The food supply is complicated and consumers are increasingly calling for labeling on food to be more informative. In particular, consumers are asking for the labeling of food derived from genetically modified organisms based on health, safety, and environmental concerns. At issue is whether the labels that are sought would accurately provide the information desired. The present study examined consumer perceptions of health, safety and the environment for foods labeled organic, natural, fat free or low (...) fat, GMO, or non-GMO. Findings indicated that respondents consistently believed that foods labeled GMO are less healthy, safe and environmentally-friendly compared to all other labels. These results suggest that labels mean something to consumers, but that a disconnect may exist between the meaning associated with the label and the scientific consensus for GMO food. These findings may provide insight for the development of labels that provide information that consumers seek. (shrink)

The current debate about labeling genetically engineered (GE) food focuses on food derived from GE crops, neglecting food derived from GE animals. This is not surprising, as GE animal products have not yet reached the market. Participants in the debate may also be assuming that conclusions about GE crops automatically extend to GE animals. But there are two GE animals - the Enviropig and the AquAdvantage Bred salmon - that are approaching the market, animals raise more (...) ethical issues than plants, and U.S. regulations treat animal products differently from crops. This paper therefore examines the specific question of whether there should be mandatory labeling on all food products derived from GE animals. We examine the likely regulatory pathways, salient differences between GE animals and GE crops, and relevant social science research on consumers’ attitudes. We argue that on any of the likely pathways, the relevant agency has a democratic obligation to require labeling for all GE animal food products. (shrink)

In this article, we address the public issue of mandatory Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) retail food labeling in the U.S., first by reviewing the policy arguments both in support and against labeling food containing GMOs; second, by describing the existing U.S. federal regulatory system pertaining to GMO labeling, and why it does not presently require labeling of food containing GMOs; third, by reviewing and interpreting the results of studies of American consumer attitudes toward (...) mandatory GMO retail food labeling; fourth, by evaluating, through the utilization of issue life cycle analysis in the nonmarket environment, where the issue of GMO retail food labeling stands in the national public policy process; fifth, summarizing the state of scientific evidence addressing the safety of GMO foods and the existing regulatory and public policy environment for this issue; and sixth, offering legislative and litigation strategies for the mainstream food nonmarket strategy framework to formally assess the GMO industry to protect their interests and those of American consumers not concerned with GMO food ingredients, while offering a voluntary labeling strategy for firms responding to and recognizing the “rights” of American consumers who “choose” to purchase non‐GMO food products. (shrink)

Food products with genetically modified ingredients are common, yet many consumers are unaware of this. 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. But labeling need not be mandatory. Consumers who want GM-free products will pay a premium to support voluntary labeling. Why do consumers want to (...) know about GM ingredients? 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, GM crops may affect neighboring plants through pollen drift. Despite tests for environmental impact, some consumers may worry that GM crops will adversely effect the environment. The study of risk and its management raises questions not settled by the life sciences alone. 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. The contributors include philosophers, bioethicists, food and agricultural scientists, attorneys/legal scholars, and economists. (shrink)

Food producers have answered increasing consumer demand for transparency through disclosure of information on food labels. Food safety labels act as a signal to consumers that certain products may pose a risk to human health. These labels are based on developments in microbiology and/or represent a required response to foodborne illness outbreaks. However, the scope of the risk posed by product consumption, as well as who is most vulnerable to harm, varies based on the ethical reasoning underlying (...) the presence of the label on the package. This paper applies Thompson (International Journal of Food Science and Technology 36: 833–843, 2001)‘s theory on two contrasting ethical approaches to risk communication – choice optimization and informed consent – to evaluate the four most common food safety labels in the US: i) unpasteurized juice warnings; ii) egg carton safe handling instructions; iii) consumer advisories on restaurant menus; and iv) date labeling. While the choice optimization approach dictates that food safety labels are a necessary tool to equip consumers with specific information that will promote public health (i.e., egg carton safe handling instructions), informed consent obliges producers to disclose all relevant risk information so consumers can choose one product or another based on its adherence to individual values (e.g., unpasteurized juice; undercooked animal products). This paper finds that the US food safety regime represents a blending of these two ethical foundations, leading to substantial variation in risk consumer tolerance and/or aversion. One effect of the intermingling of these two ethical approaches is choice overload among consumers for newer food safety labels (e.g., date labels). This paper concludes with a discussion of policy prioritization in the context of an increasingly crowded food label marketplace. (shrink)

Diabetes contributes to COVID‐19 deaths in Colombia and Mexico, where the latter having the highest prevalence of diabetes among OECD countries. Some reports consider that advertising influences diabetes by confusing labels on ultra‐processed foods and soft drinks that lead to unhealthy food choices. Both countries are in the process of modifying their labeling legislation; however, governments and food industries have pushed to delay its implementation. Using a mixed research design, we interviewed 550 consumers in both countries during (...) June–July 2020; a high number of respondents misunderstand today's food labeling and are unaware of the new labeling legislation. Respondents strongly agree that the food industry should be in charge of changing the labels; otherwise, they would consider not buying their products. Using cluster analysis, we identified three groups that would help design public policies, nutritional and educational campaigns. Although changes in food labeling alone are not enough to reduce obesity and diabetes rates, food labels constitute public health tools due they assist consumers to make food and nutritional choices (considering that nutrition can help prevent and overcome COVID‐19). The costs of maintaining current labels could increase Colombians and Mexicans illnesss and poverty. These deceptive practices of the food industry would harm their brands. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that consumerautonomy does not count in favor of thelabeling of genetically modified foods (GMfoods) more than for the labeling of non-GMfoods. Further, reasonable considerationssupport the view that it is non-GM foods ratherthan GM foods that should be labeled.

There is a fundamental divergence of opinion between the EU and the US over how food products derived from genetically modified organisms should be labeled. This has less to do with safety, as moves towards the international harmonization of safety standards continue apace, and rather more to do with the consumers' right to know about the origins of the food they are consuming. This paper uses a framework drawn from the global public goods (GPG) literature of economics and (...) the work by international relations theorists on formal international organizations (FIO) to explain why there is presently no global consensus on the manner (voluntary or mandatory) in which GM food products should be labeled. (shrink)

Moral concern with food intake is as old asmorality itself. In the course of history, however,several ways of critically examining practices of foodproduction and food intake have been developed.Whereas ancient Greek food ethics concentrated on theproblem of temperance, and ancient Jewish ethics onthe distinction between legitimate and illicit foodproducts, early Christian morality simply refused toattach any moral significance to food intake. Yet,during the middle ages food became one of theprinciple objects of monastic programs for moralexercise (...) (askesis). During the seventeenth andeighteenth century, food ethics was transformed interms of the increasing scientific interest in foodintake, while in the nineteenth century the socialdimension of food ethics was discovered, with theresult that more and more attention was given to theproduction and distribution of food products. Becauseof the increasing distance between the production andconsumption of food products ever since, theoutstanding feature of contemporary food ethics is itreliance and dependence on labeling practices. (shrink)

In February, the Food and Drug Administration announced a rule imposing new manufacturer labeling requirements for antibiotics. The aim of the new standards is to educate physicians and patients about the dangers of improper antibiotic use. Overprescription of antibiotics, as well as patient failure to comply with treatment regimens, has led to the development of drug-resistant bacteria. “Antibacterial resistance is a serious and growing public health problem in the United States and worldwide,” FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan said in (...) a press release accompanying the rule. “Without effective antibiotic drugs, common infections, that were once easily treated, can create a serious health threat to children and adults alike.”The FDA regulates foods, drugs, and cosmetics introduced into interstate commerce for safety and effectiveness. Currently, the agency requires drug labels to provide “adequate directions for use,” including indications, quantity of dose, frequency, duration, route, and preparation. (shrink)

In February, the Food and Drug Administration announced a rule imposing new manufacturer labeling requirements for antibiotics. The aim of the new standards is to educate physicians and patients about the dangers of improper antibiotic use. Overprescription of antibiotics, as well as patient failure to comply with treatment regimens, has led to the development of drug-resistant bacteria. “Antibacterial resistance is a serious and growing public health problem in the United States and worldwide,” FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan said in (...) a press release accompanying the rule. “Without effective antibiotic drugs, common infections, that were once easily treated, can create a serious health threat to children and adults alike.”The FDA regulates foods, drugs, and cosmetics introduced into interstate commerce for safety and effectiveness. Currently, the agency requires drug labels to provide “adequate directions for use,” including indications, quantity of dose, frequency, duration, route, and preparation. (shrink)

Labeling of food consumption is related to food safety, food quality, environmental, safety, and social concerns. Future politics of food will be based on a redefinition of commodity food consumption as an expression of citizenship. “Citizen-consumers” realize that they could use their buying power in order to develop a new terrain of social agency and political action. It takes for granted kinds of moral selfhood in which human responsibility is bound into human agency based (...) on knowledge and recognition. This requires new kinds of food labeling practices. Existing research on consumer’s preferences often fails to recognize the full complexity of the motivations and intentions through which the identity of the moral self is built up in relation to food consumption practices. For citizens, not only food production practices matter but also the impact of what we eat on who we are and the ecological foot print of our food stuff. Two major drivers for this are the idea that we ourselves have to take care of our own bodies (“We are what we eat”) and that we are responsible for Planet Earth. Since both obesity and climate change have become major public concerns, also governments develop an increasing interest in defining how citizens ought to behave as consumers and how retailers and producers should facilitate such responsible behavior. Since they are supposed to defend the “bonum commune,” e.g., the public health of their citizens and a sound common future for all, a new consensus on “appropriate” consumption choices has to be found, balancing beneficence and autonomy. (shrink)

