Etapa 5 Tratamiento

Scenario development—the major objective of foresight—could be achieved through anticipating the long-term implications of GM technology; anticipation also helps to acquire basic knowledge about what the future may look like. In terms of the present data, foresight capacity manifests itself, prominently, in intensive debates on the long- term implications of GM labelling. Discussants on social media conveyed personal attitudes toward GM labelling with supportive evidence retrieved from scientific articles, news stories or personal experience. During the process of making an argument, discussants consciously or unconsciously described an alternative hypothetical future as a consequence of the long-term implications of the use of GM technology. Even though the implications run in diverse directions, varying from civil rights to price fluctuations, and from commercial interests to livelihood issues, the spontaneous discussion surrounding the possible societal implications of GM technology demonstrates an attempt to look ahead and prepare for the most likely future.

The first and also the most popular contention about GM labelling on social media is whether GM products should be labelled. Viewpoints vary a lot from person to person, while two outstanding voices dominate the discussion: for and against (which I will refer to as support and opposition). According to the distribution of attitudes in the data on Twitter, people who support GM labelling seem to be neck and neck with those who oppose GM labelling. The opponents of GM labelling, such as ‘Cosmic Hominid’, state that labelling methods are only necessary when an ‘actual’, proven drawback to

115

human health has been demonstrated by GM technology. Otherwise, any deliberate action pointing out GM-related information is just ‘superfluous’.

Cosmic Hominid Mar 17, 2014

@beachvetlbc If the food presents actual health risk, then it might be appropriate to label. In the case of GMOs, it doesn't, so it's superfluous to do that.

Some opponents of compulsory labelling believe that the ‘demand for GM labeling’ ignores scientific evidence. However, this viewpoint has been completely refuted by the supporters of GM labelling.

Brian Urbancic @SciGroupie Mar 17, 2016

@SetthemF @mamaliciousdc @HillaryClinton I'm curious if you are a science denier in general, or just for GMOs.

setthem_free @SetthemF Mar 17, 2016

@SciFan66 @SetthemF @mamaliciousdc @HillaryClinton I'm curious as to how you equate a demand for GMO labeling with a denial of science? Geez.

On Weibo, debate over the necessity of labelling GM also takes place between supporters and opponents who are equally distributed in the data. To the supporter of GM labelling, securing basic civil rights provided by GM labelling serves as a convincing reason to make them stand their ground. As can be seen from content on Weibo, phrases like ‘right to know’ and ‘right to make choice’ are frequently mentioned.

Southern Metropolis Daily Dec 21, 2015

[Food security policy draft of Shenzhen city: GM label must be attached clearly] From now on, it’s likely to constitute an offense if GM food is not clearly labelled. Recently, the local government of Shenzhen has publicly solicited opinion from the masses about drawing up ‘The food security regulations of Shenzhen special economic zone (draft)’. It is required in

116

the draft that a GM label should be attached on a salient part of the package with the characters ‘Zhuan Ji Yin’ (GMO) which shouldn’t be shorter than 1.8mm. What do you think?

BubbleCandy Dec 21, 2015

Shenzhen, well done! This is the case. If you are not afraid, please go ahead. People who are afraid have the right to reject. Customers have a right to choose whether to eat GM food. Nobody can impose their own opinion on others.

Yanzixiaowo Dec 21, 2015

Replying to@ BubbleCandy Good job! We at least have the right to know whether it is GMO so that we won’t be helpless if there happens to be something negative in the future.

BubbleCandy Dec 21, 2015

Replying to@ Yanzixiaowo True. I’m not fighting against GMO. I just think people should be given the right of not buying.

Here, a very typical case of discussion about civil rights resulted from a piece of news posted by Southern Metropolis Daily’s official account—a well-known newspaper in China. In terms of the original content post, by Southern Metropolis Daily, a new draft of regional policy had been put on trial in Shenzhen city about food security; clearly regulating the size (no less than 1.8mm) and the indicating position (salient region on the package) for GM labels. This new rule was directed against the lack of consistency and clarity for GM labels that widely exists across the country. Similar to the example shared above, most of the discussants expressed a supportive attitude to the new policy, saying that people have a right to know what they are buying so that they can make a choice and be responsible for themselves instead of taking any risks without being informed. As argued by ‘Yanzixiaowo’, making the identity of GM products transparent provides people with the ability to resist these products, while a lack of transparency does not allow people to freely make their own choice regarding the

117

unknown dangers or risks of GM food. Labelling is essential to secure this basic right for the public.

It is clear that the protection of civil rights is a possible societal implication of GM labelling that some discussants were expecting. Although it is still too early to affirm that civil rights are able to be secured through the GM labelling movement, discussants have shown an intention of thinking ahead which informs government decision-making by illustrating future concerns linked to possible implications attributed to the policy of GM labelling. Even though spontaneous discussion might suggest a lack of organised debate—unlike public deliberation (Barben et al., 2008: 986)—issues relevant to the future, and the conceived implications of GM labelling raised during discussion arise just as often as those involved in any formal activity.

Xiatianderejifeng Nov 16, 2015

We’re not opposed to GMO, but we go against illegal over-planting and the absence of a GM label. We take a stand against the behavior of imposing one’s opinion on others in the name of science. We have the right of deciding what and how to eat.

