmers who use chemical fertilizers. Their detailed network
record indicates that organic farmers produce 360–500 kg/
rai, compared to about 290 kg/rai for non-organic farmers.2
The farmers receive some technical advice from others in the
network. It is possible that they have higher yields because
the most diligent and skillful farmers are the ones who have
become involved with the FTS network.
FTS’s CERES-certified approach can be considered a
process-based system, as compared to a product-based one.
Both are described below. The following is a description of
the process-based requirements of FTS in Amnat Charoen,
which has European Commission, NOP/USDA, and Fairtrade certification (FTS 2021):
First, farmers who are regular members of the cooperative, based on the Internal Control System Manual (FTS
2021), must abide by the following rules:
1) Farmers have to register all their agricultural lands and
crops, including the ones that they want to register as
organic and the crops that are not being registered as
organic.
2) The land and crops registered as organic must be monitored for three years (36 months) before it can be certified as organic.
3) Members are not permitted to cultivate both organic and
non-organic rice.
Once the area and crops to be certified organic have been
registered, farmers are required to abide by the following rules:
1) No agricultural chemicals, including chemical fertilizers,
herbicides, and pesticides are permitted.

1 rai = 1,600 m².

Nuwieng, organic farmers network board member, pers. comm.,
Amnat Charoen Province, May 2021; Bruno Fischer, pers. comm.,
Amnat Charoen Province, May 2021.

1422

2) If farmers want to use any agricultural inputs, they must
receive permission to do so, to ensure that only organic
products are applied.
3) Seed used should be organic. However, exceptions can
be approved in cases where organic seed is not available, but that seed cannot be coated with pesticides. No
genetically modified seeds are allowed.
4) No dried manure can be used. Compost that includes wet
manure is permitted, but it must be at least 90 days old for
rice. No manure from industrial animal factories can be used.
With regard to environmental management, farmers are:
1) Not permitted to burn garbage or waste in their fields.
2) Not permitted to cause deforestation to facilitate rice
cultivation.
3) It is encouraged, but not required, to cycle their crops
for soil health and crop production.
FTS also requires that bunds be built to separate land
adjacent to roads, and to only consider rice cultivated away
from roads to be organic.
In addition, farmers are required to do the following:
1) All agricultural equipment needs to be carefully cleaned
before use, to ensure that chemicals from elsewhere do
not contaminate certified rice.
2) Sacks used for storing and transferring rice must be
clean and clearly labeled.
3) Old chemical contaminated sacks cannot be used.
FTS also has marketing requirements:
1) Farmers must only sell rice to FTS.
2) Farmers are not allowed to the sell rice of others as theirs
or mix rice of other farmers with their rice and sell the
rice as their own.
Farmers who are members are also required to:
1) Document all their agriculture activities, including the
purchase of all inputs.
2) Document all agricultural sales.
With regards to society and labor issues, FTS (2021)
requires that:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Labor rights be maintained.
No labor discrimination be permitted.
People of all genders must be treated equally.
Equal wages must be provided for equal work.
Workplace health conditions are maintained to meet
standards.

I. G. Baird

6) No corruption occurs.
7) No forced labor be involved.
8) No prohibiting of labor to join labor organizations
occurs.
9) No Child labor be permitted, except for children laboring
on the fields of their own families.
Farmers in the cooperative must consent to monitoring
and inspection of their operations by FTS at least once a
year, and are required to attend at least one, preferably two,
training workshop each year. Internally, the network monitors member agricultural activities twice a year, when rice is
planted in around June and when it is harvested in approximately October. Farmers must all sign-off on all internal
reports. They are also required to consent to all types of
required inspections, including their facilities and all their
fields and crops (FTS 2021). There is no doubt that this type
of certification requires an onerous process, although farmers ultimately benefit by receiving higher prices.
The system divides all registered land up into five categories: (1) non-organic and certified crop farmland, (2) land
that has passed one year of transition to organic, (3) land that
has passed two years of transition to organic, (4) land that
has passed three or more years of transition to organic, and
thus is considered to be organic certified land, and (5) land
that had its status reduced due to one or more punishable
infractions (FTS 2021).
FTS (2021) clearly outlines the types of infractions that sometimes occur, and explains what punishments are associated with
each. For example, if a farmer mistakenly uses a non-permitted
agricultural product, such as a fertilizer that does not meet organic
standards, a warning is given. However, for more serious infractions, such as intentionally lying about using prohibited agricultural chemicals, members can be expelled permanently. Varying
degrees of importance are put on different violations, thus emphasizing the importance of values in determining practices. In addition, FTS (2021) clearly outlines how punishments may become
more severe after rules are violated two or three times.
Crucially, the FTS certification system, which is backed
up by CERES, an environmental certification organization
based in Germany, does not require any agricultural product testing to determine if there are inappropriate levels of
chemical residues on the rice. Certification is predicated on
registering, documenting and monitoring farm processes,
and is not focused on testing agriculture products.

“Safe” rice certification in Southern Laos
The circumstances in Savannakhet Province, southern Laos
are quite different compared to those in Amnat Charoen
Province, northeastern Thailand. The Indochina Development Partners Lao Ltd (IDP) is a Dutch-owned company

“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification…

that became established in southern Laos in 2015 with the
support of the Lao PDR government. It has come to be the
largest rice milling and exporting company in Laos. IDP
milled 110,000 tonnes per year in southern Laos between
2016 and 2018; and 150,000 tonnes from 2019 to 2021
(Baird et al. 2022: 284). The Lao PDR government has provided IDP with long-term rights over the land where its rice
mills have been established. The government has promoted
IDP in order to improve the quality and consistency of the
rice that it exports, and to make it easier to facilitate export.
IDP has extension workers who encourage the establishment of farmer groups, give agricultural advice to farmers,
and provide rice seeds to the groups and help to train farmers to cultivate their own improved varieties of rice.3 These
extension workers cooperate closely with Lao government
officials. They tend to promote the type of good agricultural
practices that NGOs and government officials in Southeast
Asia often support when they visit small-scale farmers,
such as composting and adding organic matter to rice fields.
However, these recommendations are not subject to formal
verification. According to the IDP website, “We are the leading producer and supplier of quality rice in Laos for both
the domestic and international market. We are committed to
the sustainable development of premium quality rice, both
organic and non-organic, and to preserving the unique features of Lao rice.”4
There are four IDP rice mills in southern Laos, two of
which are in Savannakhet Province. IDP has been promoting “safe” or “clean” rice (khao phote phai or khao sa-at
in Lao), which is not fully organic, but is grown with few
chemicals. A small amount of chemical fertilizer is permitted, if tested rice meets the requirements of China, or other
export markets. “Safe” or “clean” rice production is a level
below “organic”, where farmers can choose to use a small
amount of chemical fertilizer for cultivating rice (Baird et al.
2021).
The following demonstrates how credence attributes are
verified for “safe” or “clean” rice sold by IDP in Savannakhet is much more product-based than the process-based
certification system adopted by FTS in northeastern Thailand. Moreover, I demonstrate how “safe” or “clean” rice in
Savannakhet is being transformed to become “organic” and
more by Chinese marketers.
As outlined in Baird et al. (2022), the influence of the
Chinese market on rice cultivation in Laos has been—at least
in some ways—quite positive in relation to environmental

There has been a heavy loss of rice agrobiodiversity in both Laos
and Thailand, as improved rice varieties have largely replaced the
wide variety of indigenous rice seeds that were common up until the
last few decades (Baird et al. 2021, 2022).
lao-​ltd/, accessed March 18, 2023.

