Journal articles on the topic 'Brand boycotting'

Consumer boycotting behaviour has serious consequences for organisations targeted. In this paper, a review of literature on boycotting from 1990 to 2013 is presented. Several consumer boycotting types are identified based on motivations underlying. These are influenced by religious beliefs, cultural values and political opinions. We have scanned all articles dealing with consumer boycotting behaviour in marketing literature. 115 scholarly articles published in 25 top marketing journals as ranked in the ABS (Association of Business Journal Schools) Review from 1990 to 2013 are reviewed. Along with outlining the research in this area, we also wanted to assess the level of attention paid to brand loyalty in relation to boycotting behaviour. Despite the fact that existing literature listed a number of factors that can potentially trigger consumers’ boycotts i.e. religion, war, political, economic, cultural, environmental, and ethical reasons. Nevertheless, there is no ranking of factors indicating which one are the most influential (e.g. long lasting, most damaging in terms of brand loyalty, etc.). Our review also suggests that boycott campaigns in developed nations are mainly motivated by economic triggers. However, in developing nations boycott calls and campaigns were motivated by religious triggers or by ethical triggers. The impact of boycotting on consumers’ brand loyalty, relation between religion, race, country of origin and the level of regional as well as national development would need to be researched further in order to shed light on its effect on the success or failure of boycott calls from consumers’ perspective and the prevention of such calls from the targeted firms’ point of view.

Purpose This research aims to address ethnocentric consumers’ willingness to boycott dual origin brands, in the particular case of national brands linked to a very specific regional origin, through analysing the paradox of (unfavourable) regional ethnocentrism versus (favourable) consumer–brand relationship (i.e. brand identification, trust and love) on consumers’ decision to buy or boycott those brands in that circumstances. Building on social identity and cognitive dissonance theories, this study aims to examine the Spanish consumer relationship with national brands originated in Catalonia considering the current conflicting circumstances in the region. Design/methodology/approach The authors collected data by means of personal questionnaires, distributed among 277 Spanish consumers of Catalan brands of Cava. The data is analysed by using structural equation modelling and linear structural relations. Findings After controlling for brand familiarity, the results of this study reveal that ethnocentrism negatively distorts consumers’ confidence in dual origin brands and highlight the role of identification and trust as brand love antecedents. It also reveals that ethnocentrism has a more profound impact on boycotting decision than brand love. Originality/value This study is one of the few to capture the puzzlement created by the paradoxical nature of the brand’s duality of origin. Furthermore, it contributes to the marketing literature by examining the impact of ethnocentrism on two relationship variables (i.e. identification and trust) and exploring their joint impact on consumers’ decision to buy or boycott. The findings of this study can be helpful for companies facing boycotting behaviour triggered by ethnocentric consumer reaction towards dual origin brands.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to examine the influence of religiously motivated boycotts, such as the one conducted in Saudi Arabia against Danish companies, on corporate brand image, customer loyalty and product judgment. Despite a growing research interest in understanding the effects of different types of consumer animosities on companies’ performance, there appears to be a scarcity of studies addressing the specific effects of religious animosity. Religious animosity is considered as an additional type which may have more stable and longer-term impacts than other animosities on behaviour. Design/methodology/approach – The study was based on a two-stage design: an exploratory qualitative stage involving 11 in-depth interviews, followed by a more comprehensive quantitative stage designed to test a proposed theoretical model. Data was collected from Saudi customers of the Danish company Arla Foods in Saudi Arabia. Data was analysed using structural equation model (LISREL 8). Findings – The model confirms that boycotting have strong negative impact on brand image and consumer loyalty but does not influence consumers’ product judgment. Practical implications – Religious boycotts have significant consequences on both corporate profits and brand image. The study provides clear steps for companies to combat the influence of religious boycotts especially in relation to brand image and customer loyalty. Originality/value – The study tested the influence of consumer religious boycotts on brand image and customer loyalty. Religious animosity was found to cause a more persistent boycott that negatively impacts brand image and weakens customer loyalty. However, by and large, boycotting was found not to have any significant impact on product judgment.

