Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

WTO, Public Reason and Food Public Reasoning in the ‘Trade Conflict’ on GM-Food

  • Published:
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Food trade is of economic importance for both developed and developing countries. Food, however, is a special commodity. Firstly, the lack of food – hunger, under-nourishment, and starvation – is one of the world’s pressing moral problems. But food is not only special because it is necessary for our survival; food is also special because it is strongly related to our social and cultural identity. Two recent transatlantic trade conflicts over food – over the use of artificial growth hormones in beef production and over the use of (modern) biotechnology in food production – show that food is a specific commodity. In these trade-conflicts, the obligations flowing from free-trade treaties collide with the cultural and social meanings of food. Current international trade agreements neglect this point and force countries to fight their case in the field of food safety science. This causes a bias in the discussion. Europe’s resistance towards artificial growth hormones and GM-food is not strictly science based; it is also culture based. For a fair resolution of trade-conflicts, this needs to be accommodated in international trade legislation. With the help of the notion of public reason I defend that (i) precaution with regard to scientific uncertainty, and (ii) the possibility for compulsory labelling with regard to sensitive non-nutritional properties of foodstuffs, need to be incorporated in international food trade regulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brom, F.W.A., Developing Public Morality: Between Practical Agreement and Intersubjective Reflective Equilibrium, in W. van der Burg and T. van Willigenburg (eds.), Reflective Equilibrium. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998, pp. 191-202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brom, F.W.A., Food, Consumer Concerns and Trust: Food Ethics for a Globalizing Market, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12(2) (1999), pp. 127–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L., The Homiletics of Risk, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(1) (2002), pp. 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino, F. and Gaus, G.F. (ed.), Public Reason Aldershot/Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brouwer, A., Gatt Article XX’s Environmental Exceptions Explored. Is there Room for National Policies?, in A. Vedder (ed.), The WTO and Concerns regarding Animals and Nature. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2003, pp. 9–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Bonilla, E. and Thomas, M., Trade Liberalization, the World Trade Organization, and Food Security, in M.D. Ingco (ed.), Creating a Trading Environment for Development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2003, pp. 225–246.

  • EU, European Communities Court of Auditors, Special Report on the Implementation of the Food Security Policy in Developing Countries financed by the General Budget of the European Union, Luxembuourg: European Communities Court of Auditors: Special Report 2, 2003a.

  • EU, European Communities Press Release, European Legislative Framework for GMOs is now in Place, Brussels: EU, 2003b (IP/03/1056).

  • FAO/WHO, Report of Expert Consultation on Application of Risk Analysis to Food Standards Issues, Geneva: WHO, 1995.

  • FAO/WHO, Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation on Risk Management and Food Safety. Rome: FAO, 1997.

  • FAO/WHO, Report of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Application of Risk Communication to Food Standards and Safety Matters. Rome: FAO, 1998.

  • FAO/WHO, Report of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Food Safety: Science and Ethics, Rome: FAO, 2002.

  • FSA, The Food Standards Agency’s Contribution to the Public Dialogue Consumer Views of GM food. London: Food Standards Agency, 2003.

  • Klint Jensen, K. and Sandœ, P., Food Safety and Ethics: The Interplay Between Science and Values, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(3) (2002), pp. 241–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J., The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus, New York University Law Review 64(2) (1989) pp. 233–255. Reprinted in Rawls, J., Collected Papers, Harvard University Press, 1999, pp. 473–496.

  • Rawls, J., Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J., The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, in J. Rawls, The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J., The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, W., The WTO and Public Morals: Inspiration from the ECHR, in A. Vedder (ed.), The WTO and Concerns regarding Animals and Nature. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2003, pp. 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meulen, B.M.J., The Right to Adequate Food. Food Law between Market and Human Right, Inaugural Lecture. Wagningen: Wageningen University, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frans W. A. Brom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brom, F.W.A. WTO, Public Reason and Food Public Reasoning in the ‘Trade Conflict’ on GM-Food. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 7, 417–431 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-004-2221-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-004-2221-4

Key words

Navigation