Different
conceptions of food labels and acceptable risks: an institutional
argument for labeling
By Elizabeth
Kimberly
An
interdisciplinary conference was held Saturday, Nov. 5, on the
controversy of labeling genetically modified foods. Located in
the Life Sciences Center, the conference offered an array of speakers
from different universities, backgrounds and with differing views
on the topic.
When it comes to labeling foods, speaker Carl Cranor said that
85 percent of Americans wish that their foods provided labels
with information that they consider important. Besides nutrition
facts, Americans want to know where their food has come from,
what it has been through and every detail of the product that
is going into their mouths. He mentioned that labels can be used
as disclosures, not necessarily disclaimers.
Cranor is a faculty member at the University of California in
Riverside where he resides in the Department of Philosophy. He
has won numerous awards and written dozens of papers on ethics
and the philosophy of issues pertaining to life sciences. While
he does not have any writing directly related to food labeling,
he wants to know more about it.
“I am here to learn,” Cranor said.
The issue is whether food labeling is worth becoming a requirement
and looks at it in comparison to the European standard. Debating
whether labeling is an obligation, whether American consumers
care and whether it is morally even an issue is a debate that
seems to have no right or wrong answer.
Being a philosopher, Cranor looks at the issue with the realization
that the solution may not be hidden in black and white. He believes
that the real issue of food labeling is who the risk will be placed
on.
“Risk creators are not risk bearers,” Cranor said.
“The environment or a third party are.”
Looking at the fact that high doses of false positives and false
negatives are apparent in the tested animals, Cranor said that
the environmental risks are even more evident that the risks on
humans or animals. Scientists, he said, are judging these risks
with a slanted view.
“Scientists are more likely to protect against false positives
than false negatives,” Cranor said.
This is a problem because it produces results that lead the public
to false conclusions about specific practices and results. Cranor
added that these risks are humanly created as well as occurring
in nature.
“Labels need not warn of risks [but just] disclose wanted
consumer information,” Cranor said. “I think mandatory
disclosures provide correctness.”
> Back
to Corner Post Home
