Abstract
The European Union’s policies regarding genetically modified food (GMF hereafter) are based on the precautionary principle and the requirement of respecting consumers’ autonomy. We ask whether the requirement of respecting consumers’ autonomy regarding GMF implies that both GMF and non-GMF products should be available in the market. According to one line of thought, consumers’ choices may be autonomous even when the both types of products are not available. A food market with only GMF or only non-GMF products does not strictly speaking compel people to buy the type of products available, and a possibility to refuse to buy is enough for consumers’ choice to be autonomous. According to another line of thought, the unavailability of GMF or non-GMF products restricts the autonomy of those consumers who are unwilling to use the only type of products (GMF or non-GMF) available in the market. From the point of view of autonomy, a food market with only GMF or only non-GMF products does not offer enough alternatives for consumers. Moreover, the whole point of the European Union’s requirement of respecting consumers’ autonomy is to enable an autonomous choice between GMF and non-GMF—not just to give a possibility to refrain from buying. However, this does not imply that producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, or public authorities have a moral duty to see that there are both GMF and non-GMF products available in the market. The requirement to respect autonomy is prima facie in nature, and in the context of GMF, other prima facie requirements are often stronger and override it. Not only the consumers’ autonomy of choice but also environmental values, other people’s well-being, and the autonomous choice of farmers, retailers, and other relevant parties should be respected. Thus, according to the both lines of thought, the requirement to respect consumers’ autonomy of choice does not imply that there should be both GMF and non-GMF products available in the market.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There has been discussion on which food products—GMF, non-GMF, or organic ones—should actually be labeled (see for example Streiffer and Rubel 2004; Hansen 2004; Rubel and Streiffer 2005; Monsanto 2009) and whether labeling should be mandatory (see for example Pascalev 2003; Thorpe and Robinson 2004). Moreover, some writers state that labeling is not sufficient for respecting autonomy (see for example Siipi and Uusitalo 2008), whereas others claim that the requirement of labeling is actually overridden by values that are more important than respecting autonomy in the GMF context (Markie 2007).
By “non-GMF” we refer to all food products that are not labeled as genetically modified in the European Union. We do not want to claim that this GMF versus non-GMF distinction is the only one that matters to the consumers. Meat from GM-fed animals, for example, is not labeled as genetically modified in the European Union. Some consumers, nevertheless, are unwilling to consume it. However, for the purpose of this paper, this distinction between GMF and non-GMF is sufficient.
Up to December 2009, over 20 genetically modified plant varieties had been registered for food usage in the European Union. Most of them are different variants of corn. (Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira 2009a).
The absence of GMF from the European market has been explained, interestingly, by the labeling requirement. According to this line of thought, possible consumer reactions and risk of losing sales frighten wholesalers and retailers from adopting labeled GMF products to their repertoire (Carter and Guére 2003; GMO Compass 2007a; Peters and Lambert 2007).
We are not taking a stand whether this is likely. Even though the all-GMF market may merely be a remote possibility, it is interesting to analyze it from the point of view of consumers’ autonomy.
It should be noted that the attitudes of the two types of reluctant consumers usually differ in their reasons for reluctance. Consumers reluctant to buy and use GMF regard it as somehow problematic—unhealthy, environmentally risky, or socially risky, for example—and thus want to avoid it. Consumers reluctant to buy non-GMF favor GMF to non-GMF. They see GMF as having better properties than non-GMF and are thus willing to buy and use them. Nevertheless, their preference is usually not based on seeing non-GMF products problematic and avoidable. Rather the view is based on the belief that GMF holds extra benefits. It should be noted, moreover, that many or even most consumers do not belong to these classes and are willing to use both types of products. They base their consumer decisions on some other reasons or distinctions.
For more discussion on the second condition see Siipi and Uusitalo (2008).
This does not mean that the more alternatives there are the better. Increasing the number of options is not necessarily valuable. If all consumers were unwilling to buy GMF, for example, adding GMF products to an all-non-GMF market would increase the number of alternatives. It might even make consumers’ food choices (with respect to GMF) less trivial or marginal. Nevertheless, if consumers were unwilling to buy GMF, adding GMF products to their options would not be valuable for them.