The handbook is a partial survey of multiple areas of food ethics: conventional agriculture and alternatives to it; animals; consumption ethics; food justice; food workers; food politics and policy; gender, body image, and healthy eating; and, food, culture and identity. -/- Food ethics, as an academic pursuit, is vast, incorporating work from philosophy as well as anthropology, economics, environmental sciences and other natural sciences, geography, law, and sociology. This Handbook provides a sample of recent (...) philosophical work in food ethics. This philosophical work addresses ethical issues with agricultural production, the structure of the global food system, the ethics of personal food consumption, the ethics of food policy, and cultural understandings of food and eating, among other issues. The work in this Handbook draws on multiple literatures within philosophy, including practical ethics, normative ethics, and political philosophy, as well as drawing on non-philosophical work. Part I considers ethical issues concerning the industrial model of farming that dominates in developed countries, looking most closely at industrial crop farming and its environmental effects. Part II concerns the ethics of animal agriculture. Part III concerns the ethics of consumption: is it morally permissible to consume various products? Part IV concerns justice—including racial, social, and economic justice—in the food system. Part V discusses some ethical and legal issues with specific kinds of food policies, including healthy eating policies, food labeling, and agricultural guest worker programs. Part VI includes four essays taking a critical eye to our public discourse about, and personal experiences of, dieting, healthy eating, and obesity prevention. Lastly, the essays in Part VII concern the personal, social, and moral significance of food. (shrink)

Labeling of food consumption is related to food safety, food quality, environmental, safety, and social concerns. Future politics of food will be based on a redefinition of commodity food consumption as an expression of citizenship. “Citizen-consumers” realize that they could use their buying power in order to develop a new terrain of social agency and political action. It takes for granted kinds of moral selfhood in which human responsibility is bound into human agency based (...) on knowledge and recognition. This requires new kinds of food labeling practices. Existing research on consumer’s preferences often fails to recognize the full complexity of the motivations and intentions through which the identity of the moral self is built up in relation to food consumption practices. For citizens, not only food production practices matter but also the impact of what we eat on who we are and the ecological foot print of our food stuff. Two major drivers for this are the idea that we ourselves have to take care of our own bodies (“We are what we eat”) and that we are responsible for Planet Earth. Since both obesity and climate change have become major public concerns, also governments develop an increasing interest in defining how citizens ought to behave as consumers and how retailers and producers should facilitate such responsible behavior. Since they are supposed to defend the “bonum commune,” e.g., the public health of their citizens and a sound common future for all, a new consensus on “appropriate” consumption choices has to be found, balancing beneficence and autonomy. (shrink)

The use of biotechnology in food productiongives rise to consumer concerns. The term ``consumerconcern'' is often used as a container notion. Itincludes concerns about food safety, environmental andanimal welfare consequences of food productionsystems, and intrinsic moral objections againstgenetic modification. In order to create clarity adistinction between three different kinds of consumerconcern is proposed. Consumer concerns can be seen assigns of loss of trust. Maintaining consumer trustasks for governmental action. Towards consumerconcerns, governments seem to have limitedpossibilities for public (...) policy. Under current WTOregulations designed to prevent trade disputes,governments can only limit their policies to 1) safetyregulation based upon sound scientific evidence and 2)the stimulation of a system of product labeling. Ananalysis of trust, however, can show that ifgovernments limit their efforts in this way, they willnot do enough to avoid the types of consumer concernsthat diminish trust. The establishment of a technicalbody for food safety – although perhaps necessary –is in itself not enough, because concerns that relatedirectly to food safety cannot be solved by ``pure''science alone. And labeling can only be a good way totake consumer concerns seriously if these concerns arerelated to consumer autonomy. For consumer concernsthat are linked to ideas about a good society,labeling can only provide a solution if it is seen asan addition to political action rather than as itssubstitution. Labeling can help consumers take uptheir political responsibility. As citizens, consumershave certain reasonable concerns that can justifiableinfluence the market. In a free-market society, theyare, as buyers, co-creators of the market, andsocietal steering is partly done by the market.Therefore, they need the information to co-create thatmarket. The basis of labeling in these cases, however,is not the good life of the individual but thepolitical responsibility people have in their role asparticipants in a free-market. Then, public concernsare taken seriously. Labeling in that case does nottake away the possibilities of reaching politicalgoals, but it adds a possibility. (shrink)

Calorie labeling on menus is one of the more recent public health responses to calls for increased access to nutrition information. The goal is to encourage consumers to make more healthy food choices. In this commentary on ‘Equity in Public Health Ethics: The Case of Menu Labelling Policy at the Local Level’, I focus first on research supporting health equity-directed goals for menu labeling policies; then I turn to the issue of challenges and opportunities for menu (...) class='Hi'>labeling as a part of local food policy and food activism. I argue that, while there is some evidence that changes in menu labeling may help to promote health equity, other moves are needed at all levels of political organization. In particular, effecting shifts in attitudes and consumption will require changing our relationships with the food sources in our neighborhoods, and changing those food sources themselves. Leveraging our knowledge of behavioral economics and social marketing, using social networks and developing programs to transform eating patterns; all of these require participation and coordination among many stakeholders. Menu labeling is one tool, but many others are needed to effect change in communities. (shrink)