Tengxundepiaopiaohebianliu Nov 16, 2015

Replying to @Xiatianderejifeng Here is my opinion of GMO: I support scientific research on GMO and the legal action of popularizing GM technology. I reject illegal or private planting. I don’t agree with the idea of holding a GM product tasting events nor the mandatory label of GM, even though I believe a GM label makes sense. That’s it.

OJO880 Nov 16, 2015

Replying to @Xiatianderejifeng The mandatory label is designed for securing your right of saying no to a GM product when you don’t want to eat it. People will lose their right to make a choice without GM labels because they won’t be able to even identify the food. GM labelling is also a means of facilitating the governance of GMO! Imagine if people discover that GMO is harmful one day, all the GM products with labels could be clearly identified

118

and removed immediately. Otherwise, people will take the risks of having GM food without realizing that they do.

Xiatianderejifeng Nov 16, 2015

Replying to@ OJO880 Indeed! And the factual situation must be more complicated than this assumption. For example, how can we make sure that the ingredients of food materials used by the food industry are transparent to the public?

Apart from the discussions on ‘right to know’, the ‘right to make choice’ serves as another critical point that discussants were concerned about regarding GM labelling. Users, like ‘OJO880’, deemed that labelling GM products was essential for government to supervise the production and the selling of GM products. He/she even thought about what would happen if it was necessary to remove GM products from the shelf, should the worst happen and GM was identified as being harmful to human- beings. It would be easier to identify and remove the harmful product once clearly labelled. Meanwhile, the discussants, including ‘Xiatianderejifeng’, held the belief that distinguishing GM products from normal foods provides a chance for the public to make their own choice and be responsible for their own preference.

Scientists haven’t discovered any harmful effect brought by GM to human-beings or the environment (WHO, May 2014), which, however, has failed to persuade people to accept GM technology. Many people, such as ‘Tengxundepiaopiaohebianliu’, recounted that not discovering any harm is not equal to completely safe. They worry about the potential risks of GM that may be found in the future, with implications for people’s health, potentially, as in the case of the BSE scare, deadly. In this case, an alternative has been provided by social media discussion that present the Chinese government with a feasible way out of the dilemma. A solution that enables people to make their own decision and correspondingly bear the price of their own choice.

119

benefit brought by GM labelling policy, which contributes to the protection of civil rights. Without an absolute assurance on the consequences of GM technology, people preferred to be prudent when discussing GM technology instead of ruling out the possibility of risk. For example, user ‘OJO880’ outlined a possible scenario of not labelling (‘without GM labels’) and came up with a potential future where GM brings danger to mankind (‘Imagine if people discover that GMO is harmful one day’), an example ‘OJO880’ used to argue for the necessity of labelling. Although the conceived scene made up in the discussion is hypothetical, it did help to develop the debate about the necessity of compulsory labelling due to the possibility of a lagging reaction to the risk of GM technology without GM labelling.

Taking this example further, through a specific scene discussants anticipated a diverse range of probable situations that they might encounter in the future as a consequence of GM labelling. In terms of Barben et al.’s interpretation of foresight capacity, approaches to anticipating the long-term implications have no necessity to contain ‘accurate predictions and allegiance to technological determinism’ (2008: 985) but focus on ‘limiting uncertainty’ (2008: 986). In this case, although the spontaneous discussion on the long-term implications of GM labelling is loosely structured and lacks convincing evidence, when comparing the participants’ conversation about food labelling with the restricted requirements of scenario development, in terms of looking- forward and outlining likely futures, their discussions are similar to anticipatory governance which envisages an alternative future to act upon.

Referring to the same topic with a different emphasis on the implications, the users on Twitter believed that GM labelling policy has never overlooked or denied the existing outcomes of GM research that ‘no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved’ (WHO, May 2014). On the contrary, the GM labelling movement is seen by those Twitter users asa rational and forward-looking action that takes a step further forward than the existing scientific research for preventing potential risks.

120

Specifically, in terms of the data selected from Twitter, numerous people, such as ‘guayzimi’, recount that it is irresponsible to equate an area with unknown adverse impact to a completely and permanently safe matter.

guayzimi Mar 28, 2015

@turpin4prez @azta110790 Is it reasonable to want to avoid GMOs as a class b/c you think they might be harmful, or they are harmful to the [missing text in original tweet]

Starman Spiff Mar 28, 2015

@turpin4prez @guayzimi Someone just needs to explain to the people that GMO's are not bad for them at present.

guayzimi Mar 28, 2015

@azta110790 How could you equal[equate] ‘GMOs are not bad for them at present’ to

permanent safety? And how would you expect[bracketed word in original tweet]

guayzimi Mar 28, 2015

@azta110790 that people will be persuaded by that?

The huge undiscovered space of GM technology indicates countless uncertainties, including potential risks.

seasameki Jul 17, 2016

@mamaliciousdc@HillaryClinton Labeling GM at least makes them aware of the ingredients and potential risks.

Mamaliciousdc Jul 17, 2016

@ seasameki @HillaryClinton Exactly. Labeling is forward looking while there’s uncertain risk.

121

As ‘seasameki’ argued, what the mandatory label of GM brings is supposed to be a caution of GM ingredients and their associated ‘potential risks’. As the present data indicates, discussants, such as ‘Mamaliciousdc’, treated GM labelling as a specific strategy looking ahead to consider a point where people might face an ‘uncertain risk’. Therefore, apart from anticipating and debating the possible long-term implications of GM labelling, spontaneous discussion on GM labelling itself is analytically attuned to foresight.