Alternatively, proponents of the first negative answer might state that the possibility to refuse is not sufficient in medical context either. They might also in the two following ways argue for the claim that more alternatives are morally necessary in the context of food than in the context of medicine. First, when a patient refuses a treatment, she refuses something that has been prescribed to her by a medical expert who has an intention and ability to benefit the patient’s well-being. Medical treatment offered to a patient has been evaluated (by a medical expert) as being the medically best alternative for the patient. Food offered for sale in the market has not passed a similar kind of evaluation. All that is required is that the food offered for sale is sufficiently safe. Selection of foods available in the market is rather determined by the financial interests of retailers, wholesalers, and producers and, thus, to a great extent by food preferences of our fellow consumers. Second, food is connected to our personal values and life choices in a way that is more foreign to medical care. Food choice is a basic form of self-creating and self-definition (Pascalev 2003). People may regard following a vegan diet, or having food choices that follow religious or cultural restrictions, to name but a few, as integral parts of their personality. Some dietary choices adopted by individuals restrict the use of GMF or non-GMF. (Siipi and Uusitalo 2008). Medical choices are not, at least not as often and as intimately, central to people’s self views. People do not usually consider the ways of medicine production as important for them as the ways of food production (Siipi and Launis 2009). Thus, respecting autonomous choice may require more alternatives in the context of food than it does in the context of medical care.
Treating patients against their wish, on the other hand, is not foreign to the history of Western medicine.
This intuition is not shared by all. Peter Portin (2009) argues that people willing to consume GMF should have a right and possibility for it.
The unavailability at issue does not refer to absolute unavailability. The preferred types of food products may be available in other countries or other parts of the world, for instance, but it would in practice be unreasonable if not impossible for the consumer always to travel hundreds or thousands of kilometres for purchasing daily groceries.
GM-milk and GM-meat may be understood in two different senses. The terms can refer to milk and meat originating from a genetically modified cow or other animal. Alternatively, it can be understood as milk or meat from a cow or other animal that has been fed with GM-feed. No genetically modified animals are used in agriculture at the moment (Portin 2006; GMO Compass 2007b, c; Streiffer and Rubel 2007). The use of GM-feed, on the other hand, is common (GMO Compass 2007d; Portin 2006). Even though many scientists state that the modified genes of animal feed do not have an effect on the fed animals’ meat or milk (Portin 2006), some consumers and GM-activists strongly oppose the GM-feeds of farm animals (see for example People’s Biosafety Association in Finland 2007) to a point that dairy and meat producers have made statements about not using GM-feed in their production (see for example Valio 2009; Tapolan 2009).
It could be claimed that retailers whose stores are part of huge supermarket chains may not have much autonomy regarding the type of products they provide for sale in the first place. This, however, does not justify further restrictions of their autonomous choice.
Both of the solutions are compatible with the requirement of labeling. Respecting consumers’ autonomy may well imply a requirement to label genetically modified food, since such requirement does not considerably affect other people’s lives.
For discussion on farmers of developed countries see for example, Vänninen et al. 2009.
References
Beauchamp, T. L. (2005). Who deserves autonomy and whose autonomy deserves respect? In J. S. Taylor (Ed.), Personal autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy (pp. 310–329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Beekman, V. (2008). Consumer rights to informed choice on the food market. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,. doi:10.1007/s10677-007-9075-5.
Board for Biotechnology (2004). Muuntogeenisten viljelykasvien sekä tavanomaisen ja luonnonmukaisen maataloustuotannon rinnakkaiselo. http://www.btnk.fi/julkaisut.html Accessed 23 September 2009.
Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic journal of Biotechnology, 6(1), 50–71.
Carter, C. A., & Guére, G. P. (2003). Mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods: Does it really provide consumer choice? AgBioForum, 6(1&2), 68–70.
Childress, J. F. (2001). A principle based approach. In H. Kuhse & P. Singer (Eds.), Companion to Bioethics (pp. 61–71). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
GMO Compass (2007a). GMO Labeling: Labelled good hard to find. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/labeling/92.gmo_labeling_labelled_goods.html. Accessed 29 May 2009.
GMO Compass (2007b). Dairy products and eggs. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/29.dairy_products_eggs_genetic_engineering.html. Accessed 22 September 2009.
GMO Compass (2007c). Meats and sausage. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/32.genetic_engineering_meats_sausage.html. Accessed 22 September 2009.
