Geographical Indications and Risks of Unsustainability Linked to “Disaffection Effects” in the Dairy Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper explores the extent to which farmers are dissatisfied with the prevailing GI agricultural policy in Italty, in particular how it affects the cheese industry, by examining entry/exit dynamics. The paper has the potential to contribute towards the proposed revision of the GI rules, so has some merit. However I have a number of problems with the paper, as articulated below.

Title: the title refers to the dairy sector, whereas much of the analysis is about the cheese industry. The authors need to demonstrate that the GI cheese industry forms the bulk of the dairy sector in Italy.

 

Abstract: I found the abstract difficult to understand. An abstract should be able to stand on its own. Needs more information.

 

Introduction. Need to define Geographical indications.

 

Line 59. But why have these costs only affected the cheese industry?

 

Background.

Line 168-169. Why? Attracting people to agriculture does not generally increase sustainability!

Line 181-183. Is this the GI cheese sector or the cheese sector as a whole? Please clarify. If for the cheese sector as a whole, need to report what proportion GI.

Table 1. Why only cheese. The title of your paper is dairy. Need to show somewhere what proportion cheese is to total dairy sector.

 

Materials and methods

Equations 2, 3, and 4. I found these equations very hard to follow. Farmer births and deaths are actually irrelevant to disaffection/distrust. I presume this refers to entry/exit?

 

Results

Figure 2

It would be nice to see changes in producer values of these products over the same period (2010-2018) also shown in the graphic. Is it really economics driving changes as you hypothesise earlier?

Other products of animal origin. Misleading. Rename as honey

Line 300-301 Surely fish is an animal sector as well?

 

Table 2. This table largely repeats the information in the figures and does not add any useful information. Suggest rather to plot narg over time for cheese, from 2010 to 2018 (or show in table).

 

Table 3. A lot of this is irrelevant since your paper is on the dairy sector.

 

Discussion

Line 340. You cannot conclude this without also showing share of cheese in dairy sector.

 

Line 348 You need to at least investigate whether or not there is an economic reason for exiting GI in cheese sector, as per your hypothesis.

Line 356-357. “most important GI sector in Italy”. I.e. cheese? This is a very important statement. Need to demonstrate this with data.

 

Conclusions

Line 365-6 You cannot conclude that disaffection is ongoing without plotting time series of narg for cheese industry.

 

On the whole, GI has been successful for agriculture (as measured by narg). Why has it failed for cheese?

 

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer. His comments have certainly improved the quality of our work. Attached is our response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors! The research topic is relevant and very important from a practical point of view. However, there are several disadvantages.

1. There is no conjugate analysis with the development of traditional milk production and agricultural production in general. For example, the negative development of geographical indications (GI) in the northern regions of Italy is associated with the stagnation of agriculture, since this is an industrial region as a whole.

2. Based on the first remark, the discussion section and the conclusion are unconvincingly formulated.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer. His comments have certainly improved the quality of our work. Attached is our response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

None