Acceptance of Altered Foods: A European Perspective

1. Acceptance of Altered Foods: A European Perspective Eluned Jones, TAMU Lynn Frewer, U. of Wageningen

2. Drivers of the EU perspective 1996 UK regulatory agencies acknowledge link BSE/vCJD Nov/Dec 1989 Fall of Berlin Wall – Start of conversion of Eastern Europe to market economies 1999 Dioxin contamination of poultry feed in Belgium US Farm Bill market oriented 2000 2005 1985 1990 1995 Monsanto & DuPont invest $20B in acquisitions Strategic decision making on investment pipeline in bio-engineering 1996 – 1st commercial biotech crops plants

4. Media reporting about BSE in 1996 Trust and blame Risk 3 0 n u m b e r Quality papers o f a r t i c l e s Tabloids 2 0 1 0 0 d a t e

5. Social amplification of risk - Trigger events (1) The Pusztai case (August 1998)

6. Social amplification of risk - Trigger events (2) Greenpeace starts picketing (1998)

7. Social amplification of risk - Trigger events (3) The Prince of Wales joins in (1999)

8. Industry attempts issues management - Monsanto UK corporate advertising campaign (1998)

9. Belgian dioxin crisis 1999Domestic consumption: robust Per capita consumption (kg) of beef and poultry in Belgium Dioxin crisis (Data source: Euromonitor)

10. Dioxin crisis Belgian dioxin crisis 1999Exports: sensitive Belgian beef and poultry exports (metric tons) (Data source: UN, COMTRADE database)

12. Top Global Supermarket Companies

13. Assessing perceptions of food risks FAMILIAR Salmonella Saturated Fats Botulinum Sugar NOT DREADED DREADED Colouring Organic Produce BSE Nitrates Pesticide Residue Hormone Residue Genetically Altered Foods UNFAMILIAR Fife-Schaw and Rowe, 2000

14. Information source characteristics - 1999 Social Attenuation Accountable to others Likely to withhold information Large commercial food manufacturer (1998) Large UK supermarket (1998) Dept of Health Expert in the area Factual information MAFF Good track record British Medical Association Large commercial food manufacturer Accurate information Health Education Authority Truthful information Distrust Trust World Health Organization In favour of using source Concerned about public Distorted information The Consumers Association Large UK supermarket welfare Biased information Responsibility to provide Vested interest Freedom to provide Health Which? Proven wrong in past Knowledgeable Trustworthy Protect self and interests Greenpeace Social Amplification Provide sensationalised information

15. Relative Trust in Agencies to Conduct Credence Certifications (safety, animal, social and environment) Bailey et al, Utah State Univ. 2003

16. What is the long-term problem in Europe? • misperceive the dynamic of public acceptance of risk • Public distrust in regulatory institutions continues to increase • All risk management practices are subsequently judged to be flawed

17. Public perceptions and attitudes:What are the key questions? • What is driving consumer perceptions of risk and benefit? • Who trusts whom to inform and regulate? How does this relate to consumer confidence in the food chain and associated science base? • Are there cross-cultural and intra-individual differences in perceptions and information needs? • How might the wider public be involved in the debate about risk management and technological development? • How do related factors (ethics, wider value systems) relate to perceptions of risk? • How do the public react to information about risk uncertainty?

18. Consumers and experts • decline in the public’s trust in science has passed a “threshold point” where the legitimacy of scientific judgement is questioned • the rise of the “consumer citizen” and informed choice at the level of consumer choice • the diminished role of the “expert” - wide availability of specialist information - broad shifts in the national (and in some cases international) political culture towards more transparent risk management practices

19. Original intent: to sanction action where lack of full scientific certainty exists – e.g. Exxon Valdese oil contamination In food/trade policy: to limit market activity where non-zero risk is present, until scientific knowledge can clarify risk exposure. UK Legislation 1990 Food Safety Act 1994 General Product Safety Regulations tightened interpretation of ‘due diligence’ Requires demonstrated working system Assigns responsibility for ingredients ‘ownership’ Precautionary Principle vs Due Diligence

20. Industry governance Country competitiveness Industry – economic performance Product inspection Firm governance Strategic advantage Netchain performance Process verification Role in Market Oversight Public vs. Private Private sector motivation, e.g. 1990 UK Food Safety Act increased liability for safety of food products downstream (retail). Retail could be held liable for practices upstream. Alternative governance structures/organization protocols adopted to reduce risk exposure – process vs. product added as a coordinating mechanism.

21. EU Definition of Traceability • “The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance intended to be or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and distribution.” – European Union General Food Law Reg. EC No. 178/2002

22. US Definition of Traceability • US agribusiness firms and producers often feel uncomfortable with the EU definition of traceability because they believe it is broader than what is necessary to achieve specific food safety or quality assurance goals • Possible US definition – “The efficient and rapid tracking of physical product and traits from and to critical points of origin or destination in the food chain necessary to achieve specific food safety and/or quality assurance goals.”

23. The quality path Carrefour’s response: Club FQC Trace One 2003 2001 Carrefour Organic Lines Internationalisation FQC 2000 Soya Line no GMO Brazil 1997 Carrefour Bio PGC (organic) 1995 FQC/ Fruit and Vegetables Line 1992 Start of FQC / 1st Bovine Line 1991 Organic: ‘Boule Bio’ 1985 Carrefour brand Free Products 1975

24. Traceability within the Supply Chain Fully integrated safe, quality, 3rd party audited protocols, e.g. SQF 2000 (ISO + HACCP) System HACCP FOOD SAFETY Sector HACCP Food Safety Codes No specifications Sector Grades & standard Product Specifications Non-audited | Audited ASSURANCE

25. Engineered Protein Products