Cognitive Scarcity: Influence on Labelling of Modified Meal - Research Paper Example

Cognitive Deficit’ and its Impact on Labelling of Genetically Modified Food student’s name University of _________ Prof. name University Email-id Abstract Various governments have been slow to react (ESRC 1999) to Genetically Modified Foods and the society has been fragmented into different sections consisting of the government, the politicians, the scientists, the manufacturers, the agriculturists, and the lay consumer. This compounded by lack of public awareness/interest (cognitive deficit), this has invited opposition to GM foods, leading to a complex and prolonged debate (Klintman 2002) about labelling. This essay analyzes and reflects on the works of empirical findings by various authors, and argues in favour of labelling, to inform and educate the public on ethical grounds regarding GM foods, and thereby enable the society to have a choice on the issue. Key Words: Genetically Modified Foods, Risks, Cognitive Deficit, Scientific - opinion, Social Context. Introduction The earliest recorded use of biotechnology for the benefit of mankind was, probably by the Sumerians and the Babylonians, who used yeasts in order to alcoholic beverages; they also developed hybrids of selected plants in order to enhance their more desired traits (Mondobiotech, 2007). Today, advances in the field of Genetic Engineering have propelled the world into a new debate regarding the labelling of Genetically Modified Foods (GMF). The following pages will delineate the meaning of GMF, and then briefly discuss some of the arguments put forth for and against labelling of GMF, the different aspects from which the issue has to be considered, with special reference to the ethical angle. It shall argue that, rather than point to ‘cognitive deficit’ to justify arguments against labelling the solution would lie in non-biased education and promotion of awareness of the public, on all concerned issues of GMF. This would lead to better integration of the technology in the society, thereby benefiting everyone. Definitions and Contextual Background One researcher who has analyzed the various aspects of the ongoing debate on labelling is Mikael Klintman. As a Wallenberg Fellow in Environment and Sustainability at the Department of Political Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Klintman conducts research in various fields including food labelling controversies, across the continents of Europe and America. His work “The Genetically Modified (GM) Food Labelling Controversy: Ideological and Epistemic Crossovers” (2002) offers comprehensive information of the ongoing debate; the same is considered as an important basis for discussion in this essay. The U.S. has always considered the qualities of the finished product as the criteria for labelling (Klintman 2002, p 74). Europe, on the other hand, has made labelling of GMF mandatory with both the public and the policy-regulators uniting on the issue (Klintman 2002, p. 71; FAO 2003, p. 5). Prior to proceeding into the discussion of the various aspects involved in the debate, it is essential to know the definition of GMF. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) defines GMF as those derived from sources that have been modified using the technique which artificially alters “certain characteristics of a food crop by introducing genes from another source” (pg 1). Thus, for example, a GM corn plant in the U.S. is made resistant to insect (Bacillus Thuringiensis BT) assault by artificially altering its relevant gene component (CSIRO 2004). ‘Cognitive Deficit’ may be explained as the theory that holds public scepticism of modern science and technology arises primarily by a lack of adequate knowledge regarding science (ESRC 1999). While this may seem beneficial to all, there is another side that make it seem quite harmful, as shall explained shortly. GMF intrinsically carries the risk of contamination from viruses to human chain. For example, some of the ‘pharma crops’ contain what is called the “medical vaccines or proteins;” in other words, these are genetic code sequences of some viruses that affect animals, but have not been seen to affect human beings so far. However, there is no surety that they will not harm human beings in future (Kamara 2006, p 34). For example, in the year 1996, the BSE virus or the mad-cow disease virus, was not known to affect human beings until then; however, the virus was transferred to human beings when infected meat were consumed (Miller, Conko 2004, p. 181) leading to great loss of human and cattle life. Thus it is clear that there is a risk involved. This is addressed as one of the risks of modernization, and is said to be dependant on “the application of science and technology” (Beck 1992, cited in Robins 2006 p. 47). Genetically Modified Foods carry this risk. Debate on Labelling GMF GMF have become a ticklish issue not only to scientists (because of its potential risks), it has also posed some difficulties for regulators; GM tomato could mean that the tomatoes contain genes taken from fish, and thus it has the potential to hurt the religious sentiments of some sections, like the vegetarians. Klintman (2002) however, prefers to analyze the two debating sides “on equal terms, as the anti-GM alliance versus