"Consumer Protection:" Consumer Strategies and the European Market in Genetically Modified Foods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION 1The relationship between traditional agricultural communities, regional development, organic agriculture, and the uptake of agricultural biotechnologies and genetically modified (GM) foods and crops is particularly complex in Europe and one which the European Commission has sought to negotiate through proposed regulatory frameworks in co-existence.The Commission defines co-existence as "the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and genetically modified (GM) crop production.It is also a precondition for consumer choice.The Commission firmly believes that consumers and producers should have a real choice with respect to the type of agricultural products and the type of production they prefer." 2 This emphasis on co-existence as merely "freedom of choice" has been rejected by many groups as an artificial imposition of the entry of GM into the European market contrary to the "choice" of consumers and farmers and perhaps even threatening that choice through perceived risks of contamination of organic and conventional farms. 32The possibility for successful co-existence frameworks in all Member States is significant for environmentalists, organic farmers, and traditional agriculture communities.This is especially critical in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement (Dispute DS291) brought by the United States, as well as Canada and Argentina, the other major exporters of GM plants, against the European Communities in 2003, for which the final report was published 29 September 2006. 4 Of critical interest to the present discussion is the cultural and economic significance of the European consumer.Indeed, the impact of consumer strategies and choices may be
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".