1423

impacts, as the Chinese have been buying larger quantities
of low chemical grown glutinous rice from Laos in recent
years. That is, the 2019 surveys indicate that farmers selling
to IDP are using much fewer chemicals than those operating in important rice growing areas in other countries in
mainland Southeast Asia, and farmers acknowledge that part
of the reason for this is that IDP demands certain standards. Indicative of the circumstances, China has increased
the amount of rice that it is importing from Laos, which
was expected to be 50,000 tonnes of polished rice in 2021
(Vientiane Times 2021a), more than ever before, and much
of this rice was sourced through IDP. Certainly China’s
desire to gain more political and economic influence over its
smaller neighbor, and the large amount of money that Laos
is indebted to China, are undoubtedly influencing its policy
regarding purchasing large amounts of rice from Laos.
According to an employee of IDP, the guaranteed minimum price paid for rice in 2021 was 2,200 kip/kg (US$0.24/
kg). In reality, however, IDP paid much higher prices in
2019–2020, between 3,900 and 4,050 kip/kg, depending on
the level of moisture of the rice. This makes it desirable for
peasant farmers to sell their rice to IDP.
Rice quality is crucial, and there are standards for different grades of rice, with IDP following the International Seed
Testing Association (2013)5 guidelines for monitoring and
testing rice for chemical residues. This differs considerably
from the system used by FTS, which does not do laboratory
testing on their rice. Other criteria are used to determine the
quality of rice. For IDP, 5A quality rice is the highest quality of organic rice, which is exported to Europe. 4A rice is
good quality rice too, and is exported to China. 3A1 and 3A2
quality rice are exported to Japan, South Korea and China,
and are marketed internally in Laos as high quality rice.
However, the standards for different categories of rice are
not directly related to environmental verification, but rather
other quality factors, such as color, moisture, quality of milling, number of broken grains, etc. Verification is achieved
based on lab testing for “safe” or “clean” rice, with importing nations, particularly China for rice imports, determining
what is permitted. These standards are supposed to be based
on quantitative measurements based on science, but in reality, they too are at least partially determined based on values
and credence attributes. For example, they emphasize the
importance of consumer’s health, with little consideration
of farmer health, something that the FTS system emphasizes more. IDP inspects the rice to determine the number
of rotten, black colored, broken or otherwise damaged rice
seeds, to ensure that quality standards are met. Still, IDP
extension workers clearly tell farmers that excessive use of

Note that this is a Switzerland-based non-government organization
(NGO).

1424

chemical fertilizers is not permitted, and that all pesticides
are prohibited, and farmers frequently acknowledge that this
significantly affects their farming practices. As one farmer
put it, “I don’t use pesticides, as the rice mill prohibits it.”
To ensure that the chemical content of exported rice meets
market demand, the rice is tested before being exported.
Levels of chemical fertilizers, shellfish and crab pesticides,
and herbicides are tested. Moreover, although they have a
lab at their Savannakhet mill, IDP typically only uses it for
examining rice size, moisture levels, color, etc. For chemical
analysis, they previously sent their rice to Thailand. They
test for epen, dicrotophos, cyproconazole, difenoconazole,
tebuconazole, thiacloprid, hydrogen phosphiids, and carbofuran. Essentially, tests are done for chemical contamination
and alfatoxins. However, during the height of the COVID19 pandemic, the border between Laos and Thailand was
closed, resulting in IDP sending rice to be tested and verified
by CCIC (Cambodia) Co.,6 a Chinese company with offices
in various countries. According to the company’s website,
CCIC “provides its clients with professional inspection services on goods being transported to China and other countries.”7 CCIC is now being used for all exports to China
and Europe, but rice exported to Vietnam is reportedly not
inspected.8
If higher than allowable levels of certain chemicals are
detected, IDP investigation to determine where the contaminated rice was grown, and rice from that village will not
be approved for export, and will not be further purchased
by IDP during that growing season. Human values related
to human health and environmental priorities are affecting
what is deemed acceptable, and what quantities are allowable. According to company rules, if the community wants
to work with IDP the following year, IDP checks the chemical levels of rice from the previously violating villages. If
levels do not exceed standards, IDP will start purchasing rice
from the village again, but at a price that is 500 kip (over
US$0.05) less per kilogram than what is normally paid, as a
penalty for violating chemical use policies during the previous year (see, also, Baird et al. 2022). IDP tests and punishes
at the community level for a few reasons. First, less testing is
required when village harvests can be assessed together. Second, it is believed that communities will self-enforce rules
with other members, if they believe it could jeopardize their
own rice marketing.
Crucially, accessing international rice markets is reliant
on meeting importer quality demands, and since 2015, Laos
has been exporting increasing amounts of organic rice to
China (Manivong and Cramb 2020; Vientiane Times 2021b,

I. G. Baird

c; Baird et al. 2021, 2022). This has influenced the Lao government to become increasingly supportive of low-chemical
rice production, as the government now realizes the necessity of doing so to meet market demand. Moreover, farmer
perceptions of the risk of chemicals on the environment and
farmer health is being reinforced by market factors and government policy shifts (see, also, Baird et al. 2021).
It is useful to understand the way that China is managing
the importation of rice from Laos, and how it is representing
this “safe” or “clean” rice to consumers in China. First, in
2014 the Chinese established the Xuanye Ecological Agriculture Development Company, based in Hunan Province,
China,9 to facilitate rice imports from Laos based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and People’s Republic of China.
Xuanye has a subsidiary in Laos called Land Lao Company.
Crucially, the rice is marketed in China using the term yuan
shengtai (原生态), which has a more expansive meaning than
just organic or youji (有机), and requires some explanation, as
it goes beyond simply organic, although it also encompasses
organic.10 It can be defined as “primitive” or “original” ecological, and is intended to mean that the product is “super pure”
with no contaminants. Oddly enough, the term yuan shengtai
is typically used to characterize agriculture products, but is
also sometimes applied to traditional music made by ethnic
minorities who are understood to live on the periphery, or in
the frontier. Therefore, geography is an important part of its
meaning. Hung (2013: 182) discussed a variation of the term,
shengtai chayuan, to mean “ecological tea gardens” in southern China. As Hung put it, “Ecological tea gardens represent
the “transitional” landscape between terrace tea gardens and
ancient tea forest.” In other words, its meaning is related to
organic, but goes beyond simply organic, and means somewhat
different things in various contexts. Thus, it is not easy to translate the term into English in an all-encompassing way. However, there is no doubt that it encompasses important consumer
values, ones affected by language and socio-cultural factors.
On Xuanye’s Chinese language website, the company claims
that the designation “preserves the most primitive ecological”,
which is indicated by productivity being low at just 150 kg/
mu11 or about 2,250 kg/hectare, which is in line with our 2019
survey findings regarding rice productivity in Savannakhet.
Interestingly, the company goes beyond simply defining the
part of Laos where the imported rice is grown in a particular
way, and broadly extends its geographical indication to cover
all of Laos, making the case to consumers that all the rice from
Laos meets these standards. For example, the company claims

Santi Piyadeth, pers. comm., Savannakhet Laos, February 5, 2023.
Santi Piyadeth, pers. comm., Savannakhet Laos, February 5, 2023.

2022.
10
This term is of relatively recent origin. It is used in mainland
China but in Taiwan.
11
1 mu = 666.5 square meters.

“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification…

that “there are no chemical factories in Laos” and that the rice
is grown far from factory contamination, that the country has
no chemical fertilizer, and that the rice is produced using zero
mechanical, zero chemicals, and zero fertilizer. The company
also boasts that the rice can be eaten without washing it. This
representation is clearly inaccurate. For example, when we
interviewed farmers in Savannakhet Province who sell their rice
to IDP, the vast majority claimed that they use a small amount
of chemical fertilizer on their rice fields. In addition, while 20
years ago most farmers in Savannakhet tilled their fields using
water buffaloes, the 2019 survey we conducted indicates that
the vast majority now use hand-held tractors (see, also, Baird
et al. 2021; Promkhambut et al. 2023). Therefore, the claim
that no chemical fertilizers or machinery is being used to produce the rice is inaccurate. What is crucial here is that while
the same sort of process-based certification conducted by the
FTS-linked cooperative is not used in Laos, Xuanye Company
makes it clear that the rice from Laos that it sells undergoes
chemical testing by the government of China, which seems to
be the ultimate way of confirming the company’s claims. It
is critical that there is chemical residue testing, and that this
testing is endorsed by the government of China. The way that
legitimation occurs is crucially important, and is based on the
market and the values and beliefs of consumers, and how this
happens in China differs considerably from how rice is labeled
and marketed in Europe and the United States. There is some
testing for chemical residues required by countries in Europe
and in United States, but the process-based certification is crucial for marketing organic rice.
While this particular case is specific to Laos, due to a
range of factors unique to Laos and related to history, geography, environmental conditions, wealth, and other factors,
these findings are nonetheless also relevant for thinking about
a range of environmental verification approaches. This relates
to certifying based on Geographical Location, when particular geographical, historical, or other factors also come into
play. In Cambodia, for example, pepper from Kampot Province has been able to penetrate a niche market in France,
due to credence attributed related to French colonial history
in Cambodia. In Thailand, Geographical Location for Lava
Durians in Sisaket Province is particularly related to the volcanic soils in the area, which are understood to result in an
exceptional product, but it also has to do with the geographical location of Sisaket Province. There are typically a number
of intertwined factors involved, as is the case for rice in Laos.

