Consumer Autonomy and Sufficiency of GMF Labeling

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.     

A Social Contract for Biotechnology: Shared Visions for Risky Technologies?

Future technological developmentsconcerning food, agriculture, and theenvironment face a gulf of social legitimationfrom a skeptical public and media, in the wakeof the crises of BSE, GM food, and foot andmouth disease in the UK (House of Lords, 2000). Keyethical issues were ignored by the bioindustry,regulators, and the Government, leaving alegacy of distrust. The paper examinesagricultural biotechnology in terms of a socialcontract, whose conditions would have to be fulfilled togain acceptance of novel applications. Variouscurrent and future GM applications areevaluated against these conditions. Successwould depend critically on how far a sharedvision can be found with the public. Tore-establish trust, significant changes areidentified in the planning and pursuit ofbiotechnology.     

Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems

Recent policy developments in the area of livestock husbandry have suggested that, from the perspective of optimizing animal welfare, new animal husbandry systems should be developed that provide opportunities for livestock animals to be raised in environments where they are permitted to engage in “natural behavior.” It is not known whether consumers regard animal husbandry issues as important, and whether they differentiate between animal husbandry and other animal welfare issues. The responsibility for the development of such systems is allocated jointly between farmers, regulators, different actors in the food chain, and consumers. This research focuses on understanding consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the development and introduction of such systems, to ensure that they are acceptable to consumers as well as producers, regulators, and scientists. Consumer perceptions of animal welfare and animal husbandry practices were evaluated using quantitative consumer survey, which focused on two animal husbandry issues – farmed pigs and farmed fish. Following pilot work, 1000 representative Dutch consumers were sampled about their attitudes to either pig or fish husbandry. The results indicated that consumers think about animal welfare in terms of two broad categories related to their health and living environment, but do not think about welfare issues at a more detailed level. Greater concern was expressed about the welfare of pigs compared to fish. Consumer trust in labeling also emerged as an important issue, since consumers need to trust different food chain actors with responsibility for promoting animal welfare, and are reluctant to consider the details of animal husbandry systems. As a consequence, a transparent, enforceable, and traceable monitoring system for animal welfare friendly products is likely to be important for consumers.     

Global Trade in GM Food and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Consequences for China

The UN Cartagena Protocol onBiosafety adopted in Montreal, 29 January, 2000and opened for signature in Nairobi, 15–26 May,2000 will exert a profound effect oninternational trade in genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) and their products. In thispaper, the potential effects of variousarticles of the Protocol on international tradein GMOs are analyzed. Based on the presentstatus of imports of GMOs and domestic researchand development of biotechnology in China,likely trends in imports of foreign GM food andrelated products after China accedes to WTO isexplored. Also, China's potentialcountermeasures to control and regulate importsof GMOs in line with implementation of theProtocol are discussed. China, in recent times,has increased its food and agricultural importssubstantially from USA and Canada. Chinaimported soybean 10.42 mill. tons in 2000 andabout 15 mill tons in 2001, of which majorityare from USA where GM soybean accounts for60%. The plantation of US Monsanto'stransgenic Bt cotton was increased to more than1 million ha in China in 2001. Though China haspaid great attention to develop biotechnology,it appears to have little scope to export GMOsand GM products. So China may consider a rangeof administrative measures to implement theCartagena Protocol and to regulate its importof GMOs and GM agricultural products.Consequently, the Regulation on Safety ofAgri-GMOs was issued on June, 2001 and followedthree detailed rules issued in Jan. of 2002,with a priority to limit foreign GMOs importingby safety certification and labeling system.These were outlined taking into accountpolicies adopted in Western countries such asgreen barriers to international trade.     

Animal Welfare Considerations in Small Ruminant Breeding Specifications

After satisfying their quantitative and qualitative needs as regards nutrition, consumers in developed countries are becoming more involved in the ethical aspects of food production, especially when it relates to animal products. Social demands for respecting animal welfare in housing systems are increasing rapidly, as is social awareness of human responsibility towards farm animals. Many studies have been conducted on animal welfare measurement in different production systems, but the available information for small ruminants remains insufficient. In this study, a 75 criteria-evaluation tool has been set up on the basis of the five freedoms concept. Animal welfare considerations have been analyzed in 25 documents, including labeling schemes, regulations, and recommendations from different European countries. The results show many differences between regular and organic small ruminant farming standards. Emergency measures are generally lacking. A weak representation of psychological aspects of animal welfare, especially by the current European legislation, is highlighted.     

Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST): Is there a limit for biotechnology in applied animal agriculture?

The intent of this article is to outline, integrate, and interpret relevant scientific, economic, and social issues of rbST technology that have contributed to the acceptance dilemma for this product. The public is divided into social groups, each with its own set of criteria on which they base rbSTs acceptability. Criteria for the scientific community may best be described as physiological. However, for consumers, criteria may be more practical, or procedural, including human health, animal welfare, environmental concerns, and overproduction. Because the business of dairy production depends on demand from the consuming public, the criteria for acceptance of rbST by producers largely reflects those of the consumers. Of necessity, producers are also critical of rbST from a business and animal improvement standpoint. Although this article demonstrates that rbST has met most physiological criteria for acceptance, the consuming public has treated the acceptance issue with forceful skepticism. The question this article addresses is, why? The authors comment that with rbST and other biotechnologies applied to agricultural animal production, it will be the responsibility of government health agencies, scientists, and manufacturers of the products to provide early, adequate, and honest public education. Attention to the concerns of the public may be the only means to prevent hysteria over this and future agricultural products of biotechnology and will, therefore, allow the public to form logical and thoughtful criteria assessments with respect to acceptance or rejection of each product.     

Food, Consumer Concerns, and Trust: Food Ethics for a Globalizing Market

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.     

Agricultural Biotechnology and the Future Benefits Argument

In the face of criticisms about the current generationof agricultural biotechnology products, some proponents ofagricultural biotechnology offer a ``future benefitsargument'(FBA), which is a utilitarian ethical argument thatattempts to justify continued R&D. This paper analyzes severallogical implications of the FBA. Among these are that acceptanceof the FBA implies (1) acceptance of a precautionary approach torisk, (2) the need for a more proportional and equitabledistribution of the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, andmost important, (3) the need to reorient and restructurebiotechnology R&D institutions (and the agriculturalbiotechnology community's values and attitudes) so that futurebenefits are indeed achieved through agricultural biotechnology.     

Environmental Footprint of Foods: The Duty to Inform

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.     

Respecting The Autonomy of European and American Consumers: Defending Positive Labels on Gm Foods

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 Hansen’s 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.     

Recycling and consumption in Germany and Japan: a case of toilet paper

This paper compares the recycling attitudes of consumers in Germany and Japan, based on our nationwide questionnaires. We analyzed consumption behavior as well as recycling behavior in narrow sense, because it is important to study the former to see how the supply of recycled materials is balanced with the demand, particularly in Japan which exports little recycled materials. Toilet paper was adopted as a specific good for study, because consumers have options of buying virgin products and recycled products. It was found that German households pay for waste collection specifically and have higher recycling rates than Japanese households. On the other hand, similar figures in German and Japanese consumers were observed with regard to consumption of recycled products. Their purchasing criteria and preference on virgin and recycled products of toilet paper were examined by self-report and blind test with 2×2 experimental design for toilet paper (German versus Japanese, virgin versus recycled). Blind test showed that people prefer domestic and virgin products in both countries. Half of respondents rating virgin products guessed that the products contained recycled material. For Japanese, the material of the sample toilet paper, made from virgin pulp, seems to be a more determining factor than the nationality of products, i.e. made in Japan. On the other hand, for Germans, the domestic nature seems to be a more dominant factor than the material, i.e. made from virgin material. Canonical discriminant analysis in conjunction with logistic regression based on self-reporting data detected the characters ‘multiplied’, ‘appearance’ and ‘brand’ as major factors making the difference in preference between the two countries. The possible reasons causing the similarity and dissimilarity between the two countries are discussed with reference to the background history.     

Including Public Perspectives in Industrial Biotechnology and the Biobased Economy

Industrial (“white”) biotechnology promises to contribute to a more sustainable future. Compared to current production processes, cases have been identified where industrial biotechnology can decrease the amount of energy and raw materials used to make products and also reduce the amount of emissions and waste produced during production. However, switching from products based on chemical production processes and fossil fuels towards “biobased” products is at present not necessarily economically viable. This is especially true for bulk products, for example ethanol production from biomass. Therefore, scientists are also turning to genetic modification as a means to develop organisms that can produce at lower costs. These include not only micro-organisms, but also organisms used in agriculture for food and feed.The use of genetic modification for “deliberate release” purposes, in particular, has met great opposition in Europe. Many industrial biotechnology applications may, due to their scale, entail deliberate releases of GM organisms. Thus, the biobased economy brings back a familiar question; is it ethically justifiable, and acceptable to citizens, to expose the environment and society to the risks associated with GM, in order to protect that same environment and to sustain our affluent way of life? For a successful innovation towards a biobased economy, its proponents, especially producers, need to take into account (take responsibility for) such issues when developing new products and processes. These issues, and how scientists can interact with citizens about them in a timely way, are further explored in projects at Delft University and Leiden University, also in collaboration with Utrecht University.     

