Dealing With Rejection: An Application of the Exit–Voice Framework to Genome-Edited Food

Abstract

Genome editing has been hailed as both a revolutionary technology and potential solution to many agriculture-related and sustainability problems. However, owing to the past challenges and controversy generated by widespread rejection of genetic engineering, especially once applied to agriculture and food production, such innovations have also prompted their fair share of concern. Generally speaking, much of the discussion centers on the inadequacy or uncertainty of current regulatory regimes, partly owing to the vastly different approaches in the European Union and United States. Insofar as this focus on regulatory regimes is stimulated by the desire to bridge the divide between proponents and critics of genome editing, it risks losing sight of an essential aim of regulatory action: effectively responding to and fostering trust in consumers and the public. In this article, we thus assign priority to understanding the contours of individual dissatisfaction and its related responses. Toward this end, we apply and extend Hirschman's exit–voice framework to bring together, synthesize, and give much-needed substance to the diverse expressions of dissatisfaction and discontent with novel genome-editing technologies. Through the resulting synthetic framework, we then identify and evaluate which governance approaches can prevent actions seen to be problematic and, moreover, open up the space for a more active public. In this context, we devote specific attention to (i) use of labeling as a means to enable “exit” of consumers from markets and (ii) public deliberation as a possible expression of “voice.” Indeed, both options are proposed and utilized in the context of genome editing, e.g., as a way for skeptical consumers to express their viewpoints, seek change in prevailing food systems, and navigate the conflicts and tensions from applying unique sets of values to assess the balance of risks and benefits. So far missing, though, is an evaluation of how well such efforts offer effective means for public expression, which is why we also link this framework to the wider issue of consumer sovereignty. Having done so, we conclude with a brief commentary on the potential and limitations of both options in the existing institutional framework of the EU.

Citizen views on genome editing: effects of species and purpose

“…One such heuristic might be to oppose a food production system (e.g. conventional food production) that use GM/GE, and therefore oppose GM/GE as well (Bartkowski and Baum 2019). The current study illustrates the complexity of concerns involved in evaluating these technologies.…”

“…In combination, these results suggest that in addition to the caseby-case decisions on applications of GE, policy makers should account for the heterogeneous public perspectives. One approach to accommodating this diversity is to provide 'exit and voice' options, following Albert Hirschmann's exit-voice framework (Bartkowski and Baum 2019). Exit strategies could be provided, for example through mandatory labelling of products, and institutionalized voice could be improved, for example through deliberative mini-publics in which diverse, randomly chosen people from the population are provided the opportunity to engage deeper with the topic and deliberate about GE.…”

“…Individuals opposing GE applications were likely basing their opposition on strong moral convictions of it being wrong, making it unlikely to change these opinions. Providing exit strategies, such as labeling of food products, might be one way to give these individuals the opportunity to act according to their convictions (Bartkowski and Baum 2019).…”

Canadian consumer acceptance of gene‐edited versus genetically modified potatoes: A choice experiment approach

“…Ishii and Araki (2016) explored the factors affecting consumer acceptance of food crops developed by gene editing. Bartkowski and Baum (2019) applied and extended Hirschman's exit–voice framework to evaluate the properness of the two options (“exit” through labeling and “voice” through public deliberation) to prevent opposition toward gene edited food. Both Ishii and Araki (2016) and Bartkowski and Baum (2019) did not perform a quantitative analysis of consumer willingness to pay.…”

Strategic framing of genome editing in agriculture: an analysis of the debate in Germany in the run-up to the European Court of Justice ruling

“…A regulatory approach would limit the prospects of research and development in this area as well as the commercial exploitation of the new technology in Europe (Davison and Ammann 2017;Jones 2015), whereas the non-regulation and non-declaration of GE products would revive the concerns of protagonists about food security and health. Accordingly, in the years prior to the ruling, political, economic, and scientific institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) contributed their positions on GE to the public discourse in an effort to influence the political decision-making process (Bartkowski and Baum 2019;Castellari et al 2018;Pirscher and Theesfeld 2018). This was also evident in Germany, a country where the debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has always been intense and where the state has used its discretionary powers to create a very strict system for controlling GMO releases based on European legislation.…”