Different approaches, different
nature‑society relations
The vast differences between more process-based approaches
and more product-based approaches outlined here deserve
more attention, as these differences have important economic

1425

as well as social and environmental implications. I have
demonstrated the fundamental differences between the two
approaches to “organic” or “safe”/”clean” or yuan shengtai
rice verification in northeastern Thailand and southern Laos,
and also the different ways that rice is being represented in
markets, based on the perceived values of consumers.
As summarized earlier, in Table 1, the process-based
organic rice certification system used by FTS is adapted for
Europe and the United States. More importantly, it is linked
to the preferences and understandings of consumers in those
countries, including regarding nature-society relations, and
what is tolerable and desirable to them. On the other hand,
the product-based certification system adopted by IDP in Laos
for the market in China are fundamentally different, relying
more on testing, and since the development of these verification systems have essentially been outsourced from Thailand
and Laos to other parts of the world to meet market demand.
These structures are crucial for shaping the environments and
the farming systems that they are intended to verify. Based on
a holistic approach, the system does not only or even primarily emphasize consumer health, but is also directed at farmer
health, through not allowing the use of any agricultural chemicals that might harm farmers’ health, a broad interest topic in
labor rights and gender equality, and especially on reducing
environmental impacts through not allowing the use of dangerous agriculture chemicals, mainly pesticides and herbicides. This difference, at its core, is based on divergent values,
as well as the different goals of consumers.
The product-based environmental certification system
used by IDP in southern Laos has been developed more to
satisfy the China market, as well as other markets, such as
those in South Korean and Japan. In that this system relies
more on product laboratory testing for chemical residues
than process-based verification, it takes a fundamentally
different approach than process-based certification. Indeed,
product-based verification is more focused on consumer
health as compared to farmer or environmental health, as
what counts are the residues on the rice exported, not actually whether any chemical fertilizer was used during farming
or not. Since it is impossible to verify many credence attributes based on laboratory testing alone, the product-based
approach is more limited than the process-based approach.
However, product-based verification can still be useful for
specific issues, and for IDP, it is linked with verbal messages
being conveyed to farmers by extension workers. These are
not, however, the only options. For example, DNA testing
has been successfully used to verify mislabeled fish species
exported to particular markets, after it was determined that a
large amount of mislabeling was occurring (Feldmann et al.
2021). This can also be seen as a type of product verification, and there are other options as well. For example, geographical location can be verified, with assumptions being
made about products based on where they come from.

1426

However, one downside of both systems of verification
described above is that there are no requirements to cultivate indigenous seed varieties. Rice agrobiodiversity has
thus declined significantly, but with less chemicals being
used (Baird et al. 2022). This is because consumers have not
prioritized this credence value.
It is also worth considering what restrictions are reasonable and fair. For example, FTS requires that farmers sell
them all their rice. They also require detailed farm documentation and monitoring and full disclose about all agricultural
activities, something that some farmers find tedious. Many
may not like it, but some are still willing to go along with
it because they feel that it is worth the premium price they
receive for their rice. One question is, to what extent should
farmers be restricted in what could be argued are rather
neo-colonial ways, through the market, and to what extent
should farmers be allowed to make their own decisions?
There are no easy answers, but privacy issues and the extra
work involved has certainly resulted in some farmers not
participating in certified organic farming, as the FTS board
member’s earlier comments make clear.
The ways that these products are represented to and
legitimated for consumers, based on consumer values, is
clearly crucial and significantly different. For the European
and US markets, it is important that no chemicals of any
type are used, and a process-based approach is utilized to
verify this in order to legitimate the product for consumers. In China, the rice is represented as being cultivated
in a primitive way, without the use of any machinery or
chemicals, but is legitimated to consumers through the way
it is characterized, and lab testing. The testing conducted
for chemical residues is done for the government of China
more than for consumers, but reaffirms other marketing
claims. The way in which Laos is represented as primitive and without using of chemicals or machinery, as yuan
shengtai, despite such claims being imaginary, fits well
with Paige West’s (2012) work on Papua New Guinea coffee, and how it is marketed as “specialty coffee” in international markets. In this case, it is clear that the IDP testing is
not being communicated to Chinese consumers, as admitting to them that such testing is needed would presume that
Laos is not as yuan shengtai as advertised.
Crucially, the value systems and priorities that have led
to these two fundamentally different types of certification
systems and processes of legitimation are fundamentally
important, and are at the center of the differences already
described, and these differences, and the implications of these
differences, should be recognized for their critical differences.
The respective values of divergent groups of consumers have
influenced both systems, but ultimately these two systems also
affect consumer values in a dialectic way. This plays out in
different contexts and in various ways around the world.

I. G. Baird

Conclusions
Much of the literature regarding organic certification has
focused on the United States and Europe, and how the introduction of national organic certification standards has led to the
conventionalization and bifurcation of organic farming (DeLind
2000; Constance et al. 2008; Fouilleux and Loconto 2017). The
literature has also considered the decision-making processes
farmers have gone through to decide on whether to seek out
environmental certification or not (Dabbert et al. 2014), as well
as the unintended consequences of national certification standards (Guthman 2004b). This paper, however, moves away from
the national contexts of the United States and Europe, and considers how rice-exporting countries in mainland Southeast Asia
are utilizing quite different forms of environmental verification,
including certification, to gain market access, and how these
systems significantly vary based on consumer values.
It is evident that environmental verification, including certification, can lead to significant changes in farming practices, for better or for worse. This is clear from our
fieldwork in Laos and Thailand, including discussions with
farmers. Unlike other research on environmental certification, this paper particularly considers two options, each of
which relies on fundamentally different types of environmental verification approaches, one process-based and the
other product-based. Indeed, these are fundamentally different approaches to thinking about environmental verification.
Illustrative of this, in northeastern Thailand, FTSs’ certification process is based on farmer documentation, regular
inspections of all aspects of farming, interviews and training. Extension workers interact closely with farmers, helping
them improve their practices when they unintentionally make
less serious mistakes. Rather than relying on lab-based product testing, inspectors confirm that the agricultural system is
really organic, regardless of whether the rice tests positive for
chemical residues or not. Farmers must change their practices
as well, such as building dirt bunds between fields when a field
is adjacent to a cement road. The rice produced in the field
adjacent to the road can be locally consumed, but it cannot be
sold as certified organic. However, rice produced in the field
farther away can be sold as organic, regardless of whether lab
testing would find chemical residues on the rice adjacent to the
road or not. Inspection and trust are key to gaining credibility
in this system.
On the contrary, in Laos IDP requires no pesticide or herbicide use, but because they use a product-based system, lab
testing is critical for determining if the rice being exported
meets standards or not. Inspections and farmer documentation
are much less important factor. This results in most farmers
using small amounts of chemical fertilizers, something strictly
prohibited for process-based certified rice farmers in northeastern Thailand, but allowed for the IDP product-based system in