Purpose This research aims to analyze the effects of religiosity on the decision to participate in a boycott and the effect of a boycott on attitudes toward the boycotted brand. It also aims to measure the moderating effect of brand loyalty on the different models the authors discuss. Design/methodology/approach An experiment involving 165 Tunisian individuals during a call for a boycott of products of the Coca-Cola Company, which supports the Israeli army against Palestine, was conducted. Data analyses were conducted via two principal stages using SPSS 20.0 and Smart PLS 2.0. Findings The findings show that degree of religiosity was one of the antecedents of decision to participate in a boycott, and this decision has a negative effect on the attitude toward the brand being boycotted. The paper also has been able to show that brand loyalty moderates the relation of the present model. It diminishes the effect of religiosity on boycotting. Research limitations/implications Among the limits of the study is the fact that the authors relied on the investigation of only one product/brand (namely, Coca-Cola). In addition, the samples subjected to inquiry by the authors were chosen for their convenience. Practical implications Besides, the presentation of boycotted products in stores has a negative effect on the sales of the surrounding “non-boycotted” products (Friedman, 1999a). The authors note here that marketers can derive huge benefits from the exploration of boycott, for many reasons. The company must insist on the satisfaction and trust of their consumers, which are the bases of the loyalty. They must define the marketing strategy to increase the loyalty. This will diminish the effect of religiosity on the decision to participate in the boycott. Social implications The results allow us to assert that the decision to participate in a boycott has a negative effect on the attitude of the consumer and on the brand to be boycotted. Investigating the moderating effect of loyalty on the relation between religiosity and the decision to participate in a boycott is very interesting. Originality/value This research has shown that religiosity has a positive effect on boycotting. Also, it was found that a boycott has a negative effect on attitudes toward the boycotted brand. Therefore, brand loyalty moderates negatively the effect of religiosity on the decision to participate in the boycott and moderates the effect of the boycott on brand attitude.

Purpose In brand activism, a brand promotes contested sociopolitical causes to highlight its values. Brand activism also alienates those consumers who disagree with the cause, who might, consequently, target the brand with critical, negative or even aggressive actions. This paper aims to study the triggers and strategies of consumers’ antibrand actions given in response to brand activism. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative content analysis and multiple correspondence analysis were used to study consumer responses directed at a chocolate brand’s campaign that advocated civilized online conversions and opposed hate speech, a politically heated topic. In total, 1,615 messages were collected from social media platforms. Findings Field infringement, political accusations and questioned impact of the campaign triggered consumers to turn against the campaign. Strategies to undermine it included boycotting, discrediting the brand and trapping. Trapping – creatively using technological affordances to create harm to the brand – was typically triggered by political associations. Research limitations/implications Findings relate to the critical responses regarding one campaign only. Practical implications By understanding the political discussion around the chosen cause, including the opponents’ typical triggers and strategies, brand activism can more credibly advocate for contested social causes and communicate brand values. Originality/value Political antibrand actions are distinct from the previously identified functional and ethical antibrand actions, and they are noninstrumental by nature. Practices that are native to social media are central to political antibrand actions, and social media platforms contribute to how such disappointment is articulated and acted upon.

PurposeReligion as a cultural element has the potential to drive a strong boycott campaign. Previous studies acknowledge the role of religion in consumer boycotts yet did not investigate its role in influencing the very core of consumers’ motivation to participate in religion-based boycott. The purpose of this paper is to explore the fundamental nature of religious influence in an international religion-based consumer boycott. The research model tests the role of intrinsic religious motivation as the root of Muslim consumers’ motivational factors to participate and their intention to boycott US food brand.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted the Hoffman’s’ (2013) consumer boycott model to test the hypotheses. Survey method is used to collect primary data from Muslim millennials in a northern state of Malaysia. The study tested its five hypotheses on a data set of 325 cases using structural equation modelling (partial least squares regression).FindingsThe findings support the primary role of religion influences underlying boycott motivation factors. The intrinsic religious motivation is related to all the four boycott’s motivation factors (i.e. attitudes towards boycotting the brand, subjective norms, make a difference, self-enhancement), and indirectly contributing to intentions to boycott US food brand through the constructs of self-enhancement, subjective norms and attitudes towards the boycott.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is a cross-sectional in nature, confined to one US food brand. The findings may be limited to Muslim millennials in the same region or similar cultural background of the country surveyed.Practical implicationsBusinesses may want to consider working with social agencies involved in a religion-driven consumer boycott in mitigating negative influences of such boycott on brands.Originality/valueThe study shows the root of consumers’ motivation to participate in an international religion-based consumer boycott, i.e. intrinsic religious motivation, by illustrating the mechanisms of religious influences (i.e. intrinsic religious motivation) on consumers’ intention to participate in Islam-driven boycott.

