Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

2019 Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

Substantial Equivalence

  • Andrea BorghiniEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1179-9_304

Synonyms

Introduction

The expression “substantial equivalence” stands for a key concept introduced to evaluate the risks and the means of production and consumption of novel foods. In particular, the concept has famously been employed to evaluate the risks for human health of consuming genetically modified (GM) foods, that is, of genetically modified organisms raised for human consumption as well as foods that contain these organisms as ingredients (cfr. Andrée 2007; Gupta 2013; Shahin 2007). In a nutshell, that the GM food is substantially equivalent to its non-GM (“natural”; see entry on  “Metaphysics of Natural Food”) counterpart is an important reason to regard the GM food as safe to be consumed.

For instance, if a variety of GM corn is substantially equivalent to the non-GM corn variety from which it was engineered, then the GM corn is likely to be considered as safe to be consumed as the non-GM counterpart. Derivatively, and more generally, the do...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andrée, P. (2007). Genetically modified diplomacy: The global politics of agricultural biotechnology and the environment. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bøhn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J., & Primicerio, R. (2014). Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in roundup ready GM soybeans. Food Chemistry, 153, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gupta, A. (2013). Biotechnology and biosafety. In R. Falkner (Ed.), The handbook of global climate and environmental policy (pp. 89–106). London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Madsen, K. H., Holm, P. B., Lassen, J., & Sandøe, P. (2002). Ranking genetically modified plants according to familiarity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Meghani, Z. (2009). The US’ food and drug administration, normativity of risk assessment, GMOs, and American democracy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Millstone, E., Brunner, E., & Mayer, S. (1999a). Beyond substantial equivalence. Nature, 401, 525–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Millstone, E., Brunner, E., & Mayer, S. (1999b). Seeking clarity in the debate over the safety of GM foods. Nature, 402, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pouteau, S. (2000). Beyond substantial equivalence: Ethical equivalence. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pouteau, S. (2002). The food debate: Ethical versus substantial equivalence. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shahin, B. (2007). Consumers and the case for labeling genfoods. Journal of Research for Consumers, 13, 1–7.Google Scholar
  11. Siipi, H., & Launis, V. (2009). Opposition and acceptance of GM-food and GM-medicine. The Open Ethics Journal, 3, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Valdés, A., Simó, C., Ibáñez, C., & García-Cañas, V. (2013). Foodomics strategies for the analysis of transgenic foods. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 52, 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MilanMilanItaly