Understanding Public Calls for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods- Analysis of a Public...

7/31/2019 Understanding Public Calls for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods- Analysis of a Public Deliberation on Genetic

1/17

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 19 October 2012, At: 12:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: An

International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Understanding Public Calls for Labelingof Genetically Modified Foods: Analysis

of a Public Deliberation on Genetically

Modified SalmonShauna Nep

a& Kieran O'Doherty

b

aW. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canadab

Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario,

Canada

Version of record first published: 19 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Shauna Nep & Kieran O'Doherty (2012): Understanding Public Calls for Labeling ofGenetically Modified Foods: Analysis of a Public Deliberation on Genetically Modified Salmon, Society

& Natural Resources: An International Journal, DOI:10.1080/08941920.2012.716904

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.716904

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary

sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.


2/17

Understanding Public Calls for Labeling ofGenetically Modified Foods: Analysis of a Public

Deliberation on Genetically Modified Salmon

SHAUNA NEP

W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

KIERAN ODOHERTY

Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario,Canada

This article addresses public attitudes toward the possible introduction of transgenicsalmon for human consumption. We draw on data from a deliberative public engage-ment in British Columbia, Canada, in which participants discussed the social andethical implications of salmon genomics. One conclusion of this public deliberationwas a call for mandatory labeling of transgenic salmon (if approved for consump-tion). We present a qualitative analysis of the discussions leading up to thisconclusion. We identify four themes that characterized these discussions: call forlabeling as an expression of distrust; labeling and control; call for labeling as a

request for transparency; and labeling to gain acceptance of genetically modified(GM) foods. Our aim is to better inform academic and policy debates on GM foodlabeling through the considered input of a lay public. Our analysis suggests that theissue of labeling, with underlying public concerns, is currently inadequately addressedin Canadas regulatory frameworks.

Keywords British Columbia, food labeling, genetically modified foods, GMsalmon, public deliberation, salmon genomics, transgenic

Received 29 November 2010; accepted 22 May 2012.The deliberative democracy on salmon genomics research team is part of the

Genome Canada and Genome BC funded project Building a GE3LS Architecture throughthe W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia.Research team members providing essential theoretical and logistical support for the eventwere: Michael Burgess, Dan Badulescu, Emma Cohen, Isaac Filate, Alice Hawkins, DarquiseLafreniere, Holly Longstaff, Hannah Lewis, Sacha Ludgate, Samantha Maclean, AniaMizgalewicz, Shauna Nep, Kieran ODoherty, Alexis Paton, David Secko, and ElizabethWilcox. Additional valuable input on the project was received from collaborators, Marie-EveCouture Menard, Carolina Monardes, and Richard Roberts. The deliberative engagement wasfunded by Genome Canada, Genome BC, and the Consortium for Genomic Research on All

Salmonids Program (cGRASP).Address correspondence to Kieran ODoherty, Department of Psychology, University of

Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2W1. E-mail: [email protected]

Society and Natural Resources, 0:116Copyright # 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920.2012.716904

1


3/17

The issue of food labeling for transgenic salmon has recently gained prominence sincethe announcement in the United States that the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) might approve genetically modified (GM) salmon for human consumption(Voosen 2010).1 This is noteworthy not least because, in spite of the large and

ever-increasing number of genetically modified foods on supermarket shelves, to dateno GM animals have been approved for human consumption (Aerni 2004). The pros-pect of GM salmon becoming commercially available is particularly relevant in partsof Canada owing to the economic and cultural significance of salmon in these regions.Indeed, although the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO Canada)notes that there are no genetically engineered fish allowed for commercial use orrelease in Canada, the department is carrying out risk-assessment research ongenetically engineered salmon in contained, land-based facilities (DFO Canada2009). Given the strong possibility of GM salmon becoming approved in at least some

jurisdictions, the salience of the question of food labeling is evident.Academic and policy discussions on GM food labeling polarize around positions

of voluntary labeling, mandatory labeling of either GM or non-GM foods, and nolabeling at all. While the debate is often based on theoretical and normative argu-ments, it is important to note that it also occurs in the context of empirical studiespointing to continued and widespread public resistance to GM products in many

jurisdictions, which, in turn, is often associated with a public call of the mandatorylabeling of GM foods (e.g., Cormick 2007; Department for Trade and Industry[DTI] 2003; Food Standards Agency [FSA] 2003; Radas et al. 2008; Rigby et al.2004). However, little work has been conducted on involving publics in debates aboutGM food labeling more directly. Moreover, paternalistic policy responses have(incorrectly, we argue) cited a lack of knowledge as the reason for public resistance

to GM foods and insistence on mandatory labeling. Much empirical work onattitudes toward GM foods and their labeling has focused on measurement of general(i.e., largely uninformed) public sentiment, and thus may not provide the best supportfor countering such policy responses.

The purpose of this article is to contribute informed public opinion to academicand policy debates on GM food labeling, with a particular focus on the hypotheticalcase of GM salmon. We draw on data from a deliberative public forum of 25 BritishColumbians who met over two weekends in 2008 to discuss the social and ethicalimplications of salmon genomics. One of the conclusions of this public forum wasa strong call for the mandatory labeling of GM salmon, should this product becomeavailable commercially. In this article we present a qualitative analysis of the discus-sions of the forum leading up to this conclusion. It is important to note that our pur-pose is not to predict consumer behavior should GM salmon become available ingrocery stores; nor is it to provide a snap shot of public opinion toward GM salmon.Rather, our aim is to elucidate the values underlying public calls of labeling of GMfoods that have been documented elsewhere (e.g., Hallman et al. 2003; Miles et al.2005; Radas et al. 2008), and to gain a deeper understanding of the reasoning under-lying and substantiating this call for labeling. We situate our analysis of these discus-sions in the wider debate on labeling of GM foods and conclude by examining someimplications for policy.