the pro-GM alliance”; he calls them ‘alliances’ because it unites various sections of the society with different identities and differing GMF policies (sometimes across the borders) under one ideology (p. 72). He observes that the “tenets surrounding GMF” are “conflicting” (Klintman 2002, p.72) because the two warring side often seem to contradict their own stands. The debate stands categorized on “ideological and epistemological eclecticism” (p. 72). The ‘ideological’ or policy based debate centres round the idea of capitalist interests operating in a free market. Strangely, both the sides who argue for and against labelling, state that their arguments support ‘free choice’ (Klintman 2002 p. 73). The arguments against labelling on ideological grounds are that, the consumers do not care (irrelevance argument partially pointing to cognitive deficit theory) and that labelling will increase costs to the poorer nations (economic irrationality of consumers) (Klintman 2002 pp. 74-5). Arguments for labelling are that it offers the freedom to base their choice on rational grounds - “democratic rationality” to the customer; and that the consumers are not of uniform nature in their ethical or religious concerns (Klintman 2002 pp. 76-7). The Epistemological or ‘selective knowledge’ related arguments are based on idea of “the imperfection and subjectivity of knowledge,” in other words, the incomplete information available to scientists yet, of the new technology (Klintman 2002, p. 83). The arguments range between “epistemic absolutism and judgemental relativism;” they refer to the uncertainties of ecological and socio-political knowledge. The politically suspect motives of regulators and the governments over labelling are pointed to here (p. 79-80). The ‘for labelling’ camp adhere to ‘judgemental relativist’ argument, that it may indeed equip the consumers with the knowledge to discern between the food they eat based on “rational choices” and use their prudence to decide on the course of selection, until more details are available regarding GMF. After analyzing and discussing the different elements involved in each argument and the claims of each side, Klintman (2002) provides his own comments at the end. Klintman (2002) the advocates labelling of GMF on ethical grounds as being an “important part of the 'right to know' principle: the democratic right to know about political and economic strategies towards less visible goals with vast social and environmental consequences” (Klintman 2002, p.85) which is similar to the point discussed by Brian Wynne in at least two of his works. GMF, the Social and Ethical – Context Brian Wynne is probably one of the most ardent advocates of the ethical/social-context arguments for labelling GMF. He states that it is not valid to “over-generalize” the public as ignorant; in short he rejects the ‘cognitive deficit’ model of public understanding of sciences as a valid argument against labelling. In order to get a sound idea of the different knowledge levels and understanding of specific scientific processes that exist in the cross-section of the society, one should broaden the vision and look beyond the narrow constructs of ‘knowledge deficit’ theory (Wynne 1991, p 113). By means of five empirical evidences he explains that they represented the pragmatic realizations deduced by the people who experimented on the basis of their scientific knowledge, adapted and optimized to suit real situations. He states that though they are not recorded as scientific per se, “Understanding this general process of contextualization is crucial to understanding the social authority (or lack of authority) of science.” (Wynne 1991, p.113) The public do have a grasp of values and also a sound idea of ‘risk perceptions’ (Wynne 2003, pp 223-4). Furthermore, it is relevant to consider here what Wynne laments “the impoverished mode of policy culture” (Wynne 2003 p. 228) of scientific opinion. Instead of holding research and analysis that seeks answers to quest for knowledge, science seems to have rather become a thoughtless set of codes to be practiced, in the hands of policy makers (Wynne 2003 p. 228). It would seem more responsible and ethical to educate the public, regarding all the multi-faceted aspects of the issue through government machinery, with transparent and open discussion on what the status of the GMF research. Moreover, even the scientific community does not know clearly the long-standing risks or benefits of genetic engineering; therefore it becomes pertinent to give the society the freedom to choose. As regards educating the public, first the various sections should be identified. The details of their values such as religion, education, identity – ethnic and cultural, occupation, should be ascertained. According to Nisbet (2005) this plays a crucial role as the interactive segmentation will provide the opportunity to scientists to know about the concerns of the public, and tailor their explanations to appropriately address the various concerns of the different sections, thereby ensuring “scientific understanding.” This can be done under the auspices of the government. Furthermore, people welcome statement of facts and transparency, as demonstrated by the public opinion survey in Australia, a good 67% have welcomed the labelling of GMF for