“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification…

southern Laos, because if small amounts of chemical fertilizers
are used early on in the growing season, the chemical residues
cannot be found through standard laboratory testing.
Ultimately, these two fundamentally different approaches
to environmental verification variously structure rice farming in northeastern Thailand and southern Laos differently.
The rules are different, as is the approach and emphasis of
each verification system. Do we value following a certain
process, or do we trust lab testing more? What about other
claims? How do we evaluate success, and what approaches
gives us confidence that everything is being done correctly?
One might suggest that testing is the best way empirically to
determine how much chemical contamination there is, but
it appears that farmers following process-based certification
are less likely to use any agricultural chemicals as compared
to those following the product-based approach in southern
Laos, which is an interesting paradox. The product-based
approach essentially allows for some chemical fertilizer use,
provided that it cannot be detected through testing, while
certification in Thailand requires that no chemicals be used.
One limitation with testing is that not everything can be
detected through end-product testing. Some credence values cannot be verified in this way, especially ones related
to values, such as fair trade and labor-related values, but
also some environmental ones as well. Crucially, in Thailand
farmers selling to FTS appear to use less chemicals because
there is less tolerance to any chemical fertilizer than there
is in Laos, and the premium price that they receive seems
to be sufficient to encourage many to participate, although
certainly not all or even most farmers.
Both systems for verifying rice discussed in this paper
involve the values of consumers in different countries,
either to China in the case of rice from Laos, or Europe
or the United States when it comes to rice from Thailand.
While these verification systems, including certification,
provide farmers with access to important markets and
increased prices, they also structure farming and naturesociety relations in ways that the farmers and governments
involved may not always support. It can shift priorities
and levels of tolerance. As Baird and Quastel (2011) and
Vandergeest and Unno (2012) suggested, when writing
about tuna dolphin certification and eco-certification for
aquaculture-raised shrimp in Thailand respectively, ecocertification systems developed in powerful importing
countries and applied in food producing countries are a
new way of unleashing extraterritorial power that some
even equate with colonialism and neo-colonialism. Indeed,
this is part of the reason why the government of Thailand
has adopted its own system for environmentally certifying rice produced in Thailand, what Baird (2024) calls
“certification nationalism”. The government of Thailand
supported using locally developed certification standards

1427

to make it easier for farmers to transition to organic farming. Does this constitute the imposition of environmental
standards, some of which are quite value-laden, or is it a
way to make sustainable farming more achievable, and
help give small-scale farmers with access to markets? It
depends on one’s perspective. However, one thing that
this paper makes clear is that environmental verification
is done in fundamentally different ways around the world,
and that these differences matter. There are not just the
two systems presented here, other differences should be
expected based on a range of different values across societies and space. In Laos, people are still transplanting rice
rather than broadcasting, as they are not allowed to use
the herbicides often used with broadcasting rice. In Thailand, on the other hand, organic certification is positively
impacting rice field ecosystems, since no chemicals of
any type are allowed. These types of changes, or lack of
them, have everything to do with consumer values, naturesociety relations, and how verification systems operate.
In addition, how much does this study tell us about the
particular way that Laos is imagined and marketed as yuan
shengtai in China, and how much can it tell us about process and product-based environmental verification systems,
and their differences? On the one hand, it is certainly true
that Laos’ particular history with China is an important part
of the way that the Chinese imagine and market rice from
Laos. The details of histories are often important. However,
this paper also contributes to increasing our understandings
about how quite different types of environmental verification systems can lead to differences in the rules that govern
how rice farming is conducted, and thus impact on actual
farming practices and understandings about nature-society
relations. There are other factors that need to be considered,
but there is no doubt that the structures of system have real
implications. We need to think carefully about how values
and verification systems are intertwined. I hope that this
paper has helped to do that.
Finally, this paper demonstrates that both process-based
and product-based forms of environmental verification have
the potential to result in significant changes in the way different types of farming is conducted. However, one is not
necessarily better than the other, as there is always some
potential for abuses and violations, and ultimately the values
that people hold will indicate how they assess the priorities
embedded in the rules made and the systems adopted for
verifying compliance.
Acknowledgements The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funded the fieldwork conducted via grant No.
80nssc18k0287 to the East–West Center in Hawaii, in Honolulu, and a
sub-grant to the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Jefferson Fox is the
PI for the project. Thank you to Sirisak Gaja-Svasti and Santi Piyadeth
for supporting the fieldwork, and to Kanokwan Manorom for institutional support from Ubon Ratchathani University. Annie Shattuck

1428
provided some useful comments about different types of certification,
and Po-Tao Chang helped with some of the Chinese material. This
paper was initially presented at symposium organized on March 15,
2022 by Sophia University in Japan, titled “Environmental Offshoring:
Implications for East Asia’s Regionalization and Sustainable Development”. Thanks to the organizers, Takeshi Ito and Carl Middleton, for
inviting me to participate, and to Paul Gellert for his insightful discussant comments. Of course, without the cooperation of all the people
interviewed, this research would not have been successful.

References
Amekawa, Y. 2010. Rethinking sustainable agriculture in Thailand:
A governance perspective. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34
(4): 389–416.
Baird, Ian G. 2024. Going organic: Challenges for government-supported organic rice promotion and certification nationalism in
Thailand. World Development 173: 106421.
Baird, Ian G., and Noah Quastel. 2011. Dolphin-safe tuna from California to Thailand: Localisms in environmental certification of
global commodity networks. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (2): 337–355.
Baird, Ian G., Santi Piyadeth, and Chaleunsouk Ninhchaluene. 2021.
Risk perception and lowland rice farming change in Savannakhet
Province, southern Laos. European Journal of East Asian Studies 20: 27–56.
Baird, Ian G., Kanokwan Manorom, Santi Piyadeth, Sirisak GajaSvasti, and Chaleunsouk Ninhchaluene. 2022. Labour, mechanization, market integration and government policy: Agrarian change
and lowland rice cultivation in northeastern Thailand and southern
Laos. Journal of Agrarian Change 22: 278–298.
Bartley, Tim. 2018. Rules without rights: Land, Labor, and Private Authority in the Global Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bartley, Tim. 2010. Transnational private regulation in practice: The
limits of forest and labor standards certification in Indonesia.
Business and Politics 12 (3): 1–34.
Becchetti, Leonardo, Pierluigi Conzo, and Giuseppina Gianfreda. 2011.
Market access, organic farming and productivity: The effects of
fair trade affiliation on Thai farmer producer groups. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 56: 117–140.
Chayes, A., and A.H. Chayes. 1995. The new sovereignty: Compliance
with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Chouichom, S., and M. Yamao. 2010. Comparing opinions and attitudes of organic and non-organic farmers towards organic rice
system in North-eastern Thailand. J. Org. Syst. 5 (1): 15–25.
Constance, D.H., J.Y. Choi, and H. Lyke-Ho-Gland. 2008. Conventionalization, bifurcation, and quality of life: Certified and noncertified organic farmers in Texas. Southern Rural Sociology 23
(1): 208–234.
Dabbert, S., C. Lippert, and A. Zorn. 2014. Introduction to the special section on organic certification systems: Policy issues and
research topics. Food Policy 49: 425–428. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​foodp​ol.​2014.​05.​009.
DeLind, L.B. 2000. Transforming organic agriculture into industrial
organic products: Reconsidering national organic standards.
Human Organization 59 (2): 198–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17730/​
humo.​59.2.​hm826​36786​87n536.
Durst, P.B., P.J. McKenzie, C. Brown, and S. Appanah. 2006. Challenges facing certification and eco-labeling of forest products
in developing countries. International Forestry Review 8 (2):
193–200.