Purpose This paper aims to examine consumers’ responses to products that are influenced by their moral justification. Specifically, this paper examines the factors related to consumers’ moral response and choices, including religious affiliation and obligation, group memberships, group reference, type of product and link of egregious conduct to particular products. This study explicates Adam Smith’s concept of people’s proprietary emotion that potentially affects their purchasing behavior. Design/methodology/approach This study uses focus group discussion with nine consumers across ethnic groups in Malaysia. A recent boycott case was used to stimulate the group discussion. Their statements are displayed in the findings to show their expressions verbatim. Findings The findings outline that consumers’ participation in the boycott of products is influenced by their moral judgment with frequent addressing of the religious affiliation and obligation, group reference and group membership factors. Additionally, there is a tendency that certain issue(s), although perceived as a universal humanistic issue, would be relatively closer to people with backgrounds similar to the majority of the victims of a particular issue. However, such a boycott action has issues such as duration of action, consistency of action and choice of pragmatic over moral decision that weigh the efficacy of the boycott action toward products related to certain egregious actions. Overall, the non-participation decision had been attached to factors such as type of product, boycotting cost, brand attraction and function or usefulness of products. These factors may also moderate consumers’ sentiment to boycott a particular product(s) in the long term. Originality/value This paper offers new insight regarding factors influencing participation in the boycott of products which were suspected to have link with egregious conduct towards certain Muslim groups. This paper offers a different perspective by integrating ethical theory into the discussion. In addition, it explores the influence of Muslims’ brotherhood concept on participation in boycott activities.

Brands increasingly take a stance on political issues, whereas consumers increasingly choose to either support a brand by buying their products (“buycotting”), or turn away from a brand (“boycotting”) for political reasons. While buycotts can be understood as a rewarding and cooperative form of mostly individual behavior, boycotts are a conflict-oriented form of collective punishment. Even though research has acknowledged these conceptual differences, studies have failed to analyze the difference in the absolute effect of consumers’ disapproval and approval. Moreover, research to date has not identified boundary conditions that might explain variation in the difference between consumers’ willingness to boycott or buycott. This research investigates this different effectiveness by conducting two experiments with different sets of brands, issues, and countries. Our results suggest that boycotting outweighs buycotting, implying that political brand communication is a risky strategy. Furthermore, we identify consumers’ political interest and category involvement as moderators of this imbalance.

This study examines the influences of boycott issue importance, others’ boycott participation (i.e., the number of ‘likes’ on the brand boycott Facebook page), and scope for self-enhancement on consumers’ intentions to participate in brand boycotts on Facebook. Results of an online experiment revealed that others’ participation and boycott issue importance positively impacted consumers’ perceived scope for self-enhancement as well as their active boycott participation intentions. Further, perceived issue importance also positively influenced passive boycott participation intentions. In addition, scope for self-enhancement mediated the effects of others’ participation and boycott issue importance on both active and passive boycott participation intentions. Findings aid in enhancing brands’ understanding of what drives consumers to engage in virtual brand boycotting within digital media environments and may be used to develop more successful mediation strategies. This study empirically extends traditional consumer boycotting theory to virtual environments and reveals the potential for different boycott motivations within socially dynamic, digital environments.

