Abstract
Substantial equivalence (SE) has beenintroduced to assess novel foods, includinggenetically modified (GM) food, by means ofcomparison with traditional food. Besides anumber of objections concerning its scientificvalidity for risk assessment, the maindifficulty with SE is that it implies that foodcan be qualified on a purely substantial basis.SE embodies the assumption that only reductivescientific arguments are legitimate fordecision-making in public policy due to theemphasis on legal issues. However, the surge ofthe food debate clearly shows that thistechnocratic model is not accepted anymore.Food is more than physico-chemical substanceand encompasses values such as quality andethics. These values are legitimate in theirown right and require that new democraticprocesses are set up for transverse,transdisciplinary assessment in partnershipwith society. The notion of equivalence canprovide a reference scale in which to examinethe various legitimate factors involved:substance (SE), quality (QualitativeEquivalence: QE), and ethics (EthicalEquivalence: EE). QE requires that newqualitative methods of evaluation that are notbased on reductive principles are developed. EEcan provide a basis for the development of anEthical Assurance as a counterpart of QualityAssurance in the food sector. In France, asecond circle of expertise is being set up toaddress the social issues in food public policybeside classical risk assessment by the firstcircle of expertise. Since ethics is likely tobecome an organizing principle of the secondcircle, the equivalence ethical framework canprove instrumental in this context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aristotle, Magna Moralia, in G. C. Armstrong (ed.) (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge MA and London, 1935).
Bortoft, H., “Counterfeit and Authentic Wholes: Finding a Mean for Dwelling in Nature,” in D. Seamon and A. Zajon (eds.), Goethe'sWay of Science - A phenomenology of Nature (New York, 1998), pp. 278–298.
Brown, J. K. M., “How to Feed theWorld, in Two Contradictory Lessons,” Trends in Plant Sciences 3 (1998), 409–410.
Callon, M., “Des Différentes Formes de Démocratie Technique,” Annales des Mines (1998), 63–73.
Clark, E. A. and H. Lehman, “Assessment of GM Crops in Commercial Agriculture,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2001), 3–28.
CNA, L'Étiquetage des Nouveaux Aliments et des Nouveaux Ingrédients Constitués d'Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés ou Issus d'Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés, Notice n°17, http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/alim/part/cna.html (1997).
CNA, Concertation et Débat Public en Matière de Politique Alimentaire: Enjeux et Aspects Méthodologiques, Notice n°29, http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/alim/part/cna.html (2001a).
CNA, Rapport et Avis Relatif à l'Étiquetage des Aliments et Ingrédients Constitués d'Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés ou Issus d'Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés, Notice n°31, http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/alim/part/cna.html (2001b).
Daily, G. C., and B. H. Walker, “Seeking the Great Transition,” Nature 403 (2000), 243-245.
Descartes, R., Discourse on Method and The Meditations (Penguin Classics, London 1987).
Doubleday, R., “Knowledge and the Governance of Biotechnology,” Politeia 62 (2001), 22–33.
FAO, Biotechnology and Food Safety, Report, Rome, http://www.fao.org/ (1996).
FAO, Ethical issues in Food and Agriculture, Report, http://www.fao.org/ethics/ser_en.htm (2001).
Fears, R. and E. Tambuyzer, “Core Ethical Values for European Bioindustries,” Nature Biotechnology 17 (1999), 114–115.
Guerinot, M. L., “The Green Revolution Strikes Gold,” Science 287 (2000), 241 and 243.
Habermas, J., The Theory of Communicative Action (Beacon Press, Boston, 1985).
Ho, M.-W. and R. A. Steinbrecher, “Fatal Flaws in Food Safety Assessment: Critique of the Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report,” Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST) homepage, http://www.psrast.org/ (1998).
Husset, M.-J., in L'Opinion Publique Face aux Plantes Transgéniques (Albin Michel, Paris, 1998), pp. 110–117.
Jasanoff, S., “Ordering Life: Law and the Normalisation of Biotechnology,” Politeia 62 (2001), 22–33.
Kinderlerer, J., “Is a European Convention on the Ethical Use of Modern Biotechnology Needed?” Trends in Biotechnology 18 (2000), 87–90.
Koechlin, F., “Solutions of Agronomic Problems Based on 'Ecological Integrity',” in D. Heaf and J. Wirz (eds.), Intrinsic Value and Integrity of Plants in the Context of Genetic Engineering (Ifgene, UK: http://www.anth.org/Ifgene/papersMay2001.htm, 2001), pp. 39–40.
Ladrière, J., L'Éthique dans l'Uunivers de la Rationalité (Artel-Fides, Namur, 1997).
Mann, C. C., “Crop Scientists Seek a New Revolution,” Science 283 (1999), 310–314.
Mepham, B., “'Würde der Kreatur' and the Common Morality,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (2000), 65–78.
Millstone, E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer, “Beyond 'Substantial Equivalence',” Nature 401 (1999), 525–526.
OECD, Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology - Concepts and Principles. Report, Paris (1993).
OECD, OECD Workshop on the Toxicological and Nutritional Testing of Novel Foods. Report, Aussois (1998).
Pouteau, S., “Beyond Substantial Equivalence: Ethical Equivalence,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (2000), 273–291.
Sagar, A., A. Daemmrich, and M. Ashiya, “The Tragedy of the Commoners: Biotechnology and its Publics,” Nature Biotechnology 18 (2000), 2–4.
Schmidt, H., “Dignity of Man and Intrinsic Value of the Creature (Würde der Kreatur) Conflicting or Interdependent Legal Concepts in Legal Reality?” in D. Heaf and J. Wirz (eds.), Intrinsic Value and Integrity of Plants in the Context of Genetic Engineering (Ifgene, UK: http://www.anth.org/Ifgene/papersMay2001.htm, 2001), pp. 19–23.
Tilman, D., “The Greening of the Green Revolution,” Nature 396 (1998), 211–212.
Verhoog, H., “Genetic Modification of Animals: Should Science and Ethics be Integrated?” The Monist 79 (1996), 247–263.
Viney, G. and P. Kourilsky, Le Principe de précaution. Report, http://www.finances.gouv. fr/ogm/index-bas.htm#textes (1999).
Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Klöti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus, “Engineering the Provitamin A (Beta-Carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm,” Science 287 (2000), 303–305. SYLVIE POUTEAU Laboratoire de Biologie Cellulaire, INRA Route de Saint-Cyr, F78026 Versailles cedex, France Ethos INRA (http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/SED/EES/) E-mail: Sylvie.Pouteau@versailles.inra.fr
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pouteau, S. The Food Debate: Ethical versus Substantial Equivalence. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15, 289–303 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015724926916
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015724926916