Beyond Substantial Equivalence: Ethical Equivalence

The concept of substantial equivalence,introduced for the risk assessment of geneticallymodified (GM) food, is a reducing concept because itignores the context in which these products have beenproduced and brought to the consumer at the end of thefood chain. Food quality cannot be restricted to meresubstance and food acts on human beings not only atthe level of nutrition but also through theirrelationship to environment and society. To make thiscontext explicit, I will introduce an ``equivalencescale' for the evaluation of food chains (GM or notGM). By contrast with substantial equivalence, whichinvolves mainly quantitative, analytical methods ofevaluation, ``qualitative equivalence' refers to ``less'or non-substantial factors that require new methodsof evaluation based on qualitative principles.``Ethical equivalence' refers to factors that show themoral value contained in food products. To analyze thedifferent levels at which ethics is needed in foodchains, I will use the French principles: ``Liberty,Equality, Fraternity,' or freedom, equality,solidarity, and add a fourth principle:sustainability. Sustainability, solidarity, andfreedom can be applied to the evaluation ofenvironmental, socio-economic, and socio-culturalethical equivalence, respectively. Equality refers tojustice and should operate so as to guarantee thatsustainability, solidarity, and freedom are satisfied.I suggest that ethics can provide a basis for arenewal of the food chain concept. Besides QualityAssurance, it is now essential to develop an ``EthicalAssurance' and this equivalence scale could provide abasis to set up ``Ethical Assurance Standards' (EAS)for food chains.     

Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: Precautionary Science and Conflicts of Interests

Risk governance of GM plants and GMfood products is presently subject to heatedscientific and public controversies. Scientistsand representatives of the biotechnologyindustry have dominated debates concerningsafety issues. The public is suspicious withregard to the motives of scientists, companies,and political institutions involved. Thedilemmas posed are nested, embracing valuequestions, scientific uncertainty, andcontextual issues. The obvious lack of data andinsufficient information concerning ecologicaleffects call for application of thePrecautionary Principle (PP). There are,however, divergent opinions among scientistsabout the relevance of putative hazards,definition of potential ``adverse effects,' andwhether actions should be taken to preventharm. The reliance on the concept ofsubstantial equivalence in safety evaluation ofGM food is equally controversial. Consequently,value assumptions embedded in a scientificframework may be a barrier for employment ofthe PP. One of our major conclusions is thatprecautionary GMP usage requires riskassessment criteria yet undeveloped, as well asbroader and more long-term conceptions of risk,uncertainty, and ignorance. Conflicts ofinterest and public participation are otherissues that need to be taken intoconsideration. GMP governance regimes that arejustifiable from a precautionary and ethicalpoint of view must transcend traditionalscientific boundaries to include alternativescientific perspectives as well as publicinvolvement.