Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2):147-163 (2011)
AbstractThe European Union’s policies regarding genetically modified food are based on the precautionary principle and the requirement of respecting consumers’ autonomy. We ask whether the requirement of respecting consumers’ autonomy regarding GMF implies that both GMF and non-GMF products should be available in the market. According to one line of thought, consumers’ choices may be autonomous even when the both types of products are not available. A food market with only GMF or only non-GMF products does not strictly speaking compel people to buy the type of products available, and a possibility to refuse to buy is enough for consumers’ choice to be autonomous. According to another line of thought, the unavailability of GMF or non-GMF products restricts the autonomy of those consumers who are unwilling to use the only type of products available in the market. From the point of view of autonomy, a food market with only GMF or only non-GMF products does not offer enough alternatives for consumers. Moreover, the whole point of the European Union’s requirement of respecting consumers’ autonomy is to enable an autonomous choice between GMF and non-GMF—not just to give a possibility to refrain from buying. However, this does not imply that producers, processors, wholesalers, retailers, or public authorities have a moral duty to see that there are both GMF and non-GMF products available in the market. The requirement to respect autonomy is prima facie in nature, and in the context of GMF, other prima facie requirements are often stronger and override it. Not only the consumers’ autonomy of choice but also environmental values, other people’s well-being, and the autonomous choice of farmers, retailers, and other relevant parties should be respected. Thus, according to the both lines of thought, the requirement to respect consumers’ autonomy of choice does not imply that there should be both GMF and non-GMF products available in the market.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Citations of this work
Autonomy, Values, and Food Choice.J. Dieterle - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (3):349-367.
The Normative Limits of Consumer Citizenship.Angela Kallhoff - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (1):23-34.
True Consumer Autonomy: A Formalization and Implications.Michael R. Hyman, Alena Kostyk & David Trafimow - forthcoming - Journal of Business Ethics:1-23.
How Consumers Use Mandatory Genetic Engineering (GE) Labels: Evidence From Vermont.Jane Kolodinsky, Sean Morris & Orest Pazuniak - 2019 - Agriculture and Human Values 36 (1):117-125.
Similar books and articles
You Are What You Eat: Genetically Modified Foods, Integrity, and Society. [REVIEW]Assya Pascalev - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (6):583-594.
Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate.Paul Weirich (ed.) - 2007 - Oup Usa.
Respecting the Autonomy of European and American Consumers: Defending Positive Labels on Gm Foods.Alan Rubel & Robert Streiffer - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (1):75-84.
Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty. [REVIEW]Michiel Korthals - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):201-215.
Illegal Products and the Question of Consumer Redress.Shaheen Borna - 1989 - Journal of Business Ethics 8 (6):499 - 505.
Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap. [REVIEW]Iris Vermeir & Wim Verbeke - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (2):169-194.
Persuasive Advertising, Autonomy, and the Creation of Desire.Roger Crisp - 1987 - Journal of Business Ethics 6 (5):413 - 418.
Consumer Autonomy and Sufficiency of Gmf Labeling.Helena Siipi & Susanne Uusitalo - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (4):353-369.