Reducing Meat Consumption in Today’s Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-Consumer Gap

Our growing demand for meat and dairy food products is unsustainable. It is hard to imagine that this global issue can be solved solely by more efficient technologies. Lowering our meat consumption seems inescapable. Yet, the question is whether modern consumers can be considered as reliable allies to achieve this shift in meat consumption pattern. Is there not a yawning gap between our responsible intentions as citizens and our hedonic desires as consumers? We will argue that consumers can and should be considered as partners that must be involved in realizing new ways of protein consumption that contribute to a more sustainable world. In particular the large food consumer group of flexitarians offer promising opportunities for transforming our meat consumption patterns. We propose a pragmatic approach that explicitly goes beyond the standard suggestion of persuasion strategies and suggests different routes of change, coined sustainability by stealth, moderate involvement, and cultural change respectively. The recognition of more routes of change to a more plant-based diet implies that the ethical debate on meat should not only associate consumer change with rational persuasion strategies and food citizens that instantiate “strong” sustainable consumption. Such a focus narrows the debate on sustainable protein consumption and easily results in disappointment about consumers’ participation. A more wide-ranging concept of ethical consumption can leave the negative verdict behind that consumers are mainly an obstacle for sustainability and lead to a more optimistic view on modern consumers as allies and agents of change.     

Consumer understanding of product lifetimes

Throwing products away before they fail or are broken is at the heart of consumer behaviour in developed economies such as the UK. Products are often discarded for reasons of fashion, or to keep up with technological advances, rather than because they have reached the end of their functional life. Such behaviours contribute to resource depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, and physical waste which needs to be managed. Extending the length of time that products are kept in use (whether by their original or subsequent owners) can contribute to greater resource efficiency, with significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This research was undertaken to support the development of evidence-based policy in the UK on the role of longer product lifetimes in achieving sustainable consumption and waste prevention. Twelve qualitative discussion groups, involving 115 consumers, were carried out to explore consumer influences on product lifetimes including: which factors influence purchase decisions; the care of products in use; and disposal decisions. A new typology was developed to describe how products meet consumers’ various needs for ‘workhorses’, ‘investment’ and ‘up-to-date’ products; and how lifetime is an outcome of the ‘nature’ of a product (functional life) and its ‘nurture’ (lifetime in use) by consumers. The results demonstrate that consumers have come to expect constant and rapid up-dating of products. In particular, having the latest versions of products is strongly associated with personal identity and feelings of success in life. There is little evidence of concern about the environmental consequences of a ‘throwaway society’. The low cost of new products, which enables rapid updating for reasons of fashion, is a key barrier to encouraging consumers to keep products in use for longer. Some opportunities were identified however for certain ‘workhorse’ and ‘investment’ products that are valued more for their functionality than fashion.     

Is animal welfare a central issue for consumers of luxury goods?

The compatibility between luxury and sustainable development has been increasingly examined in recent literature, but a number of ethical issues remain unexplored. One such concern is animal welfare, a recurrent question in the luxury goods sector. This is one of the first research articles to shed light on this subject, utilising two studies, one qualitative and the other quantitative with conjoint analysis, conducted among 12 and 253 French consumers, respectively. The results reveal that consumers are sensitive to the challenge of animal welfare in luxury, but fall into two different groups. Some have a preference for animal‐based raw materials sourced from livestock farms that respect animal welfare, whilst others are more favourable to the use of synthetic raw materials. In particular, the results show that the use of synthetic raw materials is accepted by some consumers but can lead to a reduction in the perceived value of luxury products.     

