Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate
Abstract
Many countries, such as countries in the European Union, require that food labels announce genetically modified (GM) ingredients. The United States does not require such labeling. Which labeling policy is best? An answer must explore a complex web of topics including the science of genetic modification, the benefits of agbiotechnology, and labeling's effects on commerce. This book surveys various labeling policies and the cases for them. It is the first comprehensive, interdisciplinary treatment of the debate about labeling genetically modified food.
When polled, consumers say that they want to know whether their food contains GM ingredients, just as many want to know whether their food is natural or organic. Informing consumers is a major motivation for labeling. Consumers who want GM-free products will pay a premium to support voluntary labeling. Labeling need not be mandatory.
GM foods are tested to ensure safety and have been on the market for more than a decade. Still, many consumers, including some with food allergies, want to be cautious. Also, despite tests for environmental impact, some consumers may worry that GM crops will adversely effect the environment.
GM food currently on the market comes primarily from plants. Meat and dairy products from GM animals are under development. These new foods make the welfare of animals an issue relevant to the debate about labeling. Labeling gives consumers an important voice concerning biotechnology's application to food production.
... However, the most important factors in determining the purchase intentions of the consumers towards GM food are perceived risks (Poveda et al., 2009;Font and Gil, 2009), perceived quality (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004;Linh, 2009) and social norms (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004;Sharma and Malhotra, 2007). Among demographics of the consumers, other than age, education and gender (Klerck and Sweeney, 2007), religion has also been found to effect the purchase intentions of the consumers (Norkumala, 2006;Weirich, 2007;Drees, 2009). Literature shed light on the ignorance of giving priority to inculcate these factors in determining success and adoption of GM food by the producers and government (LANCET, 1999) which is restricting the consumers as well as the producers to get ultimate benefits from these technological advancements. ...
... The bio-technological advancements of introduction of genetically modified organisms, GMF and GE have jolted up the issues regarding religious standpoint and related consumers' purchase intentions for GMF globally (Drees, 2009;Froman, 2009). According to Weirich (2007) consumers avoid GMF for different religious and ethical reasons. This is because different religions have limitations and delimitations regarding food intake for the practitioners. ...
... A significant difference between the purchase intentions of Muslim and Non-Muslim consumers towards GMF was found from the results showing that religion does affect the purchase intentions of the consumers regarding GMF. These results are in accordance with that of Weirich (2007) who explained that religion or ethical reasons might be an influencing factor in determining purchase intentions of the consumers. Riaz and Chaudry (2004) also explained that most of the Muslim consumers avoid GMF due to uncomfortable feeling over the ambiguity related to 'Halal" issue regarding proper and illustrative labeling of the GM products. ...
This study is an attempt to identify the status of genetically modified food consumption in the developing countries like Malaysia. From preceding literature, a theoretical framework was developed to show the effects of perceived risks, perceived quality and social norms on the consumer purchase intention for genetically modified food. The sample of 392 respondents was randomly selected from two leading hypermarkets in Johor Bahru. Results from Multiple Regression revealed that among the three predicting variables, perceived quality and social norms had significant and positive relationship with the consumer purchase intentions while perceived risks did not have any significant relationship with it. A comparative analysis of Muslim and non-Muslim consumers revealed significant difference of the purchase intentions for GMF between the two groups. Implications and future research suggestions are also discussed.
... Labeling opponents state that mandatory measures such as implied warnings can mislead and falsely alarm consumers that GM foods pose a greater risk than conventional breeding techniques (Pinholster, 2012). Mandatory labeling greatly contributes to consumer aversion toward these products (Carter & Gru ere, 2003;Marchant, Cardineau, & Redick, 2010) and imposes a cost on the end-users (Byrne, 2010;Sexton, 2012;Weirich, 2007). Obviously, GE developers aim to avoid such controversies through endeavors to distinguish GE products from GMO classification and the consequent mandatory labeling of GE foods. ...
This paper focuses on the determinants of genome-edited foods by identifying trends in the application of CRISPR/Cas9 to major crops and reviewing consumer and regulatory studies on both GE and genetically modified (GM) foods. Findings show that GE crops have not been only targeted in input traits like GM crops, but also strengthened production ability in harsh environmental conditions, improving product quality and enhancement nutrition. Especially, these consumer-targeted traits pursued in GE applications could rise consumer acceptance. Consumer-targeted traits coupled with transgene-free crops has created a more balanced risk-benefit perception and given momentum to GE foods production. Nevertheless, the public has failed to distinguish bio-technologies, and regulators are treating GM and GE foods alike. Thus, it is vital to increase knowledge, communication and policy orientation. Policymakers should carefully assess novel bio-technologies and apply an appropriate regulatory approach to GE foods to promote the agricultural system and food safety.