Individuals’ food choices are intimately connected to their self-images and world views. Some dietary choices adopted by consumers pose restrictions on their use of genetically modified food (GMF). It is quite generally agreed that some kind of labeling is necessary for respecting consumers’ autonomy of choice regarding GMF. In this paper, we ask whether the current practice of mandatory labeling of GMF products in the European Union is a sufficient administrative procedure for respecting consumers’ autonomy. Three (...) issues concerning this question are discussed. First, we argue that labeling needs to be accompanied by relevant and understandable information on genetic modification, genetically modified food, and the European practice of GMF labeling. Second, we claim that this type of informing makes it less likely that consumers start to avoid GMF products just because labels make them suspicious of the products. It is further noted that even though some consumers may react to labels this way, labels do not restrict their autonomy of choice. Third, a need for more precise labels indicating the source of the transferred gene is considered. It is found out that such labels are not morally necessary when also non-GMF products are available and no relevant differences (such as differences in price and healthiness) exist between them and GMF products. However, in some other cases more precise labels may be needed for respecting consumers’ autonomy of choice. (shrink)

Trustworthy eco-labels provide consumers with valuable information on environmentally friendly products and thus promote green consumerism. But what makes an eco-label trustworthy and what can government do to increase consumer confidence? The scant existing literature indicates that low governmental involvement increases confidence. This suggests that government should just provide the basic legal framework for eco-labeling and leave the rest to non-governmental organizations. However, the empirical underpinning of this conclusion is insufficient. This paper analyses consumer confidence in different organic (...) class='Hi'>food labeling regimes with varying degrees of governmental involvement. Using unique and detailed survey data from the US, United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden, the analysis shows that confidence is highest in countries with substantial state involvement. This suggests that governments can increase green consumerism through active and substantial involvement in eco-labeling. (shrink)

This paper explores the analogy between food label information and genetic information, in order to defend the right not to know judgmental nutritional information, such as the one conveyed by traffic light labels and other, more aggressive, recent proposals. Traffic light labeling judges the nutritional quality of food by means of colored flags on the front pack . It involves a simplification of the link between food quality and health outcomes. Unlike GDAs ,1 it does not (...) present the consumer with neutral nutritional information, but conveys an interpretation of the link between nutritional qualities and .. (shrink)

An outline of a theory ofvalues-based labeling as a social movementargues that it is motivated by the need tore-embed the agro-food economy in the largersocial economy. A review of some basic premisesof embeddedness theories derived from the workof Karl Polanyi reveals their connection toparticular values-based labeling efforts. Fromthis perspective, values-based labelingpresents itself as primarily an ethical andmoral effort to counter unsustainable trendswithin presently existing capitalism. Theselabels distinguish themselves from ordinarycommercial labels by a focus on processand on quality. (...) Evaluating thetransformative potential and progressive natureof values-based labeling poses a key challenge.One avenue for gauging this potential isconventions theory. This approach can beadapted to consider the decision makingprocesses that go on within values-basedlabeling groups, as well as consumer decisionmaking based on such labels, as instances ofwhat is termed a politics of ethical judgment.The conclusion emphasizes the need for moreresearch in this area and suggests how it couldbe furthered. (shrink)

The use of biotechnology in food productiongives rise to consumer concerns. The term ``consumerconcern'' is often used as a container notion. Itincludes concerns about food safety, environmental andanimal welfare consequences of food productionsystems, and intrinsic moral objections againstgenetic modification. In order to create clarity adistinction between three different kinds of consumerconcern is proposed. Consumer concerns can be seen assigns of loss of trust. Maintaining consumer trustasks for governmental action. Towards consumerconcerns, governments seem to have limitedpossibilities for public (...) policy. Under current WTOregulations designed to prevent trade disputes,governments can only limit their policies to 1) safetyregulation based upon sound scientific evidence and 2)the stimulation of a system of product labeling. Ananalysis of trust, however, can show that ifgovernments limit their efforts in this way, they willnot do enough to avoid the types of consumer concernsthat diminish trust. The establishment of a technicalbody for food safety – although perhaps necessary –is in itself not enough, because concerns that relatedirectly to food safety cannot be solved by ``pure''science alone. And labeling can only be a good way totake consumer concerns seriously if these concerns arerelated to consumer autonomy. For consumer concernsthat are linked to ideas about a good society,labeling can only provide a solution if it is seen asan addition to political action rather than as itssubstitution. Labeling can help consumers take uptheir political responsibility. As citizens, consumershave certain reasonable concerns that can justifiableinfluence the market. In a free-market society, theyare, as buyers, co-creators of the market, andsocietal steering is partly done by the market.Therefore, they need the information to co-create thatmarket. The basis of labeling in these cases, however,is not the good life of the individual but thepolitical responsibility people have in their role asparticipants in a free-market. Then, public concernsare taken seriously. Labeling in that case does nottake away the possibilities of reaching politicalgoals, but it adds a possibility. (shrink)