I. G. Baird
Eden, S., and C. Bear. 2010. Third sector global environmental governance, space, and science: Comparing fishery and forestry certification. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 12 (1): 83–106.
Feldmann, Frederik, Alba Ardura, Carmen Blanco-Fernandez, and Eva
Garcia-Vazquez. 2021. DNA analysis detects different mislabeling
trend by country in European cod fillets. Foods 10 (7): 1515.
Food Tech Solutions Organic Amnatcharoen (FTS). 2021. Internal
Control System Manual, Organic Agriculture Europe and the
United States. Amnat Charoen, Thailand.
Fouilleux, E., and A. Loconto. 2017. Voluntary standards, certification, and accreditation in the global organic agriculture field: A
tripartite model of techno-politics. Agriculture and Human Values
34: 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10460-​016-​9686-3.
Fukui, H., N. Chumphon, and K. Hoshikawa. 2000. Evolution of
rainfed-rice cultivation in Northeast Thailand: Increase production with decrease stability. Global Environmental Research 2:
145–154.
Goddard, Ellen W., Jill E. Hobbs, Brian G. Innes, Patrycja E.
Romanowka, and Adrian D. Uzea. 2013. Risk perceptions and
preferences for ethical and safety credence attributes. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 390–396. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1093/​ajae/​aas108.
Grandstaff, T.B., S. Grandstaff, V. Limpinuntana, and N. Supanchaimat. 2008. Rainfed revolution in Northeast Thailand. Japanese
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 46: 289–376.
Guthman, J. 2004a. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming
in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Guthman, J. 2004b. Back to the land: The paradox of organic food
standards. Environment and Planning A 36: 511–528. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1068/​a36104.
Hérique, O. 2019. National Program for Organic Rice Farming in
Thailand: To what extent the program strengths the organic agricultural sector. Master’s thesis, Faculty of Geography – Territory
Development, Le Mans, France.
Hung, Po.-Yi. 2013. Tea forest in the making: Tea production and the
ambiguity of modernity on China’s southwest frontier. Geoforum
47: 178–188.
Jahn, Gabriele, Matthias Schramm, Achim Spiller. No Date. Differentiation of certification standards: The trade-off between generality
and effectiveness in certification systems (unpublished paper).
Jitwawang, Pacharee, and Donyaprueth Krairit. 2019. Factors influencing purchase intention of organic rice in Thailand. Journal of
Food Products Marketing 25 (8): 805–828.
Kaiser, Harry M. 2009. Special issue on promotion through consumer
information on food product credence attributes. Agricultural and
Resource Economics Review 38 (3): iv–vi.
Kantamaturapoj, K., and A. Marshall. 2020. Providing organic food to
urban consumers: Case studies of supermarkets in Bangkok and
metropolitan area. Heliyon 6: e04003.
Khunsong, P.T. and G. Peck. 2019. Thailand bans use of paraquat and
other toxic farm chemicals. Associated Press, October 22.
Kim, Renee B. 2012. Determinants of brand equity for credence goods:
Consumers’ preference for country origin, perceived value and
food safety. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic) 58 (7):
299–307.
Klinger, S., K.M. Bayne, R.T. Yao, and T. Payn. 2022. Credence attributes in the forestry sector and the role of environmental, social
and governance (ESG) factors. Forests 13: 432. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​3390/​f1303​0432.
Konchan, S., and Y. Kono. 1996. Spread of direct seeded lowland rice
in Northeast Thailand: Farmers’ adaptation to economic growth.
Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 33: 523–546.
Kumar, V., and J.K. Ladha. 2011. Direct seeding of rice: Recent
developments and future research needs. Advances in Agronomy
111: 297–313.

“Organic” rice: different implications from process and product environmental verification…
Lee, Hyun-Joo., and Jiyoung Hwang. 2016. The driving role of consumers’ perceived credence attributes in organic food purchase
decisions: A comparison of two groups of consumers. Food
Quality and Preference 54: 141–151.
Lee, Ji Yong, Noppawong Pavasopon, Orachos Napasintuwong, and
Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. 2020. Consumers’ valuation of geographical indication-labeled food: The Case of Hom Mali Rice in
Bangkok. Asian Economics Journal 34 (1): 79–96.
Maesano, Giulia, Giuseppe Di Vita, Gaetano Chinnici, Gioacchino Pappalardo, and Mario D’Amico. 2020. The role of credence attributes
in consumer choices of sustainable fish products: A review. Sustainability 12: 10008. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su122​310008.
Manivong, Vongpaphane, and Rob Cramb. 2020. From subsistence
to commercial rice production in Laos. In White gold: The commercialisation of rice farming in the Lower Mekong Basin, ed.
Rob Cramb, 103–119. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mastny, L. 2003. Purchasing power. Washington DC: The Worldwatch Institute, Worldwatch Paper 166.
McCarthy, Brenda L. 2015. Trends in organic and green food consumption in China: Opportunities and challenges for regional
Australian exporters. Journal of Economic and Social Policy
17 (1): 6–31.
Mutersbaugh, T. 2004. Serve and certify: Paradoxes of service work
in organic-coffee certification. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 22: 533–552.
Nie, Zihan, Nico Heernk, Tu. Qin, and Shuqin Jin. 2018. Does certified food production reduce agrochemical use in China? China
Agricultural Economic Review 10 (3): 386–405.
Oya, C., F. Schaefer, D. Skalidou, C. McCosker, and L. Langer.
2017. Effects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes in low-and middle-income
countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews
13 (1): 1–346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4073/​csr.​2017.3.
Pandey, S., N. Suphanchaimart, and L. Velesco. 2012. The patterns
of spread and economics of a labor-saving innovation in rice
production: The case of direct seeding in Northeast Thailand.
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 51: 333–356.
Phiboon K., and N. Faysse. 2019. ‘Small-scale farmers’ involvement
in four types of organic certification schemes for the domestic
market in Thailand. Nida Development Journal 59 (1): 1–17.
Promkhambut, Arunee, Phanwin Yokying, Kevin Woods, Yong Ming
Li, Kanokwan Manorom, Ian G. Baird, and Jefferson Fox. 2023.
Rethinking agrarian transition through rice farming in Thailand.
World Development 169: 106309.
Pimmata, Ounkham. 2018. Organic cultivation growth of six percent
pursued. Vientiane Times, October 3.
Rambo, A.T. 2017. The agrarian transformation in Northeastern
Thailand: A review of recent research. Southeast Asian Studies
6: 211–245.
Roitner-Schobesberger, B.I.D., S. Somsook, and C.R. Vogl. 2008.
Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand.
Food Policy 33: 112–121.
Sangkumchaliang, P., and W.-C. Huang. 2012. Consumer’s perceptions and attitudes of organic food products in Northern Thailand. The International Food and Agribusiness Management
15 (1): 87–102.
Setboonsarng, S., P. Leung, and J. Cai. 2006. Contract farming and
poverty reduction: The case of organic rice contract farming
in Thailand. ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 49. Manila:
Asian Development Bank.
Shattuck, A. 2021. Toxic uncertainties and epistemic emergence:
Understanding pesticides and health in Lao PDR. Annals of the
American Association of Geographers 111 (1): 216–230.
Sheldon, Ian M. 2017. Certification mechanisms for credence attributes of foods: Does it matter who provides diagnosis? Annual
Review of Resource Economics 9: 33–51.

1429

Siegmann, K.A. 2022. Harvesting consent: South Asian tea plantation workers’ experience of Fairtrade certification. The Journal of Peasant Studies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03066​150.​2022.​
20600​80.
Tanakasempipat, P. 2020. Thailand's chemical pesticide ban troubles
farmers, industries. Reuters, June 1.
Tayleur, Catherine, Andrew Balmford, Graeme M. Buchanan, Stuart
H.M.. Butchart, Christine Corlet Walker, Heather Ducharme,
Rhys E. Green, Jeffrey C. Milder, Fiona J. Sanderson, David
H.L.. Thomas, Lukasz Tracewski, Juliet Vickery, and Ben Phalan. 2018. Where are commodity crops certified, and what does
it mean for conservation and poverty alleviation? Biological
Conservation 217: 36–46.
Vandergeest, P. 2007. Certification and communities: Alternatives
for regulating the environmental and social impacts of shrimp
farming. World Development 35 (7): 1152–1170.
Vandergeest, P. 2009. Opening the green box: How organic became
the standard for alternative agriculture in Thailand. Prepared for
the Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Berkeley,
CA, 17 April.
Vandergeest, Peter, and Anusorn Unno. 2012. A new extraterritoriality? Aquaculture certification, sovereignty, and empire. Political
Geography 31 (6): 358–367.
Vientiane Times. 2018. China, Singapore cultivating local farmer
support to grow chemical-free rice, 23 April.
Vientiane Times. 2019. Vinamilk, Lao–Jagro partner in organic dairy
farm and resort, 28 May.
Vientiane Times. 2021a. Laos shifts rice market to China. 26
February.
Vientiane Times. 2021b. Lao and Chinese firms cooperate trade agriculture products to boost trade revenue, 5 May.
Vientiane Times. 2021c. Laos to negotiate export of more agricultural products to China, 31 May.
Vientiane Times. 2021d. Woman reveals benefits of organic farming. 6 June.
Waldman, Kurt B., and John M. Kerr. 2014. Limitations of certification and supply chain standards for environmental protection in
commodity crop production. Annual Review of Resource Economics 6: 429–449.
Watanabe, K. 2017. Improvement in rainfed rice production during
an era of rapid national economic growth: A case study of a village in Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies 6: 293–306.
West, Paige. 2012. From modern production to imagined primitive:
The social world of coffee from Papua New Guinea. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Yamyim, Weeranuch, Chusak Wittayapak, Prasit Leepreecha, and
Charin Mangkhang. 2020. Indigenous rice: The construction of
peasant identities base on cultural ecology. Malaysian Journal
of Society and Space 16 (3): 14–25.
Yang, Wei and Alan Renwick. 2019. Consumer willingness to pay
price premiums for credence attributes of livestock products
– a meta-analysis. Journal of Agriculture Economics 70 (3):
618–639.
Yang, Wei, Alan Renwick, Waranan Tantiwat, Cesar Revored-Giha,
and Wu. Dafeng. 2021. Food product launch and positioning in
China—Do claims of credence attributes matter? Agribusiness
37: 915–926.
Zezza, Annalisa, Federica Demaria, Tiziana Laureti, and Luca Secondi.
2020. Supervising third-party control bodies for certification: the
case of organic farming in Italy. Agricultural Food Economics 8
(26): 1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40100-​020-​00171-3
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1430
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.