choice (Appendix 1), all of which put together argue for the labelling of GMF. Conclusion Researchers have debated for and against the labelling of GMF on various grounds. A careful analysis of the arguments and some of the aspects involving the issue leads one to conclude that educating the public with governmental support on all aspects of genetic engineering, and biotechnology would serve the purpose of GMF acceptance better. Actively involving and educating the public, with transparent discussions and unbiased, statement of facts will clear the ill will and doubt that prevails regarding the intentions and motives behind the regulations. All this clearly support the arguments for labelling GMF. This ultimately shall pave way for all round progress and benefit the world. List of References ANZFA - Australia New Zealand Food Authority (undated). “Genetically Modified Foods” (Online) accessed on April 13, 2007. http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/edit%20dec%2001%20GM%20ANZF A%202085%20Brochure.pdf BiotechnologyAustralia (2006). “Trends in Australian community attitudes regarding GM foods in 2006” (Online) accessed on April 13, 2007. http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=E6F3DEA2-960B-38D5-E1BADCE724181C1B CSIRO (2004). “Gene Technology in Australia.” (Online) article accessed on April 13, 2007. http://www.csiro.au/pubgenesite/foodsafe_faqs.htm ESRC - ESRC Global Environmental Change Programme (1999). “The politics of GM food: Risk, science & public trust.” (Online) article accessed on April 13, 2007. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/gec/gecko/gec-gm-f.pdf FAO – Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations (2003). “Issues Concerning Public Awareness And Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Bananas and Tropical Fruits. (Online) accessed on April 13, 2007. ftp://ftp.fao.org/unfao/bodies/ccp/ba-tf/04/j0803e.pdf Kamara, Mercy (2006). “GMOs and Sustainability: Contested Visions, Routes and Drivers.” Final Report Prepared for the Danish Council of Ethics Copenhagen, August, 2006. (Online) article accessed on April 13, 2007. http://www.cesagen.lancs.ac.uk/resources/docs/GMOs_and_Sustainability August_2006.pdf Klintman, Mikael (2002). “The Genetically Modified (GM) Food Labelling Controversy: Ideological and Epistemic Crossovers” in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, No. 1. (Feb., 2002), Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 71-91. Miller, I. Henry, & Conko, Gregory (2004). The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution. Praeger Publishers. p.181 Mondobiotech (2007). “Biotechnology History” (Online) article accessed on April 13, 2007. http://www.mondobiotech.com/Biotechnology_bthistory.aspx Nisbet, Matthew (2005). “The Multiple Meanings of Public Understanding: Why Definitions Matter to the Communication of Science” in Science and the Media. (Online) article accessed on April 13, 2007. http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/definitions/ Robins, Rosemary (2006). “Gene Technology and its Citizen-Subjects.” In Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society Vol. 4, No. 1, 2006, pp: 45-59 Wynne, Brian (1991). “Knowledges in Context” in Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Winter, 1991), Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 111-121. Wynne, Brian (2003). “Interpreting Public Concerns about GMOs – Questions of Meaning”, in Re-ordering Nature: Theology, Society and the New Genetics, (eds.) Celia Deane Drummond and Bronislaw Szerszynski, London and New York, T&T Clark, pp.221 – 248. Appendix 1 Trends in Australian community attitudes regarding GM foods in 2006 (Last reviewed: 7 Aug 2006) TRENDS IN AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY REGARDING GM FOODS IN 2006 From the ACNielsen Report for Biotechnology Australia 2006  Q1.      Are you likely to eat…   Very Likely Likely Neither Unlikely Very Unlikely Any GM food?................................ 9% 28% 9% 28% 26% Packaged food containing one GM ingredient, such as GM soy or GM canola oil?.......................... 11% 37% 8% 25%     19% GM cooking oils that contain less cholesterol?.................................... 14% 34% 8% 24%   20% Vegetables modified with plant genes for drought resistance? .... 11% 29% 10% 29%   21%   Q2.      Do you support…   Strongly support Support Neither Oppose Strongly oppose Regulation of GM crops by the Government?................................. 34% 33% 11% 13%   9% Labelling of GM foods for choice?........................................... 67% 23% 4% 4%   3% Research into what GM crops suit Australian climates? .............. 34% 35% 9% 11%   11% Growing GM crops separately to non-GM crops? ............................. 30% 33% 11% 13%   12% Trailing GM crops to see if they are suitable to Australian climates? ....................................... 27% 43% 7% 13%     11%   Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia 2007 All content on this site is protected by copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed to: WebHelp@industry.gov.au. Top of Form Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor    Bottom of Form http://www.biotechnology.gov.au/index.cfm?event=object.showContent&objectID=E6F3DEA2-960B-38D5-E1BADCE724181C1B Read More