I first became aware of bioethics in the spring of 1980. I had spent a thirty‐six‐hour shift shadowing a medical resident, and I was struck that many of the resident's decisions had ethical dimensions. The next day, I came across the Hastings Center Report, and I realized I wanted to explore ethical issues I found implicit in clinical care, even though I still wanted to become a pediatrician. In September 2019, when I attended my first meeting of the U.S. (...) class='Hi'>Food and Drug Administration's Pediatric Advisory Committee, as a pediatric pulmonologist, I had the same sense of awe and curiosity that I had forty years ago. What had appeared initially as somewhat technical decisions about the regulation of drug labeling was suffused with ethical questions. The committee was asked to discuss possible changes to the labeling of two previously approved drugs. (shrink)

In most areas of our lives, legal protections are in place to ensure that we have autonomous control over what happens in and to our bodies. However, there are fewer protections in place for autonomous choice when it comes to the food we purchase and consume. In fact, the current trend in US legislation is pushing us away from autonomous food choice. In this paper, I discuss two examples of this trend: corporate resistance to GM labeling laws (...) and farm protection laws. These examples are quite different from a legislative point of view. In one case, laws that would promote autonomous choice are actively resisted, whereas in the other case, laws that undermine autonomy are enacted. The common core of the two examples is the effect: in both cases, we are unable to determine whether the food we purchase and consume is consistent with our values. In both cases, then, autonomous choice about the food we purchase and put into our bodies is undermined. (shrink)

Seeking justice, as Christians, means seriously reconsidering our food consumption in light of multiple instances of injustice: maltreatment of workers, animals, and the environment; and misdistribution of food both globally and domestically. A variety of solutions—including boycotts, labeling, local consumption, generous donations, and Food Sovereignty—would lead to a more just food system.

GMOS and Political Stance: Global GMO Regulation, Certification, Labeling, and Consumer Preferences provides a foundational-to-current challenges resource for those involved in developing and applying regulations to these important resources. Beginning with basics of GMOs, the book first familiarizes the reader with the history, economic status, associated risks, global politics, and socio-economics of GMOs. From exploring the necessity of GMO regulations with the existing GMO technology as well as new gene editing technologies to discussion by GMO regulations experts from different (...) continents and countries, readers will find the information necessary to understand the laws, rules, regulations and policies at domestic and international scale. A last chapter delivers an update and future look on gene-edited food and feed and discusses the possibilities on the future risk assessment, legislation and regulation of gene-edited products. GMOS and Political Stance provides a unique and applicable synchronization of all regulatory information on GMOs to facilitate effective and efficient regulatory development and adherence." -- Amazon. (shrink)

A number of high-profile mislabeling incidents have led to many studies exploring the decision-making processes that firms make around performing illegal acts. However, it remains unclear why the proportion of firms conducting these acts constantly fluctuates and never disappears. Therefore, this study investigated this by carrying out a longitudinal analysis of food labeling in the Taiwanese rice industry. Drawing on the institutional isomorphism theory, it was found that the degree of mislabeling is negatively correlated with both the level (...) of control of inspection regulations and public attention toward food regulations, and positively correlated with the previous proportion of firms mislabeling their products. Thus, there is a feedback loop between regulatory control, public attention, and the amount of mislabeling, with the amount of mislabeling not only being affected by the former degree of regulatory control, public attention, and mislabeling, but also modifying the future status of each of these. These findings further our understanding of the causal effects of illegal actions in the institutional agricultural environment. (shrink)

This paper discusses two paradigms of risk communication that guide strategies for communicating food safety issues. Built on the principles of social utility and paternalism, the first paradigm heavily relies on science and technical experts to determine food safety regulations and policies. Risk communication, in this context, is a unidirectional process by which experts from the industry or government regulatory agencies inform or alert potentially affected publics about the hazards they face and the protective actions they can take. (...) However, public trust and confidence in government and industry have considerably declined. Experts are being questioned about the objectivity of their assessments of risks. Policy makers are being challenged on such risk management decisions as tolerance guidelines, food labeling laws, and emergency warning systems. Concomitantly, some segments of the public, especially consumer advocates and environmental groups, are demanding increased input into the decision making process as they call for the recognition of lay perceptions and interpretations of risk as a legitimate counterpart to technically-assessed risk. Hence, instead of the linear, persuasion-oriented communication process, there are evolving efforts to shape risk communication into a more dialogical, interactive, and democratic exchange of information among different stakeholders (i.e., technical experts, government policy makers, industry, interest groups, and the general public). Reflecting a more Jeffersonian approach, this second paradigm argues that decisions about food safety are so complex and multi-dimensional that they must not be left to experts alone.However, both paradigms present ethical dilemmas. Determining the risks and relative safety of foods is not a totally objective and concise process. Since it involves social, economic, political, and personal values, how can the public not be involved in the exchange of ideas and information concerning food risks and safety? On the other hand, can we afford to let public opinion govern decisions pertaining to food risks and safety without consideration for the merits of scientific risk assessment? This paper raises questions regarding some assumptions of these two risk communication paradigms, and explores and discusses some of the salient ethical questions inherent in each framework. (shrink)