GMO Compass (2007d). Genetic engineering: Feeding the EU’s livestock. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/processed_foods/153.animal_feed_genetic_engineering.html. Accessed 22 September 2009.
Comstock, G. (2001). Ethics and genetically modified foods. In A. Eagleham, S. G. Pueppke, & R. W. F. Hardy (Eds.), NABC Report 13: Genetically modified food and the consumer: National agricultural biotech council report (pp. 181–200). Ithaca, New York: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
Degnan, F. H. (2007). Biotechnology and the food label. In P. Weirich (Ed.), Labeling genetically modified food (pp. 32–62). New York: Oxford University Press.
Europa (2004). Question and answers on the regulation of GMOs in the EU What are GMOs and GMMs? Press Releases Rapid. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/04/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. Accessed 31 July 2009.
Feinberg, J. (1973). Social philosophy. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Caswell, M. (2006). The first decade of genetically engineered crops in the united states. economic information bulletin No. (EIB-11). United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB11/. Accessed 29 May 2009.
Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira (2009a). Taulukko yhteisön rekisterissä olevista muuntogeenisistä elintarvikkeista ja rehuista. http://www.evira.fi/attachments/kasvintuotanto_ja_rehut/rehut/gmo/taulukot/taulukko_4c1.doc. Accessed 24 February 2010.
Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira (2009b). Usein kysyttyä muuntogeenisistä elintarvikkeista. http://www.evira.fi/portal/fi/elintarvikkeet/valvonta_ja_yritt__j__t/muuntogeeniset_elintarvikkeet__gmo_/usein_kysyttya_muuntogeenisista_elintarvikkeista/. Accessed 26 August 2009.
Golden Geese Farm (2009). Force feeding. http://www.goldengeesefarm.com/Force-Feeding.html. Accessed 22 September 2009.
Grossman, M. R. (2007). European community legislation for traceability and labeling of genetically modified crops, food, and feed. In P. Weirich (Ed.), Labeling genetically modified food (pp. 32–62). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, K. (2004). Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17(1), 67–76.
Hyun, I. (2001). Authentic values and individual autonomy. Journal of Value Inquiry, 35, 195–208.
Korthals, M. (2004). Before dinner: Philosophy and ethics of food. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kröger, M. (2009). Geenimuuntelun laillistaminen voi johtaa teknologian ylivaltaan. Helsingin Sanomat, 7 May 2009.
Launis, V. (2003). Geeniteknologia, arvot ja vastuu. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Leino, R. (2009). Jussi Tammisola on kasvitieteen uupumaton ritari. Tekniikka ja talous 17 May 2009. http://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/kemia/article286550.ece?articlepage=1. Accessed 8 October 2009.
MacDonald, C & Whellams, M. (2007). Corporate Decisions about Labeling Genetically Modified Foods. Journal of Business Ethics, doi 10.1007/s10551-006.9245-8.
Markie, P. (2007). Mandatory genetic engineering labels and consumer autonomy. In P. Weirich (Ed.), Labeling genetically modified food (pp. 88–105). New York: Oxford University Press.
Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. (2001). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Commissioned by the EC: Final Report of the PABE research project.
Mishneh Torah. (2010). http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682956/jewish/Mishneh-Torah.htm Accessed 2 February 2010.
Monsanto (2009). What is the Problem with Labeling Genetically-Modified (GM/GMO) Food? http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/gmo_labeling.asp. Accessed 28 July 2009.
Norberg-Hodge, H., Goering, P., & Page, J. (2002). From global to local. In G. Pence (Ed.), The ethics of food: A reader for the 21st century (pp. 191–214). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
O’Neill, O. (2002). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oshana, M. (1998). Personal autonomy and society. Journal of Social Philosophy, 29(1), 81–102.
Pascalev, A. (2003). You are what you eat: Genetically modified foods, integrity, society. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(6), 583–594.
People’s Biosafety Association in Finland (2007). GM-soijan käyttöönotto heikentää tuottajien ja kuluttajien asemaa. http://www.bioturva.org/tied/tied058.htm. Accessed 22 September 2009.
Peters, P. G., & Lambert, T. A. (2007). Regulatory barriers to consumer information about genetically modified food. In P. Weirich (Ed.), Labeling genetically modified food (pp. 151–177). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pietarinen, J. (1994). Itsemäärääminen ja itsemääräämisoikeus. In J. Pietarinen, V. Launis, J. Räikkä, E. Lagerspetz, M. Rauhala, & M. Oksanen (Eds.), Oikeus itsemääräämiseen (pp. 17–47). Painatuskeskus: Helsinki.