... If this is the case, alternative sources of food production will need to be adopted-for example, in vitro meat production in laboratories, insect farms for entomophagy consumption, or vertical farms in urban centers (Findlay & Yeoman, 2015;van Huis et al., 2013). Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are also a mechanism to feed future populations (Weirich, 2007;Yeoman, 2012a). Thus, considering the impact of climate change, the scarcity of water, and increasing populations, there may well be a dramatic shift from traditional food production systems to innovative, scientifically engineered solutions (Yeoman, 2012a). ...
In parallel with the growth and popularity of food tourism, the increase in food specificevents and festivals has been significant. Events have become an important element of theexperience economy; often their economic and social benefits have been related toimprovements in the quality of life for communities and regions. Food festivals provide anopportunity for event goers to socialize, as by their nature they bring people together.However, how do we future proof the success of such events? Adopting a practice theoryposition and a pragmatism paradigm, this paper investigates the future of food festivals using a case study of Wellington on a Plate (WOAP), which is New Zealand’s most successful foodfestival, operated by the Wellington Culinary Events Trust (WCET). In line with scenarioplanning research methods, 12 ‘remarkable persons’ were interviewed to identify 22 mega-drivers of change, including mobility, redefining luxury, technological immersion, socialcapital, social demography changes, and accessibility. Adapting Yeoman’s (2015) conceptualframework of food tourism drivers for food festivals and linking to these mega-drivers ofchange, a conceptual framework was derived that considers five factors of success, namelyFood Festivals as Political Capital; Food Festivals as a Visionary State; Sense ofCommunity; The Drive for Affluence and Exclusivity; and Fluid Identity and Foodies. Thedevelopment of this conceptual framework, which links success to the external environment,contributes to the future-proofing of food festivals.
... If a strain has been isolated from a natural environment or system (for example, a fermented food product produced by traditional methods), it is unlikely to have been genetically modified. If the strain has been genetically modified, regulatory approval and an assessment of the safety of the expressed product is required in many countries (Pariza, 2007). ...
... Die Produkte sind nur vertraut durch die bekannte Gestalt und die Zugehörigkeit zu einer bewährten Herstellungs-und Zubereitungskultur. (Bütschi et al., 2009;Weirich, 2007;Falkner, 2007). Davon sind Handel und Politik jedoch noch weit entfernt. ...
... This is in line with the results of Sukman et al. (2009), who found that among the different factors, ethical issues played a significant role. Weirich (2007) also reported that consumers avoid consuming genetically modified food for different religious and ethical reasons. This is because different religions have limitations and delimitations regarding food intake for their practitioners. ...
Organisms that have been genetically engineered and modified (GM) are referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Bt crops are plants that have been genetically modified to produce certain proteins from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which makes these plants resistant to certain lepidopteran and coleopteran species. Genetically Modified (GM) rice was produced in 2006 by Iranian researchers from Tarom Mowla'ii and has since been called ‘Bt rice’. As rice is an important source of food for over 3 billion inhabitants on Earth, this study aims to use a correlational survey in order to shed light on the predicting factors relating to the extent of stakeholders’ behavioral intentions towards Bt rice. It is assumed and the results confirm that “attitudes toward GM crops” can be used as a bridge in the Attitude Model and the Behavioral Intention Model in order to establish an integrated model. To this end, a case study was made of the Southwest part of Iran in order to verify this research model. This study also revealed that as a part of the integrated research framework in the Behavior Intention Model both constructs of attitude and the subjective norm of the respondents serve as the predicting factors of stakeholders’ intentions of working with Bt rice. In addition, the Attitude Model, as the other part of the integrated research framework, showed that the stakeholders’ attitudes toward Bt rice can only be determined by the perceived benefits (e.g. positive outcomes) of Bt rice.
... Scholars have focused on GMOs and other high-profile disputes to the relative exclusion of organic (e.g., Weirich, 2007), perhaps because organic has not been the subject of trade disputes. In general, voluntary and positive labels like organic, which signify a defined set of alternative production practices are less likely to effect trade barriers than negative labels or bans. ...
... 'Out-of-court' solutions may in fact be more useful in this and other, similar, cases. Such a solution in the GMO case will probably have to involve some sort of labeling of GM products (see Weirich, 2007 ). While solutions outside the WTO are obviously not ideal, they should be viewed in perspective. ...
This article shows why and how differences across countries in agri-biotech regulation create tensions in the world trading system. It explores how these tensions could develop into full-blown trade conflicts. It also assesses the consequences of such trade conflicts for biotechnology and for developing countries. Stripped of all analytical caveats, the prognosis is rather pessimistic. The potential for escalation is high and the implications of escalation for agri-biotechnology as such, and for developing countries, are bound to be negative.
... L'avvento delle tecniche di trasformazione genetica ha infatti determinato la comparsa di (Weirich, 2007). In figura 6.1 sono Tabella 6.2 -Specie agrarie industriali per le quali sono stati sviluppati sistemi di trac- ciabilità basati su PCR. ...
This chapter examines the recent history of biotechnology and also some of the factors that help explain why controversies surrounding the new technology tend to occur. Some of the issues associated with risk, ethics, science, consumption, and regulation are examined in an introductory way. In the final section, an introduction to the conflicts that have occurred in Brazil due to the release of RR soybean is presented. This part will serve as an introduction to the analysis that will be made in the remaining part of the book.
Traceability is an important tool used by food companies and regulators in assuring food safety and quality, especially when consumers’ needs for food information transparency are the driver. Consumers consult the label to find out more details about a food product and, although many factors influence their perceptions and purchasing acts, the label remains the primary means of communicating food information affecting consumer choice. Therefore, it represents the final step in a consumer-oriented traceability path. It follows that a suitable label design can improve the food traceability process and reduce the information asymmetry between producer and consumer. According to this view, this paper aimed to identify suggestions about food label design, in order to create a support framework for food companies in food information communication increasing label readability, customer satisfaction, and the effectiveness of traceability. A systematic literature review method with content analysis was chosen to conduct the study. Eleven specific suggestions from food labeling design theories were recognized. The novelty of the present study consisted in mapping the food label design field, synthesizing the current knowledge, and providing a support framework for food companies that would increase the readability of food labeling and enhance customer satisfaction through a well-proposed food information communication in line with the “farm to fork” strategy.
An ethical perspective on a field like the application of genetic engineering on animals in farming and food production is much more than mere technology assessments of risks and benefits. Rather ethics must approach the relationship between principles and practical moral challenges as a kind of reflective equilibrium. Against this background, applied ethics is not merely the application of principles to practice but a process in which practical experiences reciprocally influence the content and interpretation of ethical principles. Ethical theory learns from moral practice. Given that the interventions of biotechnology and genetic engineering principally affect the existence of nonhuman animals, ethics not only addresses questions relating to human health or social cooperation but takes a particularly fundamental interest in the ever-changing normative relationship between humans and animals as well as humans and nature. Therefore in this paper the analysis of the ethical challenges posed by biotechnology applied on animals reveals several problem areas that must be considered in developing ethical criteria for the investigation of biogenetic activities. Firstly, the paper will address the basic relationship of humankind and its technologies to nature (Chap. 1) in addition to the development of relevant evaluative criteria in environmental ethics and the ethics of nature (Chap. 2). The latter aid in the normative evaluation of technologies when weighing up which ends and means can be considered justified in relation to the goods a society recognises (Chap. 3). Against the background of biotechnological contributions to food production, the anthropological question as to what role food plays in a current culture and lifestyle—and what kind of change that culture and lifestyle might admit—will be analysed (Chap. 4). Yet the evaluation of biotechnology, to the extent that it is used on animals, covers more than just the well-being of humans and society; transgenic animals also pose a great challenge to animal protection and welfare (Chap. 5). Finally the paper discusses that a society dealing with new technologies must constantly consider what form risk assessment should take and what kind of tolerance for environmental, health, and economic risks that implies (Chap. 6). Processes that advance sustainability, justice, food quality, and animal welfare alike should be placed at the centre of modern agriculture and food production. From an ethical perspective, the gene technological and biotechnological production of animals must be measured according to the extent of its contribution to these complex and highly relevant goals.
Unser Globus existiert seit Jahrmilliarden. Doch erst in jüngerer Zeit kommen Phänomene oder Prozesse ins Blickfeld, die sich auf den ganzen Erdball beziehen und als ›global‹ bezeichnet werden. Von ›Globalisierung‹ sprechen wir dann, wenn bisher lokal, regional oder national Bestehendes in die Dynamik weltweit verlaufender ökonomischer und politischer Prozesse hineingezogen und eingebunden wird. In Globalisierungsprozessen werden die noch bestehenden Barrieren gegen den weltweiten Fluss von Kapital, Ressourcen und Informationen immer niedriger, und über den ganzen Erdball hinweg breiten sich enge und dichte Netze gesellschaftlicher und materieller Abhängigkeiten aus. Eine regional unbegrenzte ›Weltgesellschaft‹ mit staatenübergreifenden Funktionsdifferenzierungen und Institutionen, Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten und sozialen Ungleichheiten bildet den Hintergrund für lokale und regionale Besonderheiten. In diesem Sinne ist ›Globalisierung‹ eine Chiffre für etwas historisch Neues.