Mansoor Khan, 45, brand manager, Tanishq Jewellery for Media and Communications, was facing lots of backlashes for Tanishq’s advertisement on interfaith marriage advertisement aired to promote unity and harmony amongst different communities. In contrast to its stated objective of promoting unity and oneness, this interfaith marriage advertisement created a huge controversy in social media dividing its consumers and netizens into two opposing camps supporting and some even boycotting the advertisement. The brand Tanishq was trolled because of its alleged insensitivity and blindness towards the recent spate of killings in interfaith love affairs and marriages across different parts of India. This controversial advertisement of interfaith marriage and its resultant controversy has left the brand manager pondering should brands rely on more mainstream work rather than any edgy or controversial messaging? Should brands add their business voice to the societal and cultural debates or just stick to conventional advertisement? Or should Tanishq take a moral high stand and continue to promote the advertisement or should it withdraw the controversial advertisement? Whether the reckless pursuit of social, environmental, political and cultural issues and brands may alienate the very customer base, who they try to impress? Therefore, this case intends to teach the postgraduate students of marketing about concepts and theories of brand activism, celebrity endorsement, brand management and brand crisis management.

The purpose of this study was to examine issue- and organization-specific factors that may influence customers’ reactions to allegations of environmental irresponsibility. This study focused on the idea of brand identity fusion to examine how it may act as a figurative shield against the negative cognitive and behavioral impacts of misconduct allegations. To do so, online surveys were conducted among Australian citizens in October 2018. Brand identity fusion lowered customers’ perceptions of perceived moral inequity and triggered rewarding behavioral intentions despite the allegations. Situational motivation about environmental issues was found to positively affect boycotting and lower buycotting intentions as well as perceived moral inequity. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Purpose This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies. Design/methodology/approach This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context. Findings Firms operating in overseas markets must exercise care in their advertising campaigns. Lacking awareness of cultural sensitivities risks promotional content being perceived as offensive and trigger condemnation and boycotting of the brand. Relevant proactive and reactive actions then become highly important in order to begin rebuilding the tarnished brand name. Originality/value The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

Purpose This study aims to explain the boycott of Chinese product during the COVID-19 crisis. Specifically, this paper attempt to empirically test the influence of boycott on the image brand and foreign product judgment, as well as to testing the influence of brand image on the judgment of these products. Design/methodology/approach Data was collected from a stratified random sample (N = 300) of students and was analyzed by using the structural equation modeling method. Findings The results show that the boycott negatively influenced the brand image and valuation of foreign products. Also, empirical results confirm that the brand image of foreign products positively influenced consumer judgment. Practical implications The success of foreign products is because of a combination of adaptation and standardization strategies for foreign companies in a local market to resist ace to unexpected economic conditions. These strategies allowed foreign products to penetrate diverse markets and not to be considered as a “foreign” brand which must be boycotted even in health crisis. The internationalization of companies and the opening of subsidiaries in the targeted countries can be considered as a solution for them so that their products will not be boycotted by consumers and consider them as national products. Originality/value Although with the existence of several studies on the boycott of foreign products, little attention has been paid so far to assess its interactions in times of health crisis such as COVID-19 crisis. This study contributes to the existing the literature with a research model based on two theories. This study leads to a better understanding of the role of boycotting foreign products and its impact on the brand image of these products and their judgments by consumers. On the other hand, this study tested the effect of branding on the judgment of boycotted products. Indeed, no study has so far examined the influence of consumer boycotts on the brand image of boycotted products. The authors have already responded to this shortcoming by adding additional tests for verification, robustness and validation of the results obtained.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyses consumers’ hostile responses and “creative” re-interpretation of a proactive corporate social responsibility (CSR) brand communication campaign on social media by a leading Italian company in the energy industry that came to be perceived as a reactive corporate social irresponsibility performance. Design/methodology/approach Taking Palazzo and Basu’s framework of scapes (2007) as a starting point, the paper explores the intersection between branding and CSR studies. After consideration of the lack of empirical studies on this subject, a content analysis of tweets generated from the campaign “Guerrieri” of Enel is performed. Findings Findings show the dialogic bottom-up approach results are ineffective because of the hijacking of original intent of the company in implementing its CSR communication initiatives. That is to say that corporate brand (CB) strategies can be easily re-interpreted in social media-scape from an opposing perspective, raising the risk of digital hijacking and boycotting initiatives. Practical implications From a practical standpoint, the study informs managers so that they can evaluate complex problems implicated in the creation of CSR activities aimed at engaging consumers and virtual communities. Besides, the paper would like to aid managers when they face discontent or activism, suggesting they should turn the attention of their stakeholders through a re-evaluation of relevant CSR activities, potentially leveraging on a loyal public, which has completely interiorised CB values and can act as brand ambassadors. Originality/value The paper is one of the first attempts to study the nexus between CSR and CB in digitally empowering contexts, clarifying the crucial role of social media-scape.