Organic food standardization is an increasingly important strategy for dealing with consumer concerns about the environment, animal welfare, health, and the economic structure of food production. But the ways in which this consumer-oriented strategy is introduced, organized, and debated vary considerably across countries. In Sweden, a nongovernmental organization [KRAV (Association for Control of Organic Production)] – consisting of social movement organizations, associations for conventional and organic farmers, and the food industry – has been quite successful in promoting (...) organic food labeling as an eco-label. KRAV has developed a complementary position vis-à-vis the state and EU regulatory framework. In the US, the federal government controls standardization. The government frames the label as a “marketing label,” thus rejecting the idea that organic food production would have any significant advantages for the environment or, indirectly, for human health. This framing is separate from the ones created by organic constituencies, leading to deeper controversies than in Sweden. The purpose of this paper is to examine why standardization has followed different patterns in the two settings. We analyze context factors (i.e., political culture, pre-regulatory arrangements, and organizational structures) and process factors (i.e., framing and organizing). What are the benefits of a state-centric versus a nonstate-driven approach regarding powerful standardization? The paper shows that both settings provide not only “threats of regulatory occupation” from actors not committed to organic principles but also avenues for substantial standardization in the future, albeit through different channels. (shrink)

Interest in purchasing local food from suppliers who follow sustainable practices is growing in Canada. Such suppliers wish to have their products recognized in the market so that price premiums might be received, and new markets developed. In response, the organization Local Food Plus (LFP) developed standards and a certification process to authenticate local and sustainable claims. LFP provides certification seals, and labeling provisions for qualifying producers and processors. However, given pre-existing national food labeling rules, (...) it is not evident that existing regulations permit such claims. Using LFP as a case, this study examined whether current federal labeling rules might impede the marketing of local and sustainable claims. Key findings include that the use of the terms natural, sustainable, and local in panel language and on shelf-talkers could be contested; and that the absence of specific regulation of numerous pertinent terms means they can only be assessed against general fraud prevention regulations, resulting in case-by-case determinations of compliance. Sustainability food label approvals in Canada, based on these general provisions, have not always been favorable to sustainable producers and firms. Existing regulation of these potentially contested terms appears to be out of step with other policy-related developments at the federal level and / or conceptual developments in the field. Proposals are made for amending existing rules to better support local and sustainable claims. (shrink)

In her recent article, Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food?, Kirsten Hansen argues that in Europe, voluntary negative labeling of non-GM foods respects consumer autonomy just as well as mandatory positive labeling of foods with GM content. She also argues that because negative labeling places labeling costs upon those consumers that want to know whether food is GM, negative labeling is better policy than positive labeling. In this (...) paper, we argue that Hansens arguments are mistaken in several respects. Most importantly, she underestimates the demands of respecting autonomy and overestimates the cost of positive labeling. Moreover, she mistakenly implies that only a small minority of people desire information about GM content. We also explore the extent to which her arguments would apply to the US context, and argue that any discussion of the relationship between autonomy and labeling should include not just considerations of consumer autonomy but also considerations of what we call citizen autonomy. (shrink)

This paper takes as its focus the adoption by the Co‐operative Wholesale Society of what appears to be a socially responsible stance on food labelling practice and policy through the publication of a public report and a proposed code of practice.The central issue in the debate surrounding labelling is the question of ‘asymmetric information’ (when one party knows more about a product than the other). In order to function, markets need perfect information. The existence of asymmetric information gives rise (...) to ‘market failure’ which prevents the ‘free market’ from functioning according to the laissez faire model. It can be argued that regulation will overcome this problem. However, this paper counters this argument on several grounds. In the first part of the paper labelling is examined as a textual construction, and ethical dimensions are revealed through an awareness of discourse and signification, which gives rise to a view of packaging as a version of reality partially built through connotation and association.The second part of the paper examines political and regulatory concerns. Marketing and economic theories are discussed in terms of their impact upon ethical issues in food labelling. Sense is made of various arguments about the policy and practice of food regulation – particularly in the wake of the James Report calling for the establishment of a Food Standards Agency. Tactics for resisting regulation are also examined. The paper analyses the role and motivation of the CWS in taking these steps.Consideration is given to the issue of where responsibility for information giving and public health education might lie, and what phenomena act as barriers to increased public awareness and action on dietary matters. Finally the debate over food labelling is used as an example of why it is problematic (and possibly unethical) to promote the free market model as the only sensible alternative to other modes of economic organisation. (shrink)

Within the traditional conception of communication, the subjects involved in the communicative process are divided into emitter and receiver of the message, analogous to the mechanism of transmission and regulation between machines, which is called cybernetics, to which the communicative process between living beings is assimilated (Habermas & McCarthy, 1984; Shannon & Weaver, 1998; Wiener, 2019). According to this theory, the person capable of communicating can only be equated to a target, to be considered in the unidirectional transmission of information. (...) Consequently, “good communication” is considered exclusively from an economic and utilitarian point of view, so that “good” communication is that which effectively transmits a message and obtains the maximum result with the minimum of effort. (shrink)