Does an energy efficiency label alter consumers' purchasing decisions? A latent class approach based on a stated choice experiment in Shanghai

In this paper we conducted a hypothetical choice experiment in Shanghai, China, to examine whether the China Energy Efficiency Label influences consumers' choices of air conditioners and refrigerators. A latent class approach was applied to observe both heterogeneities among the respondents and product brands. Our results suggested that consumers in Shanghai were well aware of the China Energy Efficiency Label and tended to pay more attention to products with such labels. In addition, air conditioners and refrigerators affixed with a hypothetical label that indicates saving in electricity bills compared with a standard model received significant preferences, which suggested that the more information manufacturers provide, the more their products would be preferred by consumers. Finally, weighted by class probability, the willingness to pay values for more energy efficient refrigerators were higher than those for more energy efficient air conditioners, implying that Shanghai consumers have greater incentive to pay more for appliances they use more frequently.     

试论绿色消费

目前,绿色消费成了人们追求健康生活的目标,它倡导消费者选择有助于公众健康的绿色产品,并在追求生活舒适的同时,注重环境保护,节约资源和能源,实现可持续消费.绿色消费存在的盲目追求表面的绿色、影响生态的"生态旅游"、把"绿色"与天然划等于号等几大误区,消费者应转变消费观念并在生活中选择绿色的消费方式.     

Chemicals in Household Products: Problems with Solutions

The success of a regulatory regime in decreasing point-source emissions of some harmful chemicals has highlighted the significance of other sources. A growing number of potentially harmful chemicals have been incorporated into an expanding range of domestic household products and are sold worldwide. Tighter regulation has been proposed, and the European Commission has introduced the Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals to address this concern. However, it is clear that in addition to the regulation, there is a potential to effect change through retailer and consumer attitudes and behaviours. Interviews were conducted with 7 key stakeholder groups to identify critical issues, which were then explored using a public survey questionnaire (1,008 respondents) and 8 subsequent focus groups. The findings demonstrated that the issue of chemicals in products is of concern to consumers for reasons of personal health rather than environmental protection. Key obstacles to the wider purchase of “green-alternative” products included perceived high cost and poor performance, lack of availability of products, and poor information concerning such products. Although improved regulation was seen as part of the solution, consumers must also play a role. It was clear from this study that consumers are not currently able to make informed choices about the chemicals they use but that they would be receptive to moving toward a more sustainable use of chemicals in the future if empowered to do so.     

Labels for Animal Husbandry Systems Meet Consumer Preferences: Results from a Meta-analysis of Consumer Studies

Political decision-makers in the European Union (EU) are currently discussing the introduction of a mandatory uniform labelling scheme for meat and milk that provides information on husbandry systems similar to the already existent labelling scheme in the EU egg market. The objective of this paper was to assess whether such information is relevant to consumers when buying meat and milk. The paper was based on a systematic synthesis of 53 scientific journal articles on empirical consumer studies. The review revealed that consumers perceived the aspects of outdoor access, stocking density and floor type as important factors influencing animal welfare. On average, consumers not only had a positive attitude towards more animal welfare-friendly husbandry systems with outdoor access and space allowance but were also willing to pay a price premium for products from such systems. All studies on consumer segmentation identified at least one consumer segment that placed great importance on animal welfare-friendly husbandry systems. Interestingly, many studies identified one or more other segments who still had a significant preference for animal welfare-friendly products even though other product attributes were more important to them. Based on the findings, the paper presents conclusions regarding the labelling of husbandry systems for meat and milk.     

The transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy

The regulatory structures underlying United States and European Union policies regarding genetically modified (GM) food and crops are fundamentally different. The US regulates GM foods and crops as end products, applying roughly the same regulatory framework that it does to non GM foods or crops. The EU, on the other hand, regulates products of agricultural biotechnology as the result of a specific production process. Accordingly, it has developed a network of rules that regulate GM foods and crops specifically. As a result, US regulation of GM foods and crops is relatively permissive, whereas EU regulation is relatively restrictive. Why are genetically modified food policies in the United States and the European Union so strikingly different? In the light of the recent World Trade Organization dispute on agricultural biotechnology, it may seem that economic interests are the driving force behind policies. While they are certainly part of the picture, the issue is far more complex. This paper argues that three different elements help explain differences between US and EU GM food policies. First, an investigation of US and European policies of the 1970s and 1980s on recombinant DNA research and of events leading up to early GM food and crop regulation allows a deeper understanding of current policy. Second, scrutinizing underlying values and norms can uncover the beliefs that condition current GM food and crop policy. Third, an analysis of involved actors’ views and levels of success in influencing policy is essential to understanding US and EU policies.