A same-but-different dichotomy has recently been encapsulated within the US Food and Drug Administration’s ill-defined concept of “substantial equivalence” (USFDA, FDA). By invoking this concept the genetically modified organism (GMO) industry has escaped the rigors of safety testing that might otherwise apply. The curious concept of “substantial equivalence” grants a presumption of safety to GMO food. This presumption has yet to be earned, and has been used to constrain labelling of both GMO and non-GMO food. It is an idea that well serves corporatism. It enables the claim of difference to secure patent protection, while upholding the contrary claim of sameness to avoid labelling and safety scrutiny. It offers the best of both worlds for corporate food entrepreneurs, and delivers the worst of both worlds to consumers. The term “substantial equivalence” has established its currency within the GMO discourse. As the opportunities for patenting food technologies expand, the GMO recruitment of this concept will likely be a dress rehearsal for the developing debates on the labelling and testing of other techno-foods – including nano-foods and clone-foods. “Substantial Equivalence” “Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?” asks Clover in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. By way of response, Benjamin “read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran: ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”. After this reductionist revelation, further novel and curious events at Manor Farm, “did not seem strange” (Orwell, ch. X). Equality is a concept at the very core of mathematics, but beyond the domain of logic, equality becomes a hotly contested notion – and the domain of food is no exception. A novel food has a regulatory advantage if it can claim to be the same as an established food – a food that has proven its worth over centuries, perhaps even millennia – and thus does not trigger new, perhaps costly and onerous, testing, compliance, and even new and burdensome regulations. On the other hand, such a novel food has an intellectual property (IP) advantage only in terms of its difference. And thus there is an entrenched dissonance for newly technologised foods, between claiming sameness, and claiming difference. The same/different dilemma is erased, so some would have it, by appeal to the curious new dualist doctrine of “substantial equivalence” whereby sameness and difference are claimed simultaneously, thereby creating a win/win for corporatism, and a loss/loss for consumerism. This ground has been pioneered, and to some extent conquered, by the GMO industry. The conquest has ramifications for other cryptic food technologies, that is technologies that are invisible to the consumer and that are not evident to the consumer other than via labelling. Cryptic technologies pertaining to food include GMOs, pesticides, hormone treatments, irradiation and, most recently, manufactured nano-particles introduced into the food production and delivery stream. Genetic modification of plants was reported as early as 1984 by Horsch et al. The case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty resulted in a US Supreme Court decision that upheld the prior decision of the US Court of Customs and Patent Appeal that “the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law”, and ruled that the “respondent’s micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter”. This was a majority decision of nine judges, with four judges dissenting (Burger). It was this Chakrabarty judgement that has seriously opened the Pandora’s box of GMOs because patenting rights makes GMOs an attractive corporate proposition by offering potentially unique monopoly rights over food. The rear guard action against GMOs has most often focussed on health repercussions (Smith, Genetic), food security issues, and also the potential for corporate malfeasance to hide behind a cloak of secrecy citing commercial confidentiality (Smith, Seeds). Others have tilted at the foundational plank on which the economics of the GMO industry sits: “I suggest that the main concern is that we do not want a single molecule of anything we eat to contribute to, or be patented and owned by, a reckless, ruthless chemical organisation” (Grist 22). The GMO industry exhibits bipolar behaviour, invoking the concept of “substantial difference” to claim patent rights by way of “novelty”, and then claiming “substantial equivalence” when dealing with other regulatory authorities including food, drug and pesticide agencies; a case of “having their cake and eating it too” (Engdahl 8). This is a clever slight-of-rhetoric, laying claim to the best of both worlds for corporations, and the worst of both worlds for consumers. Corporations achieve patent protection and no concomitant specific regulatory oversight; while consumers pay the cost of patent monopolization, and are not necessarily apprised, by way of labelling or otherwise, that they are purchasing and