Obesity is widely recognized as a preventable cause of death and disease. Reducing obesity among adults and children has become a national health goal in the United States. As one approach to the obesity epidemic, public health practitioners and others have asserted the need to provide consumers with information about the foods they eat. Some state and local governments across the United States have introduced menu labeling bills and regulations that require restaurants to post information, such as calorie content, (...) for foods offered on their menus or menu boards. A major dilemma is whether state and local menu labeling laws are preempted by the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act . While few courts have addressed this issue, ongoing litigation in New York City provides an early glimpse of judicial interpretation in this area. This article explores these preemption issues, arguing that appropriately written and implemented menu labeling laws should not be preempted by the NLEA. We offer guidance for states and localities that wish to develop and implement menu labeling laws. (shrink)

Scholarly debate over the transformative potential of neoliberal, market-based, food movement strategies historically contrasts those who value their potential to reform the food-system from the inside against those who argue that their use concedes the primacy of the market, creates citizen-consumers, and undermines overall movement goals. While narrow case studies have provided important amendments, the legacy of such strategies requires impacts to be evaluated both contextually and more broadly than the specific activism. This study thus conceptualizes the ‘case’ (...) of U.S. biotechnology market activism expansively, drawing on interviews with 25 activists from diverse organizations to investigate the legacy of two food-labeling movement strategies (one public and mandatory, one private and voluntary). The results support that the legacy of market strategies extends more broadly than the immediate initiative. They also confirm that the consequences of such neoliberalized strategies are most productively assessed contextually and applied, rather than categorically—as most clearly illustrated by the counterintuitive results of the failed mandatory labeling effort. Of the two market strategies, voluntary labeling demonstrated the most problematic relationship to broader movement goals of food system transformation, in part because of the greater potential for overlapping credence claims and in part due to the risks of niche market logic. (shrink)

This article examines perceptions of and response to food risk by consumers who are allergic to or intolerant of certain food types. Food risk in general and risk related to genetically modified food are discussed, as well as issues of responsibility and judgment regarding food labeling. Eight hundred individuals were recruited for a postal questionnaire study. The response rate was 63% for allergic people and 59% for nonallergic. The results suggest that the experience of (...) personal harm from food in the form of allergic or intolerant reactions can influence how people evaluate food risk. For example, the ranking of food risks demonstrated a difference of perception with respect to naturally occurring food allergens. The allergic group was more disposed to buy genetically modified products that had been engineered not to contain allergens. Allergic consumers also were inclined to take more individual responsibility for risk avoidance than consumers without allergies. (shrink)

A review of the arguments that make up the current controversy on genetically modified foods (GMFs) is briefly given as well as an assessment of their cogency. The two main arguments for GMFs are utilitarian (we can feed a greater number of people with them than without) and environmental (we can increase the food supply without diminishing the wilderness areas by displacing them with farm land). The arguments against evolve around the idea of unforeseen consequences which could have irreversible (...) effects on the food supply and consumers. A major philosophical issue centers on the claim that genetic engineering is equivalent to conventional breeding (the advocates claim this) and the opponents who deny the equivalence. Because of the uncertainties involved in GMFs, it is suggested that their labeling, in addition to non-GMFs’ labeling, should be enforced so that the public can make their own decision as to what they should eat. The inference drawn from this debate is that we should proceed on a case by case basis, because of the rapidly changing biotechnologies. (shrink)

The lack of consistency between people’s engagement in ethical issues and their food choices has received considerable attention. Consumption as “choice” dominates this discourse, understood as decision-making at the point of purchase. But ideas concentrating on individual choice are problematic when trying to understand how social and ethical issues emerge and are dealt with in the practices of buying and eating food. I argue in this paper that “consumer choice” is better understood as a political ideology addressing a (...) particular way in which everyday practices can be directed so as to solve social problems. It is a way that makes questions of power particularly challenging. Some assume consumer sovereignty, emphasizing consumer choice as a reflection of neoliberal deregulation and commercialization. Others worry that ongoing changes increase consumers’ powerlessness. None of these seem to capture that there is active regulation, where public as well as commercial and civil actors are making strong efforts to make people do the right thing—voluntarily. Labeling is the key measure. In practice, the individualized and rationalized model of responsibility depends not only on market opportunities, but even political and social expectations and trust. People may lack concrete capabilities and power to follow up on moral calls, but they may also have a different understanding of who is responsible and what is a “good deed,” or their actions may, in a Foucauldian sense, represent resistance. The paper will, with examples from European empirical studies, discuss how mobilization as well as inertia and disinterest emerge within specific political constellations and practical contexts. (shrink)

