Colin A. Carter and Guillaume P. Gruère
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California-Davis

In their comment “Choice Versus Autonomy in the GM Food Labeling Debate,” philosophers Robert Streiffer and Alan Rubel (hereafter referred to as “S&R”) argue that our article on genetically modified (GM) food labeling (Carter & Gruère, 2003) “misses the mark because of the important differences between choice, informed choice, and autonomy” (Streiffer & Rubel, 2003). They argue that we used improper terminology; they state that our “claim” was wrongly based on consumer choice—not autonomy—and that we did not address the policy implications. They conclude by suggesting the overwhelming support shown in consumer surveys for mandatory labeling in the United States means that the US Congress should not even consider market outcomes. Congress may violate public preferences, but S&R conclude that “the narrow economic considerations that Carter and Gruère discuss are certainly not sufficient to do so.” In this reply, we respond to their various criticisms. Read More…