From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 13:56:19 MDT
Some views based on my readings in the AgBio literature:
The big problem so far with GM foods have been that the producers has
made a strategic mistake: they first created pesticide-resistant crops
and crops with other enhancements that are clear on the producer side,
but not clear enhancements for the *consumer* side. While starting with
soy was an economically reasonable idea (we consume a lot of soy
products every day) it was a bad move in terms of consumer perceptions,
since soy is nothing you deliberately buy and usually it just exists as
some additive or ingredient, already with the "suspicious additive"
stigma. Apparently the consumer scepticism completely surprised much of
AgBio - they did not take perceptions into account, and have since then
had terrible problems (especially in Europe) to get out of their bad
start. In experiments where GM food has been sold with clear consumer
benefits, such as a the same price for a larger can, it has been
accepted readily despite being clearly labelled as such. Had AgBio
started out with foods where the changes had clear consumer benefits, it
would not be in the current mess. Labeling would likely decrease sales
for a while, but in the long run it is likely the only thing that can
restore consumer confidence. Studies suggest that the resistance can be
circumvented, but that requires giving an open and honest image rather
than hiding information. That a small label will not really tell the
important stuff (which genes have been moved from where and for what
purposes?) does not matter. It is an issue of confidence. Having a
squeky clean transparent image can be extremely valuable.
The problem here is a large amount of industry inertia. These
conclusions are fairly clear to the people studying consumer reactions
but have so far not really percolated into the boardrooms. So the
companies are not eager to adopt the labeling and the ones driving it
are the politicians - which is really the reverse of how it should be.
Compulsory labeling is bound to be defined by centralised institutions
with little interest in either consumer confidence or relevance.
In the end, I think we will get a so-so result: compulsory labels of
questionable accuracy (both type I and II errors will abound), a brief
consumer backlash hurting AgBio, followed by a growing acceptance of the
next generation of GM crops.
Of course, why not label *everything* -
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/bilder/kravnuke.jpg - if your bomb has not
been made with sweatshop labour, why not boast with the fact? :-)
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:11 MST