A secondary aim is to illustrate a viable mechanism for developing meaningful

and informed public input on the issue. Our analysis does not seek to understandindividuals purchasing behavior as the outcome of latent variables such as locusof control, or perceived risks and benefits. Our purpose, rather, is to illustrate an

2 S. Nep and K. ODoherty


4/17

approach through which citizens can be involved in policy decisions in more directand meaningful ways. In contrast to reporting top of the head responses typicallydocumented in survey studies, we present here an analysis of the discourse of aninformed deliberative lay public. In line with arguments by Frewer et al. (2004),

therefore, our purpose is to contribute to the development of new methods to inte-grate public values in processes of technology implementation.

Current Regulation of GM Foods in Canada

In Canada, novel foods are subjected to a food safety and nutrition assessment, asrequired under Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drugs Regulations. GMfoods, including animals produced through biotechnology, fall under this categoryof novel foods. The assessment focuses on differences between the GM food andits historically safe non-GM conventional counterpart, and determines whether ornot the product is equivalent in terms of nutrition and safety (Health Canada2009). If the GM product is assessed as being substantially equivalent, it could beapproved for sale in Canada.

As long as a product poses no known health risk (e.g., potential for causing anallergic reaction) or has not undergone a change in nutrient value, the decision tolabel that particular product as genetically engineered is strictly voluntary (Libraryof Parliament 1999). Accordingly, any GM food that is deemed to be substantiallyequivalent to conventional food alternatives does not require labeling.

Labeling GM Foods and Consumer Choice

Arguments both for and against the labeling of GM foods generally center onconcepts of consumer choice, autonomy, and empowerment. Opposing mandatorylabeling of GM foods, Carter and Gruere (2003) claim that mandatory labels failin providing consumer autonomy. They argue that mandatory labels impedeconsumer choice since some producers may then avoid using GM ingredients, thuseliminating the choice of purchasing GM foods for some. Smyth and Phillips(2003) argue that the cost of labeling is likely to be passed on to taxpayers and con-sumers and that consumers do not derive enough value from the added informationto justify this cost. Further, they argue that many consumers do not understand theterms GM-free or Contains GM when used in product labels.

Others further claim that arguments in favor of labeling GM foods have reliedon ambiguous or false concepts of safety, naturalness, and normalcy. Hansen (2004),for instance, argues that (1) if GM foods were unsafe, they should not be sold or con-sumed at all and this is no longer a question of labeling; (2) concepts of naturalnessdepend on a false dichotomy between technology and nature; and (3) concepts ofnormalcy rely on an ambiguous understanding of what is normal.

In contrast, those favoring mandatory labeling argue that labels provide infor-mation that is essential for consumer empowerment. Specifically, labels allow consu-mers to avoid products made using ingredients or techniques that they do not wish toconsume. Streiffer and Rubel (2003) challenge Carter and Gruere (discussed earlier),claiming that their argument against mandatory labeling ignores the difference

between consumer choice and consumer autonomy. Streiffer and Rubel argue thatan agent acts autonomously choosing an action on the basis of the agents values;however, this does not require that the agent have multiple options from which to

Public Deliberation and Labeling of GM Salmon 3


5/17

choose. Further, if disclosing facts results in certain products being discontinued, theauthors argue that this removal may be an unfortunate limitation on informedchoice but would not constitute a violation of anyones autonomy (Streifferand Rubel 2003, 141).

As indicated earlier, Canada, along with other jurisdictions such as the UnitedStates, Argentina, and Hong Kong, has developed a voluntary standard for thelabeling of GM foods (Phillips and McNeill 2000). This position is based largelyon arguments that if the labeling is voluntary, consumers who choose to buynon-GM products will pay the full segregation and testing costs. In contrast, undermandatory labeling the costs would be paid partly by taxpayers and partly by GMproducers (Carter and Gruere 2003).

Public Opinion and Deliberation on GM Food Labeling

Some have sought to gain insight into public attitudes toward GM foods throughsurveys, often demonstrating that people are not comfortable with GM (e.g., Ahmadet al. 2010; Burton et al. 2001; Gaskell et al. 2000; Hall and Moran 2006; Radas et al.2008). Owing to the controversial nature of the issue of labeling of GM foods, weagree that a resolution must take into account the input of a range of perspectiveswithin the citizenry. However, both the ways in which such input should be soughtand how public input should be incorporated into policy are not obvious. A parti-cular problem with the use of surveys or other tools that aim at measurement ofpublic opinion is that on complex subjects such as labeling of GM foods, publicopinion is relatively uninformed.