The use of recombinant DNA technology to transform agricultural plants and animals has been the subject of ethical controversy for the last quarter century. The argument favouring these technologies hinges on their role in lowering costs of farm production, as well as potential benefits to farmers. Arguments against cite a long litany of problems. Environmental and food safety risk debates touch upon both the nature and likelihood of potential hazards, and also the overall philosophy that should guide the assessment and management of these risks. In addition, critics of the technology have argued that risk assessments have neglected two categories of hazard entirely: impact on animals and socio-economic impacts, especially on organic and smallholder farms. The latter issue makes the use of genetic engineering into a key episode in a more comprehensive debate over the future of agricultural production. In addition, ethical debates have taken up the extension of intellectual property rights to genes and their impact on the use, production and control of seeds. Labelling and consumer choice has also been debated. Finally, some authors have extended arguments over the possible unnatural character of genetic engineering from their more conventional medical setting to the domain of food. Key Concepts: Environmental and food safety hazards associated with genetically modified foods are not unique to the process of transformation that utilises recombinant DNA techniques.Risk assessment and policy decision making for genetically modified foods has generally excluded socio-economic impacts and effects on small farmers from consideration.Concern over unequal distribution of power often lurks just beneath the surface of criticisms that have been levied against genetically engineered foods.Keywords:agriculture;farming;risk;recombinant DNA;plants;patents
This paper is now published as: Bernauer, Thomas, Aerni, Philipp. 2008. Trade Conflict Over Genetically Modified Organisms. In Kevin Gallagher, ed. Handbook on Trade and the Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 183-193. Please read and cite the published version. In 2003 the USA, seconded by Argentina and Canada, initiated litigation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the European Union's regulatory policy for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The three plaintiffs claimed that the EU's GMO policy was creating illegal trade restrictions. Specifically, they argued (i) that the EU had implemented a de facto moratorium on approval of new biotech crop varieties; that (ii) the EU had failed to approve some particular GM crops for which US firms were seeking approval; and (iii) that several EU countries were unilaterally banning the import and marketing of GM crops that had been approved at the EU level. The WTO Dispute Settlement Panel's verdict (a 2000 pages document!), issued in September 2006, supports the plaintiffs' position to a large extent and asks the EU to bring its GMO approval process in line with WTO rules. As of December 2007, it appeared very unlikely that the EU would be willing or able to comply with the WTO verdict. The EU's GMO legislation had been overhauled even before the WTO panel issued its verdict. But the EU decision-making process for GMO approvals has remained complex and subject to political considerations rather than scientific-risk assessment alone: it involves the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which has an advisory role, as well as the EU Commission and Council of Ministers, which hold the decision-making authority. Why does the WTO trade dispute on GMOs, one of more than 300 WTO disputes since 1995, deserve a full chapter in this book? We submit that this dispute is interesting because it pits countries with a predominantly GMO-adverse public (Europe) against countries whose GMO policy is driven by large, export-oriented farmers and the biotech industry (primarily the USA, to some extent also Argentina and Canada). These circumstances raise difficult questions with respect to legitimate justifications for trade-restricting environment, health and safety policies. Most European governments and the EU take the position that the precautionary principle (a "better safe than sorry" approach to regulation in the presence of uncertainty about risks posed by GMOs) and the prevailing GMO-skepticism among consumers and voters are sufficient justification for a restrictive policy. The USA, in contrast, claims that WTO rules, particularly those of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), mandate a strong "sound science" discipline. From the latter perspective, trade restricting GMO policies are permitted only to the extent they are supported by scientific evidence on risks.
Over 15years, genetically modified (GM) food has gradually reached around the globe. Yet, each new development occasions
controversy, and hence, leads to interest in strategies to engage people in searching for durable public bargains. Even-handed
treatment of diverse views is crucial to good engagement processes, as is the avoidance of processes that merely reinforce
fixed views. Ideally, views develop as people engage with others’ reasoning about the merits of different policy responses.
Q methodology provides a useful strategy for eliciting views at the start of such engagement processes. It allows individuals
to present their views as whole pictures, complete with inherent ambiguities and complexities. Embodied, holistic views stem
from mutual understanding of everyday events shared among members of a society. Everyday understanding relies on common sense,
a spontaneous application of a distinct form of intelligence to some practical matter. Q methodology can contribute to engaging
the publics–science interface by showing how technologies, like GM food, intersect with people’s lives and behaviours and
by finding commonalities that may be masked in polarised debates.
KeywordsCommon sense–Genetic modification of food–Q methodology–Subjective views–Science and technology studies
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.