I. G. Baird
Ian G. Baird is a Professor of Geography and Southeast Asian Studies at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He works on a variety of topics
related to nature-society relation. He conducts most of his research in
Laos, Thailand and Cambodia, where he is been working and conducting research since 1990.
References (72)
Amekawa, Y. 2010. Rethinking sustainable agriculture in Thailand: A governance perspective. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34 (4): 389-416.
Baird, Ian G. 2024. Going organic: Challenges for government-sup- ported organic rice promotion and certification nationalism in Thailand. World Development 173: 106421.
Baird, Ian G., and Noah Quastel. 2011. Dolphin-safe tuna from Cali- fornia to Thailand: Localisms in environmental certification of global commodity networks. Annals of the Association of Ameri- can Geographers 101 (2): 337-355.
Baird, Ian G., Santi Piyadeth, and Chaleunsouk Ninhchaluene. 2021. Risk perception and lowland rice farming change in Savannakhet Province, southern Laos. European Journal of East Asian Stud- ies 20: 27-56.
Baird, Ian G., Kanokwan Manorom, Santi Piyadeth, Sirisak Gaja- Svasti, and Chaleunsouk Ninhchaluene. 2022. Labour, mechaniza- tion, market integration and government policy: Agrarian change and lowland rice cultivation in northeastern Thailand and southern Laos. Journal of Agrarian Change 22: 278-298.
Bartley, Tim. 2018. Rules without rights: Land, Labor, and Private Author- ity in the Global Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bartley, Tim. 2010. Transnational private regulation in practice: The limits of forest and labor standards certification in Indonesia. Business and Politics 12 (3): 1-34.
Becchetti, Leonardo, Pierluigi Conzo, and Giuseppina Gianfreda. 2011. Market access, organic farming and productivity: The effects of fair trade affiliation on Thai farmer producer groups. The Austral- ian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 56: 117-140.
Chayes, A., and A.H. Chayes. 1995. The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chouichom, S., and M. Yamao. 2010. Comparing opinions and atti- tudes of organic and non-organic farmers towards organic rice system in North-eastern Thailand. J. Org. Syst. 5 (1): 15-25.
Constance, D.H., J.Y. Choi, and H. Lyke-Ho-Gland. 2008. Conven- tionalization, bifurcation, and quality of life: Certified and non- certified organic farmers in Texas. Southern Rural Sociology 23 (1): 208-234.
Dabbert, S., C. Lippert, and A. Zorn. 2014. Introduction to the spe- cial section on organic certification systems: Policy issues and research topics. Food Policy 49: 425-428. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2014. 05. 009.
DeLind, L.B. 2000. Transforming organic agriculture into industrial organic products: Reconsidering national organic standards. Human Organization 59 (2): 198-208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17730/ humo. 59.2. hm826 36786 87n536.
Durst, P.B., P.J. McKenzie, C. Brown, and S. Appanah. 2006. Chal- lenges facing certification and eco-labeling of forest products in developing countries. International Forestry Review 8 (2): 193-200.
Eden, S., and C. Bear. 2010. Third sector global environmental govern- ance, space, and science: Comparing fishery and forestry certifica- tion. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 12 (1): 83-106.
Feldmann, Frederik, Alba Ardura, Carmen Blanco-Fernandez, and Eva Garcia-Vazquez. 2021. DNA analysis detects different mislabeling trend by country in European cod fillets. Foods 10 (7): 1515.
Food Tech Solutions Organic Amnatcharoen (FTS). 2021. Internal Control System Manual, Organic Agriculture Europe and the United States. Amnat Charoen, Thailand.
Fouilleux, E., and A. Loconto. 2017. Voluntary standards, certifica- tion, and accreditation in the global organic agriculture field: A tripartite model of techno-politics. Agriculture and Human Values 34: 1-14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10460-016-9686-3.
Fukui, H., N. Chumphon, and K. Hoshikawa. 2000. Evolution of rainfed-rice cultivation in Northeast Thailand: Increase produc- tion with decrease stability. Global Environmental Research 2: 145-154.
Goddard, Ellen W., Jill E. Hobbs, Brian G. Innes, Patrycja E. Romanowka, and Adrian D. Uzea. 2013. Risk perceptions and preferences for ethical and safety credence attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 390-396. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ ajae/ aas108.
Grandstaff, T.B., S. Grandstaff, V. Limpinuntana, and N. Supanchai- mat. 2008. Rainfed revolution in Northeast Thailand. Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 46: 289-376.
Guthman, J. 2004a. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Guthman, J. 2004b. Back to the land: The paradox of organic food standards. Environment and Planning A 36: 511-528. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1068/ a36104.
Hérique, O. 2019. National Program for Organic Rice Farming in Thailand: To what extent the program strengths the organic agri- cultural sector. Master's thesis, Faculty of Geography -Territory Development, Le Mans, France.
Hung, Po.-Yi. 2013. Tea forest in the making: Tea production and the ambiguity of modernity on China's southwest frontier. Geoforum 47: 178-188.
Jahn, Gabriele, Matthias Schramm, Achim Spiller. No Date. Differen- tiation of certification standards: The trade-off between generality and effectiveness in certification systems (unpublished paper).
Jitwawang, Pacharee, and Donyaprueth Krairit. 2019. Factors influ- encing purchase intention of organic rice in Thailand. Journal of Food Products Marketing 25 (8): 805-828.
Kaiser, Harry M. 2009. Special issue on promotion through consumer information on food product credence attributes. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38 (3): iv-vi.
Kantamaturapoj, K., and A. Marshall. 2020. Providing organic food to urban consumers: Case studies of supermarkets in Bangkok and metropolitan area. Heliyon 6: e04003.
Khunsong, P.T. and G. Peck. 2019. Thailand bans use of paraquat and other toxic farm chemicals. Associated Press, October 22.
Kim, Renee B. 2012. Determinants of brand equity for credence goods: Consumers' preference for country origin, perceived value and food safety. Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic) 58 (7): 299-307.
Klinger, S., K.M. Bayne, R.T. Yao, and T. Payn. 2022. Credence attrib- utes in the forestry sector and the role of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. Forests 13: 432. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ f1303 0432.
Konchan, S., and Y. Kono. 1996. Spread of direct seeded lowland rice in Northeast Thailand: Farmers' adaptation to economic growth. Japanese Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 33: 523-546.
Kumar, V., and J.K. Ladha. 2011. Direct seeding of rice: Recent developments and future research needs. Advances in Agronomy 111: 297-313.
Lee, Hyun-Joo., and Jiyoung Hwang. 2016. The driving role of con- sumers' perceived credence attributes in organic food purchase decisions: A comparison of two groups of consumers. Food Quality and Preference 54: 141-151.
Lee, Ji Yong, Noppawong Pavasopon, Orachos Napasintuwong, and Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. 2020. Consumers' valuation of geograph- ical indication-labeled food: The Case of Hom Mali Rice in Bangkok. Asian Economics Journal 34 (1): 79-96.
Maesano, Giulia, Giuseppe Di Vita, Gaetano Chinnici, Gioacchino Pap- palardo, and Mario D'Amico. 2020. The role of credence attributes in consumer choices of sustainable fish products: A review. Sus- tainability 12: 10008. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su122 310008.
Manivong, Vongpaphane, and Rob Cramb. 2020. From subsistence to commercial rice production in Laos. In White gold: The com- mercialisation of rice farming in the Lower Mekong Basin, ed. Rob Cramb, 103-119. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mastny, L. 2003. Purchasing power. Washington DC: The World- watch Institute, Worldwatch Paper 166.
McCarthy, Brenda L. 2015. Trends in organic and green food con- sumption in China: Opportunities and challenges for regional Australian exporters. Journal of Economic and Social Policy 17 (1): 6-31.
Mutersbaugh, T. 2004. Serve and certify: Paradoxes of service work in organic-coffee certification. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: 533-552.
Nie, Zihan, Nico Heernk, Tu. Qin, and Shuqin Jin. 2018. Does certi- fied food production reduce agrochemical use in China? China Agricultural Economic Review 10 (3): 386-405.
Oya, C., F. Schaefer, D. Skalidou, C. McCosker, and L. Langer. 2017. Effects of certification schemes for agricultural produc- tion on socio-economic outcomes in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 13 (1): 1-346. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4073/ csr. 2017.3.
Pandey, S., N. Suphanchaimart, and L. Velesco. 2012. The patterns of spread and economics of a labor-saving innovation in rice production: The case of direct seeding in Northeast Thailand. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 51: 333-356.
Phiboon K., and N. Faysse. 2019. 'Small-scale farmers' involvement in four types of organic certification schemes for the domestic market in Thailand. Nida Development Journal 59 (1): 1-17.
Promkhambut, Arunee, Phanwin Yokying, Kevin Woods, Yong Ming Li, Kanokwan Manorom, Ian G. Baird, and Jefferson Fox. 2023. Rethinking agrarian transition through rice farming in Thailand. World Development 169: 106309.
Pimmata, Ounkham. 2018. Organic cultivation growth of six percent pursued. Vientiane Times, October 3.
Rambo, A.T. 2017. The agrarian transformation in Northeastern Thailand: A review of recent research. Southeast Asian Studies 6: 211-245.
Roitner-Schobesberger, B.I.D., S. Somsook, and C.R. Vogl. 2008. Consumer perceptions of organic foods in Bangkok, Thailand. Food Policy 33: 112-121.
Sangkumchaliang, P., and W.-C. Huang. 2012. Consumer's percep- tions and attitudes of organic food products in Northern Thai- land. The International Food and Agribusiness Management 15 (1): 87-102.
Setboonsarng, S., P. Leung, and J. Cai. 2006. Contract farming and poverty reduction: The case of organic rice contract farming in Thailand. ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 49. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Shattuck, A. 2021. Toxic uncertainties and epistemic emergence: Understanding pesticides and health in Lao PDR. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (1): 216-230.
Sheldon, Ian M. 2017. Certification mechanisms for credence attrib- utes of foods: Does it matter who provides diagnosis? Annual Review of Resource Economics 9: 33-51.
Siegmann, K.A. 2022. Harvesting consent: South Asian tea planta- tion workers' experience of Fairtrade certification. The Jour- nal of Peasant Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2022. 20600 80.
Tanakasempipat, P. 2020. Thailand's chemical pesticide ban troubles farmers, industries. Reuters, June 1.
Tayleur, Catherine, Andrew Balmford, Graeme M. Buchanan, Stuart H.M.. Butchart, Christine Corlet Walker, Heather Ducharme, Rhys E. Green, Jeffrey C. Milder, Fiona J. Sanderson, David H.L.. Thomas, Lukasz Tracewski, Juliet Vickery, and Ben Pha- lan. 2018. Where are commodity crops certified, and what does it mean for conservation and poverty alleviation? Biological Conservation 217: 36-46.
Vandergeest, P. 2007. Certification and communities: Alternatives for regulating the environmental and social impacts of shrimp farming. World Development 35 (7): 1152-1170.
Vandergeest, P. 2009. Opening the green box: How organic became the standard for alternative agriculture in Thailand. Prepared for the Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Berkeley, CA, 17 April.
Vandergeest, Peter, and Anusorn Unno. 2012. A new extraterritorial- ity? Aquaculture certification, sovereignty, and empire. Political Geography 31 (6): 358-367.
Vientiane Times. 2018. China, Singapore cultivating local farmer support to grow chemical-free rice, 23 April.
Vientiane Times. 2019. Vinamilk, Lao-Jagro partner in organic dairy farm and resort, 28 May.
Vientiane Times. 2021a. Laos shifts rice market to China. 26 February.
Vientiane Times. 2021b. Lao and Chinese firms cooperate trade agri- culture products to boost trade revenue, 5 May. Vientiane Times. 2021c. Laos to negotiate export of more agricul- tural products to China, 31 May.
Vientiane Times. 2021d. Woman reveals benefits of organic farm- ing. 6 June.
Waldman, Kurt B., and John M. Kerr. 2014. Limitations of certifica- tion and supply chain standards for environmental protection in commodity crop production. Annual Review of Resource Eco- nomics 6: 429-449.
Watanabe, K. 2017. Improvement in rainfed rice production during an era of rapid national economic growth: A case study of a vil- lage in Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies 6: 293-306.
West, Paige. 2012. From modern production to imagined primitive: The social world of coffee from Papua New Guinea. Durham: Duke University Press.
Yamyim, Weeranuch, Chusak Wittayapak, Prasit Leepreecha, and Charin Mangkhang. 2020. Indigenous rice: The construction of peasant identities base on cultural ecology. Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 16 (3): 14-25.
Yang, Wei and Alan Renwick. 2019. Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for credence attributes of livestock products -a meta-analysis. Journal of Agriculture Economics 70 (3): 618-639.
Yang, Wei, Alan Renwick, Waranan Tantiwat, Cesar Revored-Giha, and Wu. Dafeng. 2021. Food product launch and positioning in China-Do claims of credence attributes matter? Agribusiness 37: 915-926.
Zezza, Annalisa, Federica Demaria, Tiziana Laureti, and Luca Secondi. 2020. Supervising third-party control bodies for certification: the case of organic farming in Italy. Agricultural Food Economics 8 (26): 1-14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40100-020-00171-3
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
FAQs
AI
What differences exist between process-based and product-based environmental verification systems?
add
The paper demonstrates that process-based verification in Thailand focuses on holistic farm practices, while product-based verification in Laos relies on lab testing for chemical residues, influencing farming practices significantly.
How has consumer behavior influenced organic rice certification in Thailand and Laos?
add
Research indicates that consumer preferences shape the environmental verification systems, whereby Thai consumers value rigorous process-based farming practices, while Chinese consumers prioritize lab-tested product safety.
What role does governmental support play in rice production systems in Laos?
add
The Lao PDR government promotes Indochina Development Partners, supporting it with long-term land rights, influencing rice quality standards and encouraging low-chemical farming practices since 2015.
How do certification systems impact farming practices and environmental assessments?
add
The study finds that process-based certification leads to stricter adherence to organic practices, resulting in less chemical usage, while product-based approaches allow farmers to use limited chemicals undetected by testing.
What are the implications of labeling standards on consumer perception of rice?
add
Labeling rice as 'yuan shengtai' in China implies superior ecological characteristics, influencing consumer opinions despite discrepancies in actual farming practices, thus affecting market dynamics.
October 11, 2025
Ian G Baird
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Faculty Member
Most of my research is focused on mainland Southeast Asia, especially Laos, Cambodia and Thailand, and the peoples who come from there. My interests are varied and include: political ecology, social and spatial (re)organization, upland-lowland relations in mainland Southeast Asia, Indigenous studies, large hydroelectric dams, large-scale economic land concessions, land and resource tenure, protected areas, Hmong studies, Lao studies, Brao studies, 19th and 20th history in mainland Southeast Asia, border and boundaries studies, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies in mainland Southeast Asia, qualitative methods, Champassak, Mekong fish and fisheries, development studies, non-government organizations (NGOs), internal resettlement, Buddhism, Animism, identities and post-colonial studies.
Papers
285
Followers
3,929
View all papers from
Ian G Baird
arrow_forward
Related papers
Going Organic: Challenges for Government-Supported Organic Rice Promotion and Certification Nationalism in Thailand
Ian G Baird
World Development, 2024
There is increasing interest in organic lowland rice cultivation in Thailand. Farmers are becoming more wary about the human health and environmental impacts of using herbicides and pesticides. In addition, consumers are increasingly demanding rice cultivated without the use of chemicals. There is also more interest in accessing international and local organic rice markets. Thus, in 2017 the government of Thailand's Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives rolled out a project designed to promote organic rice farming through subsidizing the conversion of one million-rai (160,000 ha) of lowland rice farms to being organic over a three-year period. Although the initiative was well intended, and constitutes local agency, the project has faced serious obstacles because the organic certification standards associated with the project do not align with international standards. This has negatively impacted the structures that support organic farming, by giving farmers unrealistic expectations regarding what is required to produce organic rice for the international market. The Thai certification system also has different ecological implications compared to other certification systems, because value systems always affect certification systems and their material implications. Applying a political ecology approach-with an emphasis on political relations, economic structure, ecological change, and scalar politics-this article examines the one million-rai project. It is contended that 'certification nationalism' is manifesting, and that there are important lessons to be learned about planning and implementing such certification initiatives.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Certification Standards and the Governance of Green Foods in Southeast Asia
Steffanie Scott
… global agrifood governance, 2009
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Struggle of Organic Rice in Thailand: A Multi – Level Perspective of Barriers and Opportunities for Up Scaling