A framework that has been described as a particularly useful mechanism for

translating public values around science and natural resources into policy is that ofdeliberative democracy (Parkins and Mitchell 2005; Rowe and Frewer 2005; Wagenetand Pfeffer 2007). In deliberative democratic forums, citizens are given the opport-unity to learn about a topic, engage others in debate about the issues, and then cometo collective decisions on appropriate policy. Deliberative methods therefore havecertain advantages over traditional social scientific methods such as surveys and focusgroups in that they (1) allow participants to become more informed and be exposed toa wide range of perspectives, (2) guide participants toward collective positions asopposed to aggregation of independent opinions, and (3) thereby may offer a moredirect avenue of involving citizens in policy debates. The final conclusions of a delib-erative forum thus reflect the informed and considered positions of a lay public,rather than top of the head responses. The objective is to increase the likelihoodthat applications are implemented in useful and socially appropriate ways, and suchapproaches have been used in various engagements on topics of biotechnology(Burgess et al. 2008; Einsiedel 2002b; Qin and Brown 2006).

In November 2008 researchers at the Centre for Applied Ethics at the Universityof British Columbia conducted a deliberative public engagement that sought to gaugethe opinions, values, and concerns of British Columbia citizenry on the social andethical implications of salmon genomics research and applications (ODoherty et al.2010). On the west coast of Canada and the United States, debates around salmon arehighly political and often polarized owing to the cultural and economic significance of

salmon in the region. Conducting a deliberative public engagement was deemedimportant to foster constructive public dialogue. These discussions culminated in sev-eral recommendations, one of which was for the mandatory labeling of GM salmon



6/17

(should this become available).2 The public call for mandatory labeling of a GM pro-duct is not novel. What is novel, though, is the ability to draw on the deliberations ofan informed lay public to understand the social interests and values underlying this callfor labeling. Importantly, the values expressed by participants in this forum occurred

in the context of consideration of competing interests (e.g., fisheries; aquaculture;First Nations rights) and detailed background information. In the following, we pro-vide a qualitative analysis of those aspects of the deliberation that pertain specificallyto the forums final recommendation for the mandatory labeling of GM salmon.

Methods

While it is not feasible for a small sample to be statistically representative, it ispossible for a sufficiently diverse sample to be unbiased and add a legitimate laypublic voice to academic and policy debate on an issue (Goodin and Dryzek 2006;

Longstaff and Burgess 2010). The primary aim of recruitment was to obtain a sampleof deliberants maximizing representation of diversity of values and life experiences inthe province of British Columbia. To achieve this, a sample of 25 British Columbianswas random-digit dialed to fill demographic stratification roughly proportionate tothe population of British Columbia. Participants were recruited based on the BCStatistic=Municipal Population Estimates3 and the 2001 Canadian Census data foroccupation, sex, religion, and ethnicity. Initial recruitment oversampled to 32 part-icipants to account for attrition; 26 participants completed the first weekend, and25 both weekends (see Table 1 for participant demographics). Participants receivedCA$100 for each day of attendance.

As Table 1 illustrates, good diversity was achieved across gender, religion,region, and ethnicity. Although reasonable diversity was also achieved across ageand occupation, the absence of individuals working in retail or business services isnoticeable, as is the presence of only one participant under age 35 years. These lim-itations are a result of unbalanced attrition from the initial 32 participants to thefinal sample of 25. While the overall diversity of the sample provides confidence thatthere was no obvious bias, the underrepresentation of these groups should be bornein mind when interpreting the results.

A key element in the deliberation design involves providing participants withsufficient information to be able to engage in informed discussions. This requiresensuring that the information provided is balanced, does not bias the deliberation,

and is representative of the diversity of views available on the topic. Participantswere provided with information through a number of avenues, including:

. A booklet containing background and contextual information (available atwww.salmongenetalk.com).

. An annotated bibliography of relevant papers from the peer-reviewed literatureand government documents.

. Presentations from five speakers who were either experts or stakeholders on issuesrelating to the topic.

. An annotated collection of media articles.

. A model that was used as an educational aid to provide a tangible referent for the

concepts explored in the deliberation.. A website that allowed participants to interact with each other and the research

team.



7/17

The deliberation was staged over two noncontiguous weekends in November2008. The first day was geared to informing and orienting participants with speakerpresentations and introducing participants to the practice of deliberation; days two,three, and four were directed solely toward providing participants with a forum todiscuss their views on any aspects of salmon genomics. From the second day,participants were split into three small groups and deliberations were conducted in

both large and small groups. A professional moderator facilitated the large-groupdiscussions, while three members of the research team facilitated the small-groupdiscussions.

Table 1. Participant demographics

Gender Female 12Male 13

Region Greater Vancouver 14Rural BC 11Age 65 4

Ethnicity Chinese 2South Asian 2Aboriginal 3Nonminority 18

Occupation Not working 6Aquaculture 3Construction 2Manufacturing 1Wholesale trade 1Retail trade 0Finance and real estate 1Health care and social services 2Educational services 3Business services 0Other 6

Religion Catholic 2Protestant 3Christian, other 5Sikh 1

Other religious affiliation 2No religion 12



8/17

To avoid (unduly) framing the issues to be discussed from the start, participantswere not presented with particular questions. Rather, participants were given twotasks (one for each weekend of deliberation) sufficiently broad to allow participantsto direct discussion to those issues they deemed most important. In other words, the

salience of particular issues was not imposed by the research team, but rather wasallowed to emerge inductively through the process of deliberation and participantsconsideration of a broad range of relevant literature.

On the first weekend, participants in each small group began to develop a deeperunderstanding of the issues and each others perspectives by working on the first taskof listing their hopes and concerns around the sequencing of the salmon genome.Over several sessions, each group collectively developed a list of all issues theydeemed most important in terms of both the benefits of salmon genomics researchand its applications, as well as potential negative consequences. Each small groupthen presented to the large group. In the period between the two weekends parti-cipants were encouraged to explore issues further with each other (via the privatewebsite) and with friends and family. During the second weekend participantsworked on the second task, which was to deliberate the question Should the salmongenome be sequenced? Why or why not? and to present conditions as to why or whynot. Participants were asked to consider not only the project of sequencing itself, butalso potential applications associated with the sequencing, and to present a series ofpolicy recommendations on the issues they had discussed. The facilitators preparedreports based on the presentations of each of the three groups which were subse-quently ratified by participants via mail and email. A final post-event interviewwas conducted with each participant via telephone.

The study also involved a quantitative survey before and after the deliberation to

measure opinion changes that might have occurred as a result of the deliberation.Analysis of the survey is available in ODoherty et al. (2010) and MacKenzie andODoherty (2011).

Individual deliberants are actively encouraged to reconsider their positions inlight of new information and other perspectives, and may consequently change theiropinions. Analyses therefore need to differentiate between individual opinionsexpressed in discussion, themes emerging from analyses of the entire deliberation,and collective statements ratified by the group. The latter can be termed deliberat-ive outputs (ODoherty and Burgess 2009) or collective conclusions of deliberation.In contrast to post hoc analyses conducted on deliberation transcripts, deliberativeoutputs are characterized by distinctly political (rather than analytical) legitimacybecause they represent collective positions arrived at through democratic deliber-ation. However, additional analysis of deliberation transcripts can provide impor-tant insights and reveal subtleties such as value trade-offs that were considered byparticipants, rejected positions, and implicit values underlying certain positions.Here we focus on one particular conclusion of the forum, the mandatory labelingof GM salmon, and provide a detailed qualitative analysis of deliberation transcriptsrelevant to this issue.

All discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded using ATLAS.ti 5.2 soft-ware. Coding was conducted by four members of the research team who were alsopresent at the deliberative event. A preliminary code list was prepared based on dis-

cussion with the entire research team and amended as necessary as the coders pro-ceeded to work through all transcripts to capture all emergent themes. To ensureconsistency in the interpretation of coding categories, all transcripts were recoded



9/17

by the fourth member of the coding team. All discrepancies in coding were resolvedthrough discussion involving the four members of the coding team (including theauthor SN). Pseudonyms are used to protect the confidentiality of participants.

Results and Analysis

In considering potential applications of the sequencing of a salmon genome, parti-cipants discussed a large number of issues. Ultimately, the group expressed supportfor salmon genomics research and the project of sequencing the salmon genome. Thegroup also collectively developed conclusions pertaining to the following issues:

1. Regulation of applications derived from salmon genomics research.2. The need for international treaties regarding the use of genomic technologies in

the context of salmon.3. The need for greater public awareness and education about many of the issues

relating to the sequencing of the salmon genome.4. The labeling of GM salmon, should these become available commercially. While

not related to the sequencing project directly, it was recognized that GM salmonhad been created, that efforts were underway to bring them to market, and that afull genome sequence of salmon might facilitate further research and commercia-lization of GM salmon. In considering GM salmon, participants did not focus onany particular purpose or reason why the fish might be genetically modified, butrather on the general principle of creating transgenic animals.

The analysis presented here focuses on the discussions relating to the conclusionpertaining the labeling of GM salmon (for other aspects of the study see ODohertyet al. 2010). In this context, participants called for the labeling of GM salmon shouldthese products be offered commercially. In addition to this explicitly stated collectiveconclusion, analysis of the transcripts of participants discussions leading up to thisconclusion reveals nuanced reasoning underlying this position. In particular, it is evi-dent that rather than being viewed as an end in itself, labeling is viewed by thesemembers of the public as a symbolic and practical mechanism by which a complexset of values, hopes, and concerns may be operationalized. Next, we offer an analysisof four major themes associated with participants call for the labeling of hypotheti-cal GM salmon. The four themes discussed are: (1) call for labeling as an expressionof distrust, (2) labeling and control, (3) call for labeling as a request for transparency,

and (4) labeling to gain acceptance of GM foods.

Call for Labeling as an Expression of Distrust

During deliberations, participants expressed persistent distrust in the approach toGM foods by the government, researchers, and biotechnology companies. Giventhis, participants called for labeling as a minimum requirement to allow consumersto exert a degree of choice on whether to consume GM products. Several parti-cipants noted the reluctance of the Canadian government to label GM foods, despitepublic demand, which served to further fuel expressions of distrust. The govern-

ments refusal to implement mandatory labeling was also linked to participantsbelief that other forms of research would continue to receive governmental supportdespite public disapproval. In the words of one participant (Heidi), since people



10/17

want genetically modified food labeled and it still hasnt happened, theres aninevitability that this type of research will go on.

Participants also expressed distrust in the biotechnology industry. In particular,the reluctance of biotechnology companies to label GM foods was associated with a

perceived vested interest in maximizing profits. This sentiment was expressed byparticipants in a number of instances (e.g., the more people are aware, the less theywill buy it [Vicki]; its the people who want to sell to us that dont want [labels]because they are afraid that we might actually read the labels [George]). Parti-cipants observations in this regard are supported in the academic literature in thatfood producers have been reported to be hesitant to label GM food because ofstrong consumer opposition to GM foods (Carter and Gruere 2003).

In summary, participants expressed strong distrust in current governance of GMfoods. The perceived reluctance of private companies and authorities in labeling ofGM products serve to fuel this distrust, and was associated with the protection ofvested interests.

Labeling and Control

Implicit in participants call for labeling as an expression of distrust is a sense of lossof control in individuals having the ability to monitor the nature of their sustenance.This sentiment was expressed explicitly in a number of discussions around labeling.For instance, one participant stated that we feel we dont have control . . . becausepeople want genetically modified foods labeled and it still hasnt happened. Thisparticipant later elaborated that this absence of labels creates an assumption thatthe public does not care about GM labels:

In North America we eat genetically modified food all the time and itsnot labeled and it makes it sound like we dont worry about it becauseits not labeled. . . . People said they want labeling. They didnt have itand now the assumption is that we dont care about its label. (Kathleen)

This excerpt illustrates a fairly complex network of belief attributions evident amongthe members of this public forum: Authorities are charged with ignoring public callsfor labeling and, now that GM foods are used widely without labeling in place, arecharged with assuming that the public does not care about labels all that much any-way. Participants strongly resisted this perceived assumption and suggested that thelack of GM labeling was reflective of bad governance. Notably, the demand forlabels was also described by participants as the publics only avenue of actionwhen it came to controlling their food sources (Kathleen).

The feeling of loss of control that participants expressed was not restricted to theidea of consuming GM food. Participants repeatedly expressed a sense of loss of con-trol in the overall pace and nature of biotechnological advancements, as exemplifiedby the scope of salmon genomic research. Often, this sense of loss of control mani-fested in a kind of cynicism, which in some cases was directed toward charging thedeliberative process as being too late. Some participants expressed that since theresearch was already being conducted and would go ahead despite the publics opi-

nion, the question of whether or not to sequence the genome was irrelevant or amoot point (Doug). However, a majority of participants expressed the opposite,namely, that the process of deliberation provided an important avenue for gaining



11/17

some control in the policy formation process. These participants articulated a feelingof empowerment through knowing that they were currently engaging in a process forwhich the results would be reported in the professional literature. The ability to voicethe reasoning behind their call for mandatory labeling of GM foods was seen as an

important part in this process of regaining and exercising control.

Call for Labeling as a Request for Transparency

Probably the most dominant theme to emerge from participants discussions aboutlabeling was that this was seen as symbolic of transparency in the production andgovernance of biotechnology. Several participants discussed the role of labels inensuring transparency for consumers making purchasing decisions. Participantsexpressed that labels would give consumers the same type of protection that theyhave in relation to pharmaceutical drugs since they have to label pharmaceuticals(George). Several participants indicated that labels provided the ability to make rightchoices about what they were eating:

All team members in my group agree that a law should be established toforce the manufacturing company to label food products clearly and trulyso customers will know that salmon is either farmed, wild, or genomicallymodified. So . . . the products which contain GM fish . . . must be labeled.Customers can use the information on the label to make the right choicewhile shopping. (Christopher)

The findings from this study also suggest that consumers currently buy GM

foods contrary to their preferences and without their knowledge. Significantly, someparticipants expressed that if they had known that certain foods they had purchasedin the past were GM, then they would say no (in stark contrast to speculation byHansen 2004; see also the later subsection, Nuance of Argument Around Calls forLabeling). One participant, in particular, explained:

I came into this whole forum knowing absolutely zilch about all of this.And when theyin reading this booklet here, it says it has 80 geneticallymodified foods out there already. I probablyate that. If I had knownthat, if it was labeled, then I would say no. (Lisa)

It is important to note that it is unclear whether these assertions would translateinto actual purchasing behavior (some studies suggest that preference to buynon-GM content can be counterbalanced by the price of a product; see, e.g., Castle2007). However, regardless of whether individuals are willing to pay a premium fornon-GM foods, these concerns suggest that transparency in this regard would help tofacilitate consumer choice.

Labeling to Gain Acceptance of GM Foods

In the themes discussed earlier, calls for labeling were generally associated with nega-

tive public sentiment toward GM foods. However, labels were not always viewed byparticipants as a way of helping them avoid GM foods. In fact, some participantsspeculated that labeling might actually foster the acceptance of GM foods.



12/17

One participant expressed this view explicitly:

If theres transparency, the public feels that, you know, nothings hiddenfrom us, we know what were eating, what were being offered for sale,

and they will be far more acceptable. (Roberta)

Note that here again a participant is concerned with transparency. However, in thiscontext, some participants articulated that labeling would help encourage confidencein and acceptance of GM food products. Another participant similarly stated thatlabels could serve to educate the public, and as a result maybe that mad desireto get away from GM foods . . . will lessen (James). In addition, participants specu-lated that the absence of labels would further propagate fear and distrust in biotech-nology companies and GM foods. Public education, together with transparentlabeling, was thought to potentially dispel fear (Larry).

The absence of labels was thus indicative to participants of something being hid-den from the public. In addition to seeing labeling as a way of increasing trans-parency, participants indicated that labeling could potentially increase acceptanceof GM foods. This finding is consistent with Qin and Brown (2006), who argue thatincorporating viewpoints on certain and uncertain consequences of GM foods willhelp to increase perceptions of source trustworthiness in the public. Similarly,Frewer et al. (2004) argue that consumer acceptance depends on broad sociopoliticalfactors such as public trust in regulatory institutions and the information aboutrisk management that is provided by these institutions. Importantly, this finding isalso consistent with studies that suggest that availability of information plays animportant role in public perceptions of GM foods (e.g., Knight et al. 2007; Rousu

et al. 2007).

Nuance of Public Discourse around Calls for Labeling

The purpose of the preceding analysis was to provide an account of the reasoningand value systems underlying public calls for the labeling of GM foods. Consistentwith criticisms of deficit models of public understandings of science, participants inthis study articulated cohesive arguments for the mandatory labeling of GM foods(Wynne 1993). Participants presented several other arguments that, while not cap-tured in the themes just described, are relevant to consider in the context of publicopinions on GM food labeling.

First, proponents of GM foods often argue that there is no fundamental differ-ence between modern techniques of genetic modification and traditional techniquesinvolving selective breeding that have been practiced for centuries or longer. Parti-cipants in our study exhibited a high degree of sophistication in dealing with thisissue. For example, while one participant argued that weve been genetically mod-ifying things forever, and selective breeding is a fancy term for GM, another par-ticipant differentiated between the two based on the pace at which changes occur andhave an effect on the environment and other species:

When you do breeding, the changes happen slowly over time, and you

can see effects often asyou know, it takes generations of that animalto see larger effects. Where when you do genetic modification you canactually have a large effect in one generation. (Kathleen)



13/17

This distinction has a foundation in the scientific literature. For example, Palumbi(2001) notes that both artificial selection and genetic manipulation are a kind ofevolutionary change, but genetic manipulation differs from artificial selectionbecause it can be fastinserting a trait never-before possessed by a plant almost

instantly. This can result in very different evolutionary processes and potentiallyvery different outcomes (176, 180).

Second, analysis of the data from this public deliberation also provides empiricalevidence contrary to some of the arguments raised by experts against the mandatorylabeling of GM foods. In particular, Hansens (2004) stance against the mandatorylabeling of GM foods, discussed earlier, rests largely on her argument about falseconsciousness. Hansen disputes the claim that consumers who buy GM foods havean interest in knowing whether or not products contain GM foods through labeling(because if they knew that the foods were GM, they would change their purchasingpatterns). Hansen does not accept this claim, arguing that in the absence of positiveevidence in favor of the view, its hard to see why we should accept it. Our resultsprovide empirical evidence that Hansens thesis is incorrect. There is indeed evidencethat some participants in our study object to buying GM foods and are unhappyabout having previously purchased GM foods owing to them not being labeled assuch (see earlier description).

Discussion

Deliberative methods provide an important tool for involving citizens in policydebates. However, conducting public deliberation is expensive, time-consuming,and involves a relatively small number of participants. Advantages and disadvan-

tages relative to other methods therefore need to be examined and their use justifiedfor each particular case.

The primary value of public deliberation to policy makers is that it can provideinput from an informed and diverse public. Public deliberation can therefore be usedto develop social norms for issues involving complex and controversial science andtechnology, while taking into account diverse perspectives and interests. For obviousreasons, the conclusions of a public deliberation cannot be considered representativeof opinions of the wider population. Participants in the deliberation have beenexposed to in-depth discussion about the issues, which is not typical of the widerpopulation. However, the deliberative conclusions can be considered to have polit-ical legitimacy, given that participants developed collective positions that transcendtheir individual opinions. As such, public deliberations may be better utilized by pol-icymakers when requiring informed democratic input for controversial decisions, asopposed to gauging public sentiment on an issue or predicting consumer responses(for these latter purposes, surveys and focus groups are arguably better suited).

In the context of academic and policy debate on GM food labeling, our studycomplements and affirms other empirical studies based on focus groups and surveymethods. In line with these studies (e.g., Radas et al. 2008; Teisl et al. 2003), our studysuggests that public calls for labeling of GM foods implicate important public values.Importantly, our study shows that far from being associated with a lack of knowl-edge, increased engagement with the issue of GM food labeling (at least in the case

of salmon) is associated with an even stronger call for labeling. Similar to studiesby Costa-Font and Gil (2009) and Poortinga and Pidgeon (2005), we see an importantrole of trust in consumer attitudes regarding the acceptability of GM foods.



14/17

Our participants discussions around labeling revealed a high degree of distrustconcerning the governance of genetic engineering by government and biotechnologycompanies. These findings are consistent with the argument that accountability andtrust in institutions play a significant role in consumer reactions to biotechnology

and are better predictors than the consumers level of knowledge (Irani et al.2002; Priest 2001). The findings also support Einsiedels (2002a) argument that label-ing is symbolic of public confidence and trust in institutions. The particular viewexpressed by some participants that labels might help consumers to accept GM foodsis also an important finding. It is consistent with Bernauer (2003), who argues thatlabeling might help to promote acceptance of GM foods.

Other qualitative studies relating to attitudes around labeling raise issues oftrust. Some suggest that labels help to build consumer trust (Barling et al. 1999;Coveney 2008). Others suggest that labels do little to enhance consumer trust, andtrusting labels is simply indicative of an already present institutional trust (Patersonet al. 2001; Brom 2000; Grove-White et al. 1997; Roe and Teisl 2007). Our study sug-gests that irrespective of the ability of labels to build trust, in the context of thepresent study the absence of labels is symbolic of a lack of transparency and con-sumer control. Given a context in which there is low public confidence in authorities,researchers, and commercial institutions acting in the public interest, our analysissuggests that policy on GM foods needs to focus on building public trust, trans-parency, and locating some degree of control with consumers. Although mandatorylabeling may not be the only or even best mechanism for satisfying these needs, itcurrently appears to hold important symbolic value in public discourse for placatingdistrust in the governance of GM foods. Our analysis suggests that irrespective ofwhether Canada adopts a mandatory labeling policy, it will be important to consider

other mechanisms for addressing the public concerns outlined in our analysis.An important interpretation of our results is thus that calls for labeling and

resistance to GM foods are not primarily attributable to public ignorance. In linewith Wynnes (2006) arguments, in order to be more accepting of GM technologies,members of the public will need to be assured that the institutions developing andregulating GM foods are worthy of their trust. The mechanisms whereby this trustcan be earned are clearly identified by the participants in our study: increased trans-parency and increased control for consumers.

That there is a widespread call by publics for labeling of GM foods is known andtherefore not a surprising finding of our study. What our analysis highlights, how-ever, is the connection between this call for labeling and distrust in the governanceof GM foods in particular and, arguably, biotechnology more generally. While wecannot know whether the introduction of mandatory labeling for GM salmon orother GM products would help to rebuild some of this trust, we can argue with someconfidence that public resistance to GM products could be better addressed by devel-oping more transparency and trustworthy governance surrounding these technolo-gies. Such governance mechanisms may involve mandatory labeling, though actualimplementation of labeling policies will also need to take into consideration such fac-tors as who is responsible for bearing this additional cost and who is responsible forensuring transparency. Quite likely, however, labeling (mandatory or otherwise) willitself only be a small part of the development of trustworthy governance, which will

also need to incorporate increased transparency and public discourse on such issuesas the sustainability of farming practices utilizing GM fish, effects on conservation,and other aspects of food production.



15/17

Notes

1. The AquAvantageTM salmon developed by Aqua Bounty Farms is genetically modifiedfor accelerated growth. These fish do not actually grow larger than their unmodified coun-terparts, but they reach marketable size in about half the time. This is argued to increase

profitability. These fish are also reportedly sterile to reduce the harm of escapes (Mardenet al. 2006).

2. GM salmon is just one among a range of possible applications of salmon genomics research(others include salmon microarrays, brood stock analysis, fish health markers, or DNAvaccine development). However, in line with previous studies (Tansey and Burgess 2008),the issue of transgenic salmon emerged as disproportionately salient in public discussion.

3. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/DATA/POP/pop/estspop.asp (accessed 18 February 2009).

References

Aerni, P. 2004. Risk, regulation and innovation: The case of aquaculture and transgenic fish.Aquat. Sci. 66(3):327341.

Ahmad, R., J. Bailey, and P. Danielson. 2010. Analysis of an innovative survey platform:Comparison of the publics responses to human health and salmon genomics surveys.Public Understand. Sci. 19(2):155165.

Barling, D., H. de Vriend, J. A. Cornelese, B. Ekstrand, E. F. F. Hecker, J. Howlett, J. H.Jensen, T. Lang, S. Mayer, K. B. Staer, and R. Top. 1999. The social aspects of foodbiotechnology: A European view. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 7:8593.

Bernauer, T. 2003. Genes, trade, and regulation: The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brom, F. W. A. 2000. Food, consumer concerns, and trust: Food ethics for a globalisingmarket. J. Agric. Environ.l Ethics 12:127139.

Burgess, M., K. C. ODoherty, and D. Secko. 2008. Biobanking in British Columbia:

Discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative publicengagement. Personalized Med. 5(3):285296.

Burton, M., D. Rigby, T. Young, and S. James. 2001. Consumer attitudes to geneticallymodified organisms in the UK. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 28:479498.

Carter, C. A., and G. P. Gruere. 2003. Mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods: Doesit really provide consumer choice? Agbioforum 6(12):6870.

Castle, D. 2007. Labelling policies for genetically modified foods. In Food, health and biotech-nology: Consumer and social issues in Canadas new food and health product industries,ed. N. M. Ries and J. J. Shelley, 713. Victoria, BC: Advanced Foods and MaterialsNetwork.

Cormick, C. 2007. Public attitudes towards GM crops and food. Agric. Sci. 21(2):2430.Costa-Font, M., and J. M. Gil. 2009. Structural equation modelling of consumer acceptance

of genetically modified (GM) food in the Mediterranean Europe: A cross country study.Food Qual. Prefer. 20(6):399409.

Coveney, J. 2008. Food and trust in Australia: Building a picture. Public Health Nutr.11:237245.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2009. Frequently asked questionsAquaculture.http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/faq_toc-eng.htm (accessed 30 March 2009).

Department for Trade, and Industry. 2003. GM nation? The findings of the public debate.London, UK: Department for Trade and Industry.

Einsiedel, E. 2002a. GM food labeling: The interplay of information, social values, andinstitutional trust. Sci. Commun. 24(2):209221.

Einsiedel, E. 2002b. Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consulta-

tions on xenotransplantation. Public Understand. Sci. 11(3):15331.Food Standards Agency. 2003. Consumer views of GM food: The Food Standards Agencys

contribution to the public dialogue. London, UK: Food Standards Agency.



16/17

Frewer, L., J. Lassen, B. Kettlitz, J. Scholderer, V. Beekman, and K. G. Berdal. 2004. Societalaspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42:11811193.

Gaskell, G., N. Allum, and M. Bauer. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nat.Biotechnol. 18(9):935938.

Goodin, R., and J. Dryzek. 2006. Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake ofmini-publics. Polit. Society 34(2):219244.

Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne. 1997. Uncertain world: Geneticallymodified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, UK: Centre for theStudy of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.

Hall, C., and D. Moran. 2006. Investigating GM risk perceptions: A survey of anti-GM andenvironmental campaign group members. J. Rural Stud. 22(1):2937.

Hallman, W., W. Hebden, H. Aquino, C. Cuite, and J. T. Lang. 2003. Public perceptions ofgenetically modified foods: A national study of american knowledge and opinion. Publi-cation number RR-1003-004. New Brunswick, NJ: Food Policy Institute, Cook College,Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Hansen, K. 2004. Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food?

J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 17(1):6776.Health Canada. 2009. Novel food decisions. www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/index-

eng.php (accessed 4 January 2009).Irani, T., J. Sinclair, and M. OMalley. 2002. The importance of being accountable: The

relationship between perceptions of accountability, knowledge, and attitude toward plantgenetic engineering. Sci. Commun. 23(3):225242.

Knight J. G., D. W. Mather, D. K. Holdsworth, and D. F. Ermen. 2007. Acceptance of GMfoodAn experiment in six countries. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(5):507508.

Library of Parliament. 1999. Genetically modified foods. PRB 99-12E. Ottawa, ON.Longstaff, H., and M. Burgess. 2010. Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on

the ethics of biobanks. Public Understand. Sci. 19:212224.

MacKenzie, M. K., and K. C. ODoherty. 2011. Deliberating future issues: Minipublics andsalmon genomics. J. Public Deliberation 7(1):article 5.Marden, E., H. Longstaff, and E. Levy. 2006. The policy context and public consultation: A

consideration of transgenic salmon. Integrated Assess. J. 6(2):7397.Miles, S. U., F. ydis, and J. Lynn. 2005. Public attitudes towards genetically-modified food.

Br. Food J. 107(4):246262.ODoherty, K. C., and M. M. Burgess. 2009. Engaging the public on biobanks: Outcomes of

the BC Biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics 12(4):203215.ODoherty, K. C., M. Burgess, and D. Secko. 2010. Sequencing the salmon genome: A

deliberative public engagement. Genomics Society Policy 6(1):1633.Palumbi, S. 2001. The evolution explosion: How humans cause rapid evolutionary change. New

York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Parkins, J. R., and R. E. Mitchell. 2005. Public participation as public debate: A deliberativeturn in natural resource management. Society Nat. Resources 18:529540.

Paterson, D., R. Zappelli, and A. Chalmers. 2001. Food labelling issuesConsumer qualitativeresearch. Canberra, Australia: Australia and New Zealand Food Authority.

Phillips, P. W. B., and H. McNeill. 2000. A survey of national labeling policies for GM foods.Agbioforum 3(4):219224.

Poortinga, W., and Pidgeon, N. F. 2005. Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence ofthe Acceptability of GM Food? Risk Anal. 25(1):199209.

Priest, S. 2001. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement forbiotechnology development. Sci. Commun. 23(2):97.

Qin, W., and J. L. Brown. 2006. Consumer opinions about genetically engineered salmon and

information effect on opinions: A qualitative approach. Sci. Commun. 28(2):243272.Radas, S., M. F. Teisl, and B. Roe. 2008. An open mind wants more: Opinion strength and thedesire for genetically modified food labeling policy. J. Consumer Affairs 42(3):335361.



17/17

Rigby, D., T. Young, and M. Burton. 2004. Consumer willingness to pay to reduce GMOs infood and increase the robustness of GM labeling. Report to Department of the Environ-ment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester, UK: School of Economic Studies, Universityof Manchester.

Roe, B., and M. F. Teisl. 2007. Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of messageand messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products. Food Policy 32:4966.

Rousu M. C., W. E. Huffman, J. F. Shogren, and A. Tegene. 2007. Effects and value of veri-fiable information in a controversial market: Evidence from lab auctions of geneticallymodified food. Econ. Inquiry 45:409432.

Rowe, G., and L. Frewer. 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol.Hum. Values 30(2):251290.

Smyth, S., and P. W. B. Phillips. 2003. Labeling to manage marketing of GM foods. TrendsBiotechnol. 21(9):389393.

Streiffer, R., and A. Rubel. 2003. Choice versus autonomy in the GM food labeling debate.Agbioforum 6(3):141142.

Tansey, J., and M. Burgess. 2008. The meaning of genomics: A focus group study of inter-

ested and lay classifications of salmon genomics. Public Understand. Sci. 17:473484.Teisl, M. F., L. Garner, B. Roe, and M. E. Vayda. 2003. Labeling genetically modified foods:

How do U.S. consumers want to see it done? AgBioForum 6(12):4854.Voosen, P. 2010. Panel advises more aggressive FDA analysis of engineered salmon. New York

Times. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/21/21greenwire-panel-advises-more-aggressive-fda-analysis-of-71171.html?pagewanted=all (accessed 10 October 2010).

Wagenet, L. P., and M. J. Pfeffer. 2007. Organizing citizen engagement for democraticenvironmental planning. Society Nat. Resources 20:801813.

Wynne, B. 1993. Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Under-stand. Sci. 2(4):321337.

Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in sciencehitting the

notes, but missing the music? Commun. Genet. 9(3):211220.


Understanding Public Calls for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods- Analysis of a Public...

Documents

Transcript of Understanding Public Calls for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods- Analysis of a Public...