Labelling GM Food:

1

• Labelling GM Food
• from Industrial to Risk Society?
• Peter Parbery, doctoral candidate
• Department of History and Philosophy of Science
  The University of Melbourne

2
Document analysis forty interviews in
Australia and Europe
Conventional and Organic Agriculture
3
A Policy Change

• Comprehensive labelling adopted
• Britain Europe September 1998
• Australia and New Zealand December 2000

4
Two Labelling Regimes
'SE' Labelling ? Substantial Equivalence labelled? high oleic-acid canola X herbicide-tolerant soya Comprehensive Labelling labelled? high oleic-acid canola herbicide-tolerant soya
PRODUCT based ? (semi) PROCESS based
5

• 'I believe that those confronting the issue of GM
  labelling must address the world-wide problem of
  diminishing public trust in food safety, in food
  manufacturing and - unfortunately - food
  regulators. That confidence will only be restored
  if independent scientists can demonstrate that
  food is safe to eat, and manufacturers and
  regulators are as open and inclusive in their
  approach to consumers as they can possibly be'.
• ANZFA CEO Ian LindenmayerNov 1999

6

• 'societys relationship with science is in a
  critical phase.. mounting problems of mistrust
  and alienation.. a crisis of trust'
• House of Lords (1999)Third Report on Science and
  Technology

7

• 'Consumer confidence in food standards has been
  secured in the past on the basis of scientific
  review, interpreted and then managed through
  regulation by government authorities. ANZFA
  recognises that the community today is much more
  concerned about food standards. Public confidence
  must be based on comprehensive and accurate
  information, transparent decision making, as well
  as opportunities to access and interpret
  scientific information, expert advice and matters
  raised by special interest groups and
  individuals.
• ANZFA 2001'ANZFA Community Involvement Policy
  and Protocol'

8

• 'The GM labelling decision is really important
  because it actually changed the policy paradigm
  from just health safety.. to something that was
  a little bit broader. Thats now set a precedent
  and a paradigm if you like, for process-based
  labelling'.
• interview Dr Marion Healy, Chief
  ScientistAustralia New Zealand Food Authority
  (ANZFA)

9
Industrial Society ? Risk Society

• Scientific Control Is it possible?

Technology Progress?
Political Control Who has it?
Concern over distributions of Wealth or Risk?
10
Labelling as Control

• 'We reject the use of the term substantial
  equivalence in relation to GMO foods because of
  its narrow scientific application. Comprehensive
  labelling is the only way to ensure that health,
  religious, moral and ethical food choices are
  placed solely in the hands of each individual
  consumer'.
• Lay Panel Report (1999)1st Australian Consensus
  Conferenceon Gene Technology in the Food Chain

11

• 'Labelling is really crucial''That's what
  freedom and democracy is all about'
• Australian research by YCHW (1999)Public
  Attitudes Towards Biotechnology

12
Control on Two Levels

• Narrowly personal (eg health effects)
• Broadly societal (eg environmental effects)

'labelling was felt to be important to allow
consumers to boycott the products in order to
"send a message" to manufacturers about a whole
range of concerns, other than health risks
associated with GMOs.' Marris, Wynne et al.
2001Public Perceptions of Agricultural
Biotechnologies in Europe
13

• 'But the process of production is the critical
  thing, not the end product. And thats the key
  thing conceptually thats the nub of the debate
  about labelling'
• interview Bob Phelps, DirectorGeneEthics
  Network (Melbourne)

14

• The central issue for us is that consumers have
  a right to know the market. And this is not
  necessarily just the final food.. they care about
  the process. Increasingly, that issue is of
  importance to consumers. Organic foods is much
  the same thing. You see people asking more and
  more questions about how companies are using
  third world labor theyre interested in the
  nature of the process and whether it was ethical,
  whether it was reasonable. Thats a bit of a
  shift to the consumer, which we label with the
  few short words the consumers right to know. So
  that was our central issue' her emphasis
• interview Louise Sylvan, CEO Australian
  Consumers' Association (ACA)

15
The View from Industry

• 'I think you need to go back and think about what
  the purpose of the label is, and who owns it.
  Other non food-safety issues are very
  important, but anybody who proposes that
  labelling is the way to address them is naïve and
  doesnt realize that labelling is only one in an
  enormous number of tools that governments have at
  their disposal'
• interview (Sydney)Australian Food and Grocery
  Council (AFGC)

16

• 'Certainly regarding the environment, we would
  not accept that decisions be made by consumers,
  by green organisations etceteras. We have
  regulators in change of doing so, and doing so on
  a scientific basis'
• interview (Brussels), Syngenta (biotech)

17
Control and Determinism

• 'most focus group respondents felt that
  biotechnology is changing at such a rapid pace
  that developments cannot possibly be anticipated
  or legislated against. In addition, it was
  generally felt that Australian society and
  government are powerless compared to the
  international financial and political power of
  the large multinational companies driving
  biotechnological innovations'.
• Australian research by YCHW (2001)
• Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology

18

• Labelling GM Food
• from Industrial to Risk Society?
• Peter Parbery, doctoral candidate
• Department of History and Philosophy of Science
  The University of Melbourne

19

• 'Price was one of the main factors determining
  choice and there was a resignation about the
  'inevitability' of their own actions 'The price
  will force you to buy that sort of thing' Even
  in role-playing as Government, food producers or
  retailers, people never felt they could reject
  the technology the only option was to limit,
  control and try to ensure safety as best they
  could'.
• Grove-White et al (1997), Uncertain World

20

• 'What would happen if Australia said 'no' to
  allowing gene technology?'
• Panel Report (1999)
• 1st Australian Consensus Conference
• on Gene Technology in the Food Chain