Choochad Santasup
Thailand has been experiencing agrochemical-based commercial rice production for several decades now. Until recently, organic rice production has survived, but with little expansion. The present study applies a Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) to analyze the composition of the related socio-technical system, from macro to micro levels, to cast a light on both the large picture and niche operations. This research used mixed methods comprising documents and interviews, while compiling secondary statistics to analyze the establishment and dominance of commercial or mainstream rice, as well as the emergence of organic rice as an experiment. When analyzing information at multiple levels, it was found that the agrochemical-based commercial rice regime has become a dominant socio-technical regime comprising; interwoven power of government policy, commercialized agro-businesses, markets, industry, technology and Thai cultural dimensions. Furthermore, government policy has been responding to the increasing landscape changes, it has simultaneously created barriers for organic rice production. The development of organic rice as a niche experiment was partly due to landscape changes but also due to NGOs, farmers and academic leaders, often as a reaction to the negative impacts of agrochemical-based commercial rice. This in-depth study has found that if intensive promotion is applied, organic rice could become quite successful in terms of production and marketing. Until now, its expansion has been very minimal due to government regulations and policies, along with fewer business supports. Therefore, there have been limitations in the up scaling of such experiments.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Limitations of Certification and Supply Chain Standards for Environmental Protection in Commodity Crop Production
John Kerr
Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2014
Motivated by recent increases in water pollution in major US agricultural watersheds and by the shortcomings of government programs to control non–point source pollution, this paper examines the prospects for using product certification (ecolabeling) and business-to-business supply chain standards for environmental protection in commodity crop production. We introduce the sources of demand for certification and supply chain standards and the political and economic context in which they have expanded since the 1990s. We explore how various agrifood certification and supply chain standards have been used to achieve changes in production methods and/or in product attributes to meet social goals, and we discuss the prospects for applying these models to commodity crops. We conclude that the nature of corn and soybean production, distribution, and consumption—with numerous sales outlets and invisible consumption as part of processed foods and other products—makes certification schemes to...
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Can organic rice certification curb the pressure of the agrarian transition in Cambodia? A farming system approach
Florent Tivet
Jean-Christophe Diepart
Agricultural Systems, 2024
The role of organic rice was analyzed in five co-existing rice-based farming systems. • Organic rice is threatened by intensified production in lowland areas. • Other lock-in factors in upland areas jeopardize the cultivation of "organic by default" rice. • Organic certification is complex, hence the progressive abandonment of organic rice.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Value Chain of Rice (in Transition to Organic) in Region 02, Philippines
Diosdado Cañete
European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 2019
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The tyranny of taste: The case of organic rice in Cambodia pv_1458 285..298
Maylee Thavat
Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 2011
Fair-trade and organic products are often sold at price premiums justified by smaller production volumes that are associated with greater social and environmental responsibility. The consumption of these products confers on the consumer a greater sense of morality – and usually a claim to better taste. This paper tells the story of attempts to promote organic/fair-trade rice production by de facto organic Cambodian farmers for export to North American and European markets in order to assist poor farmers to trade their way out of poverty. It demonstrates that instead of promoting sustainable agriculture and fair trade between developed and developing markets, organic/fair-trade projects may impose First World consumer ideals and tastes that are out of step with the larger realities of agrarian transition in Cambodia and the wider region of developing Southeast Asia.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Motivation toward the extension of organic rice production in Northeast Thailand
poramate asawaruangpipop
Pressacademia
Purpose-Organic rice growers have continued their lives and organic agriculture way of production firmly, although there is a common way of rice production by using chemical fertilizers and pesticides in Thailand. Movtivation of these organic growers will be explored for concerned organizations to encourage more organic production in the country. Surin and Yasothon provinces were the study area as there is a large number of organic rice production in these 2 provinces. Methodology-Descriptive and quantitative analysis by Multiple regression analysis are applied. Findings-The results showed that the most influential factors that motivated organic production was due to farmer's opinion that organic agriculture is the way of sustainable production mode, a good relationship within the household and no excessive resources compared with chemicals. In addition, government support, health concern, organic being the new production trend, and cost reduction were also statistically significant factors. Conclusion-Facilitation from concerned organizations to motivate farmers to extend their production area from these factors are recommended.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Green labelling, sustainability and the expansion of tropical agriculture: Critical issues for certification schemes
susan laurance
Biological Conservation, 2012
The expansion of agricultural plantations at the expense of forest drives dramatic losses of biodiversity and carbon. Consumers are now demanding sustainability in tropical agriculture and producers are responding with questionable certification standards. Many certification schemes-including those for oil palm, soy, sugar cane and cacao-rely upon the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept to prevent unacceptable losses of biodiversity to agricultural conversion. This concept protects very rare species or habitats, exceptional concentrations of wildlife, or large landscape-level areas of forest. Yet much biodiversity persists below these thresholds yielding the spectre of unsustainable conversion of forest to certified plantation crops under a green label. To meet more rigorous standards of sustainability, tropical plantations would have to retain large patches of native forests in the matrix. We highlight six critical areas in need of consideration by conservation scientists, practitioners and certification processes. In particular, the application of HCV to sustainable agricultural development at the national-level, the use of Imperata grasslands and abandoned agriculture, the creation of Biobanks, and increased price premiums for certified crops could redound to the long-term protection of tropical biodiversity.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Environmental, Social, and Economic Challenges in Lowland Rice Production
Hasil Sembiring
2022
The CORIGAP project was implemented in six main rice granaries in South and Southeast Asia. The project introduced several country-specific sustainable best management practices, including nutrient management, pest management, water management, and several postharvest technologies, among other specific practices. This chapter introduces each country and its respective challenges to rice production. It outlines cultivation practices, historical developments, and their impacts on opportunities for the development of the rice sector. This is accompanied by specific case studies that highlight the adoption of specific technologies and practices. Case studies encompass the adoption of various best management practices in Myanmar and Thailand, especially postharvest technologies. Furthermore, the chapter highlights the outreach of "One Must Do, Five Reductions" in Vietnam, the development and implementation of the "Three Controls Technology" and alternate wetting and drying (AWD) practices in China, rodent pest management in Indonesia, and weed and water management in Sri Lanka. These case studies identified positive agronomic, social, and economic changes. The chapter concludes by harnessing the agricultural development strategies in each country with a synthesis of outcomes and impacts.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Related topics
Southeast Asian Studies
Laos (Lao PDR)
Environmental Sustainability
Organic Certification
Nature-Society Relations
Environmental Certification
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104