Portin, P. (2006). Ne geenit! Ne geenit!. Turku: Kirja-Aurora.
Portin, P. (2009). Gm-kasvien viljelyllä on myös yhteiskunnallisia vaikutuksia. Maaseudun tulevaisuus, 7 September 2009.
Pouteau, S. (2002). The food debate: Ethical verus substantial equivalence. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(3), 291–303.
Qur’an (2010). the. http://www.islamopas.com/koraani/sisallys.htm. Accessed 2 February 2010.
Räikkä, J. (1999). On morality of avoiding information. In V. Launis, J. Pietarinen, & J. Räikkä (Eds.), Genes and morality (pp. 63–75). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Ramjoué, C. (2007). The Transatlantic Risf in Genetically Modified Food Policy. Journal of Agricultural.
Ritson, C. (2008). Risk amplification. Food Ethics, 3(3), 8.
Rubel, A., & Streiffer, R. (2005). Respecting the autonomy of European and American consumers: Defending positive labels on GM foods. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(1), 75–84.
Sen, A. (1985). Rights and capabilities. In T. Honderich (Ed.), Morality and objectivity (pp. 130–141). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Siipi, H., & Launis, V. (2009). Opposition and acceptance of GM-food and GM-medicine. Open Ethics Journal, 3, 97–103.
Siipi, H., & Uusitalo, S. (2008). Consumer autonomy and sufficiency of GMF labeling. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(4), 353–369.
Stop Force Feeding (2009). Foie Gras: How much cruelty can you swallow? http://www.banfoiegras.org/page.php?module=home. Accessed 22 September 2009.
Streiffer, R., & Hedeman, T. (2005). The political import of intrinsic objections to genetically engineered food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(2), 191–210.
Streiffer, R., & Rubel, A. (2004). Democratic principles and mandatory labeling genetically engineered food. Public Affairs Quarterly, 18(3), 223–248.
Streiffer, R., & Rubel, A. (2007). Genetically engineered animals and the ethics of food labeling. In P. Weirich (Ed.), Labeling genetically modified food (pp. 63–87). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tapolan (2009). GMO-vapaa tuotantotapa. http://www.tapola.fi/tapola/index.php. Accessed 22 September 2009.
Thorpe, A., & Robinson, C. (2004). When Goliaths clash: US and EU differences over the labeling of food products derived from genetically modified organisms. Agriculture and Human Values, 21(4), 287–298.
Tuomisto, J. (2005). Muuntogeenisen ja tavanomaisesti jalostetun perunan rinnakkaisviljely—kustannukset ja niiden kohdentuminen. Intermediate report. MTT Agrifood Research Finland. wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/muut/tal_vaik_peruna.pdf. Accessed 23 September 2009.
Valio (2009). Valiomaidon tuotannossa ei käytetä geenimuuntelua. http://www.valio.fi/portal/page/portal/Valioyritys/Ajankohtaista/Uutinen?p_channelid=4&p_id=3243. Accessed 22 September 2009.
Vänninen, I., Siipi, H., Keskisalo, M., & Erkkilä, M. (2009). Ethical compatibility of GM crops with intrinsic and extrinsic values of farmers: A review. Open Ethics Journal, 3, 104–117.
Watson, G. (2004). Free Agency. In G. Watson (Ed.), Agency and answerability: Selected essays (pp. 13–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitman, D. B. (2000). Genetically modified foods: Harmful or helpful? CSA Discovery Guides. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php. Accessed 21 September 2009.
Young, R. (2001). Informed consent and patient autonomy. In H. Kuhse & P. Singer (Eds.), Companion to bioethics (pp. 441–451). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Cultural Foundation for financial support, Marko Ahteensuu, Eerik Lagerspetz, Markku Oksanen, and Juha Räikkä for useful comments on earlier versions of this paper, and Tiina Lepistö for her help in collecting relevant factual information. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this paper for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Siipi, H., Uusitalo, S. Consumer Autonomy and Availability of Genetically Modified Food. J Agric Environ Ethics 24, 147–163 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9250-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9250-x