The absence of appropriate information about imperceptible and ethical food characteristics limits the opportunities for concerned consumer/citizens to take ethical issues into account during their inescapable food consumption. It also fuels trust crises between producers and consumers, hinders the optimal embedment of innovative technologies, “punishes” in the market ethical producers, and limits the opportunities for politically liberal democratic governance. This paper outlines a framework for the ethical characterization and subsequent optimization of foods (ECHO). The framework applies to “imperceptible,” (...) “pragmatic,” and “reasonable” food characteristics about which consumers/citizens maintain concerns. A political perspective is assumed in that valid information is taken to serve the politically liberal and democratic functions of the market by allowing concerned citizens to make informed choices in their role as food consumers. Information is aggregated by multi-attribute modeling. It takes the form of “maximized” (“utilitarian”) to “most balanced” (MINMAX) non-binary aggregate comparative rankings of perceptibly substitutable food products. The model requires the description of characteristics by means of criteria and weights (structural input), and technical input on the performance of food for these criteria (product input). Structural input is grounded on relevantly concerned citizen/consumers’ perceptions. It is culture and times dependent. Availability of product input is assumed. Uses for the amelioration of the aforementioned limitations are discussed. So long as, and to the extent that, certain ethical concerns are not addressed by public policy, the ECHO framework may facilitate offering members of society a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for regulating the ethical aspects of food production in self-regulated markets as consumers, when they are constrained to do so through their government as citizens. In doing that, the framework may contribute to the development of the ethical dimension of food production and may bring rewards for food supply actors that take reasonable concerns of citizen/consumers into account. (shrink)

The history of the controversy overrecombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is exploredin terms of the issue of the potential robustness ofa consumption-driven ``new'' politics of food andagriculture. It is noted that while the dominanthistorical traditions in the social sciences haveserved to discount the autonomous role that consumersand consumption play in modern societies, there hasbeen growing interest in consumption within foodstudies as well as other bodies of scholarship such aspostmodernism, social constructivism, socialcapital/social distinction, and environmentalsociology. A review of the shifting (...) pattern ofdiscourses during the rBGH controversy shows thatconsumption-driven claims and politics played atangible, but relatively minor role. Even so, it issuggested that the rBGH experience along with paralleltrends in food politics (e.g., anti-pesticidecampaigns such as the ``Alar scare,'' agribusinessattempts to intimidate opponents through fooddisparagement laws, conditions-of-productionprovisions of the World Trade Organization agreement)could make the consumption/consumer dimension of foodpolitics more important in the future. (shrink)

In this paper we argue that there is a duty to inform consumers about the environmental impact of foods, and discuss what this duty entails and to whom it falls. We analyze previous proposals that justify ethical traceability with arguments from sustainability and the respect for the autonomy of consumers, showing that they cannot ground a duty to inform. We argue instead that the duty rests on the right of consumers not to be harmed, insofar as consumers have an interest (...) in the morality of their own agency that is frustrated if they are not informed about the environmental impact of the production and transport of what they consume. Our argument detaches the regulation of labeling from substantive theories of environmental ethics or perfectionist conceptions of citizens’ responsibility, thus defending a case for labeling that is compelling also for those who take the role of the state to be limited to the prevention of harm. (shrink)

Consumers have a growing desire to know where their food comes from and how it is produced, not only for health and safety reasons, but also to satisfy a nostalgia or a perception of “true”, “healthy”, “authentic” and “traceable”. The commercial urban agriculture sector attempts, at least in part, to respond to a growing demand from citizens for locally produced food and for local agriculture that can be signalled to consumers with the help of quality signs, such as (...) reserved designations and added-value claims labels. To date, however, we can wonder about the issues of establishing an added-value claim “urban agriculture” to promote the distinction and development of food products from commercial urban agriculture. This study, using semi-directed interviews with 16 urban farmers and managers of urban agriculture businesses in Quebec, explores their perception of an added-value claim "urban agriculture" to certify their food products. The results of the thematic analysis carried out showing seven main issues, namely: notion of urbanity, sustainability of agricultural practices, valorization of hyper-locality, community, regulations, ownership concerns and relevance of the claim. These issues underline that the logic of commercial urban producers is not only mercantile but also community, social and environmental. In this sense, legislating a movement, under the establishment of a public food label to meet the market's needs and promote the development of this industry, can reveal the various forms of power, exclusion and inequality embedded in urban agriculture initiatives but also some niche opportunities for them. Thoughts are proposed to promote products from urban agriculture from the perspective of increasingly nurturing cities. (shrink)

Consumer trust is a key prerequisite for establishing a market for credence goods, such as “green” products, especially when they are premium priced. This article reports research on exactly how, and how much, trust influences consumer decisions to buy new green products. It identifies consumer trust as a distinct volition factor influencing the likelihood that consumers will act on green intentions and strongly emphasizes the needs to manage consumer trust as a prerequisite for the development of a market for green (...) products. Specifically, based on a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, it is found that lack of consumer trust is a barrier for the development of a market for organic food in Thailand. Two focus groups and ten in-depth interviews revealed low knowledge about and low trust in organic food, certification, control, and labeling. Further, a mall-intercept survey revealed that lack of system trust reduces consumer expectations about benefits of buying organic food, and it makes them less likely to buy organic food. Mistrust in the control system and in the authenticity of food sold as organic has a significant negative impact on self-reported buying behavior. Implications for policy and future research are discussed. (shrink)