Labelling GM Food: from Industrial to Risk Society? Peter Parbery, doctoral candidate Department of History and Philosophy of Science The University of Melbourne

Document analysis & forty interviews in Australia and Europe Food Manufacturing Agricultural Inputs Agriculture* Food Retail Consumers Regulatory Authorities Policy Makers Science Organisations Environmental NGOs Consumer NGOs * Conventional and Organic Agriculture

A Policy Change Comprehensive labelling adopted: Britain & Europe: September 1998 Australia and New Zealand: December 2000

Two Labelling Regimes 'SE' Labelling  Substantial Equivalence labelled? high oleic-acid canola X herbicide-tolerant soya Comprehensive Labelling labelled? high oleic-acid canola herbicide-tolerant soya PRODUCT – based  (semi) PROCESS – based

'I believe that those confronting the issue of GM labelling must address the world-wide problem of diminishing public trust in food safety, in food manufacturing and - unfortunately - food regulators. That confidence will only be restored if independent scientists can demonstrate that food is safe to eat, and manufacturers and regulators are as open and inclusive in their approach to consumers as they can possibly be'. ANZFA CEO Ian Lindenmayer Nov 1999

'society’s relationship with science is in a critical phase;.. mounting problems of mistrust and alienation;.. a crisis of trust' House of Lords (1999) Third Report on Science and Technology

'Consumer confidence in food standards has been secured in the past on the basis of scientific review, interpreted and then managed through regulation by government authorities. ANZFA recognises that the community today is much more concerned about food standards. Public confidence must be based on comprehensive and accurate information, transparent decision making, as well as opportunities to access and interpret scientific information, expert advice and matters raised by special interest groups and individuals.‘ ANZFA 2001 'ANZFA Community Involvement Policy and Protocol'

'The GM labelling decision is really important because it actually changed the policy paradigm from just health & safety.. to something that was a little bit broader. That’s now set a precedent and a paradigm if you like, for process-based labelling'. interview; Dr Marion Healy, Chief Scientist Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA)

Industrial Society  Risk Society Scientific Control: Is it possible? Political Control: Who has it? Technology = Progress? Concern over distributions of Wealth or Risk?

Labelling as Control 'We reject the use of the term substantial equivalence in relation to GMO foods because of its narrow scientific application. Comprehensive labelling is the only way to ensure that health, religious, moral and ethical food choices are placed solely in the hands of each individual consumer'. Lay Panel Report (1999) 1st Australian Consensus Conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain

'Labelling is really crucial'…'That's what freedom and democracy is all about' Australian research by YCHW (1999) Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology

Control on Two Levels Narrowly personal(eg health effects) Broadly societal(eg environmental effects) 'labelling was felt to be important to allow consumers to boycott the products in order to "send a message" to manufacturers about a whole range of concerns, other than health risks associated with GMOs.' Marris, Wynne et al Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe

'But the process of production is the critical thing, not the end product. And that’s the key thing: conceptually that’s the nub of the debate about labelling' interview; Bob Phelps, Director GeneEthics Network (Melbourne)

‘The central issue for us is that consumers have a right to know the market. And this is not necessarily just the final food.. they care about the process. Increasingly, that issue is of importance to consumers. Organic foods is much the same thing. You see people asking more and more questions about how companies are using third world labor; they’re interested in the nature of the process and whether it was ethical, whether it was reasonable. That’s a bit of a shift to the consumer, which we label with the few short words the consumer’s right to know. So that was our central issue' [her emphasis] interview; Louise Sylvan, CEO Australian Consumers' Association (ACA)

The View from Industry 'I think you need to go back and think about what the purpose of the label is, and who owns it. Other [non food-safety] issues are very important, but anybody who proposes that labelling is the way to address them is naïve and doesn’t realize that labelling is only one in an enormous number of tools that governments have at their disposal' interview (Sydney) Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC)

'Certainly regarding the environment, we would not accept that decisions be made by consumers, by green organisations etceteras. We have regulators in change of doing so, and doing so on a scientific basis…' interview (Brussels), Syngenta (biotech)

Control and Determinism 'most focus group respondents felt that biotechnology is changing at such a rapid pace that developments cannot possibly be anticipated or legislated against. In addition, it was generally felt that Australian society and government are powerless compared to the international financial and political power of the large multinational companies driving biotechnological innovations'. Australian research by YCHW (2001) Public Attitudes Towards Biotechnology

Labelling GM Food: from Industrial to Risk Society? Peter Parbery, doctoral candidate Department of History and Philosophy of Science The University of Melbourne

'Price was one of the main factors determining choice and there was a resignation about the 'inevitability' of their own actions: 'The price will force you to buy that sort of thing'… Even in role-playing as Government, food producers or retailers, people never felt they could reject the technology; the only option was to limit, control and try to ensure safety as best they could'. Grove-White et al (1997), Uncertain World

'What would happen if Australia said 'no' to allowing gene technology?' Panel Report (1999) 1st Australian Consensus Conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain