|
Abstract:
|
The debate on the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food (GM) pivots on two justifications: the seemingly imperious right to know (RTK) and the seemingly paternalistic need to know (NTK). Of these two approaches, which is more efficient and rational? The premise of the controversy--the identification and management of risk--has bifurcated into two risk analysis schools. The science school operates on actual risk inherent in the product, to wit: food; it engages the NTK. The social school operates on perceived risk from transcendental considerations associated with the process, to wit: recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid technology (rDNA); it engages the RTK. These polarities mesh with the main sociological risk culture groups defined by Wildavsky, and may be suggestive of the virulence of the debate. The social school considers food culture and values when determining risk, and manages that determination via the precautionary principle (PP), with a view to "prove it is safe." Multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the Cartagena Protocol manifest this approach to GM. The science school considers the physical realities arising from botany and breeding (e.g., allergen proteins). The school then manages the actual risks arising from those realities using cost-benefit analysis aiming for an outcome of "no evidence of harm." This is the approach followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The GM labelling debate typically eschews any in-depth analysis of botany, agriculture, and economics. Consequently, the debate has operated without the knowledge that cross-species breeding barriers were overcome before rDNA; and under misconceptions concerning botany, agricultural production and breeding processes, and the nature and processing of food. The resulting question for GM labels now becomes: label what, and why? The RTK is thus infinite, fluid, and labile, and resonates with many in the democratic polity. Yet, with such traits, RTK is as much a device for dirigisme as for risk management, with the attendant consumption of societal resources. The RTK advocates caution. The NTK provides principled focus by addressing actual risk from food crops in the context of all breeding techniques and food production and processing systems. NTK bespeaks innovation, and innovation can beget societal resilience.
|