eating GMOs, and thereby financing the GMO industry. The lemma of “substantial equivalence” does not bear close scrutiny. It is a fuzzy concept that lacks a tight testable definition. It is exactly this fuzziness that allows lots of wriggle room to keep GMOs out of rigorous testing regimes. Millstone et al. argue that “substantial equivalence is a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgement masquerading as if it is scientific. It is moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests. It therefore serves to discourage and inhibit informative scientific research” (526). “Substantial equivalence” grants GMOs the benefit of the doubt regarding safety, and thereby leaves unexamined the ramifications for human consumer health, for farm labourer and food-processor health, for the welfare of farm animals fed a diet of GMO grain, and for the well-being of the ecosystem, both in general and in its particularities. “Substantial equivalence” was introduced into the food discourse by an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report: “safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology: concepts and principles”. It is from this document that the ongoing mantra of assumed safety of GMOs derives: “modern biotechnology … does not inherently lead to foods that are less safe … . Therefore evaluation of foods and food components obtained from organisms developed by the application of the newer techniques does not necessitate a fundamental change in established principles, nor does it require a different standard of safety” (OECD, “Safety” 10). This was at the time, and remains, an act of faith, a pro-corporatist and a post-cautionary approach. The OECD motto reveals where their priorities lean: “for a better world economy” (OECD, “Better”). The term “substantial equivalence” was preceded by the 1992 USFDA concept of “substantial similarity” (Levidow, Murphy and Carr) and was adopted from a prior usage by the US Food and Drug Agency (USFDA) where it was used pertaining to medical devices (Miller). Even GMO proponents accept that “Substantial equivalence is not intended to be a scientific formulation; it is a conceptual tool for food producers and government regulators” (Miller 1043). And there’s the rub – there is no scientific definition of “substantial equivalence”, no scientific test of proof of concept, and nor is there likely to be, since this is a ‘spinmeister’ term. And yet this is the cornerstone on which rests the presumption of safety of GMOs. Absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. History suggests that this is a fraught presumption. By way of contrast, the patenting of GMOs depends on the antithesis of assumed ‘sameness’. Patenting rests on proven, scrutinised, challengeable and robust tests of difference and novelty. Lightfoot et al. report that transgenic plants exhibit “unexpected changes [that] challenge the usual assumptions of GMO equivalence and suggest genomic, proteomic and metanomic characterization of transgenics is advisable” (1). GMO Milk and Contested Labelling Pesticide company Monsanto markets the genetically engineered hormone rBST (recombinant Bovine Somatotropin; also known as: rbST; rBGH, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone; and the brand name Prosilac) to dairy farmers who inject it into their cows to increase milk production. This product is not approved for use in many jurisdictions, including Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan. Even Monsanto accepts that rBST leads to mastitis (inflammation and pus in the udder) and other “cow health problems”, however, it maintains that “these problems did not occur at rates that would prohibit the use of Prosilac” (Monsanto). A European Union study identified an extensive list of health concerns of rBST use (European Commission). The US Dairy Export Council however entertain no doubt. In their background document they ask “is milk from cows treated with rBST safe?” and answer “Absolutely” (USDEC). Meanwhile, Monsanto’s website raises and answers the question: “Is the milk from cows treated with rbST any different from milk from untreated cows? No” (Monsanto). Injecting cows with genetically modified hormones to boost their milk production remains a contested practice, banned in many countries. It is the claimed equivalence that has kept consumers of US dairy products in the dark, shielded rBST dairy farmers from having to declare that their milk production is GMO-enhanced, and has inhibited non-GMO producers from declaring their milk as non-GMO, non rBST, or not hormone enhanced. This is a battle that has simmered, and sometimes raged, for a decade in the US. Finally there is a modest victory for consumers: the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) requires all labels used on milk products to be approved in advance by the department. The standard issued in October 2007 (PDA, “Standards”) signalled to producers that any milk labels claiming rBST-free status would be rejected. This advice was rescinded in January 2008 with new, specific, department-approved textual constructions allowed, and ensuring that any “no rBST” style claim was paired with a PDA-prescribed disclaimer (PDA, “Revised Standards”). However, parsimonious labelling is prohibited: No labeling may contain references such as ‘No Hormones’, ‘Hormone Free’, ‘Free of Hormones’, ‘No BST’, ‘Free of BST’, ‘BST Free’,’No added BST’, or any statement which indicates, implies or could be construed to mean that no natural bovine somatotropin (BST) or synthetic bovine somatotropin (rBST) are contained in or added to the product. (PDA, “Revised Standards” 3) Difference claims are prohibited: In no instance shall any label state or imply that milk from cows not treated with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST, rbST, RBST or rbst) differs in composition from milk or products made with milk from treated cows, or that rBST is not contained in or added to the product. If a product is represented as, or intended to be represented to consumers as, containing or produced from milk from cows not treated with rBST any labeling information must convey only a difference in farming practices or dairy herd management methods. (PDA, “Revised Standards” 3) The PDA-approved labelling text for non-GMO dairy farmers is specified as follows: ‘From cows not treated with rBST. No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows’ or a substantial equivalent. Hereinafter, the first sentence shall be referred to as the ‘Claim’, and the second sentence shall be referred to as the ‘Disclaimer’. (PDA, “Revised Standards” 4) It is onto the non-GMO dairy farmer alone, that the costs of compliance fall. These costs include label preparation and approval, proving non-usage of GMOs, and of creating and maintaining an audit trail. In nearby Ohio a similar consumer versus corporatist pantomime is playing out. This time with the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) calling the shots, and again serving the GMO industry. The ODA prescribed text allowed to non-GMO dairy farmers is “from cows not supplemented with rbST” and this is to be conjoined with the mandatory disclaimer “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST supplemented cows” (Curet). These are “emergency rules”: they apply for 90 days, and are proposed as permanent. Once again, the onus is on the non-GMO dairy farmers to document and prove their claims. GMO dairy farmers face no such governmental requirements, including no disclosure requirement, and thus an asymmetric regulatory impost is placed on the non-GMO farmer which opens up new opportunities for administrative demands and technocratic harassment. Levidow et al. argue, somewhat Eurocentrically, that from its 1990s adoption “as the basis for a harmonized science-based approach to risk assessment” (26) the concept of “substantial equivalence” has “been recast in at least three ways” (58). It is true that the GMO debate has evolved differently in the US and Europe, and with other jurisdictions usually adopting intermediate positions, yet the concept persists. Levidow et al. nominate their three recastings as: firstly an “implicit redefinition” by the appending of “extra phrases in official documents”; secondly, “it has been reinterpreted, as risk assessment processes have … required more evidence of safety than before, especially in Europe”; and thirdly, “it has been demoted in the European Union regulatory procedures so that it can no longer be used to justify the claim that a risk assessment is unnecessary” (58). Romeis et al. have proposed a decision tree approach to GMO risks based on cascading tiers of risk assessment. However what remains is that the defects of the concept of “substantial equivalence” persist. Schauzu identified that: such decisions are a matter of “opinion”; that there is “no clear definition of the term ‘substantial’”; that because genetic modification “is aimed at introducing new traits into organisms, the result will always be a different combination of genes and proteins”; and that “there is no general checklist that could be followed by those who are responsible for allowing a product to be placed on the market” (2). Benchmark for Further Food Novelties? The discourse, contestation, and debate about “substantial equivalence” have largely focussed on the introduction of GMOs into food production processes. GM can best be regarded as the test case, and proof of concept, for establishing “substantial equivalence” as a benchmark for evaluating new and forthcoming food technologies. This is of concern, because the concept of “substantial equivalence” is scientific hokum, and yet its persistence, even entrenchment, within regulatory agencies may be a harbinger of forthcoming same-but-different debates for nanotechnology and other future bioengineering. The appeal of “substantial equivalence” has been a brake on the creation of GMO-specific regulations and on rigorous GMO testing. The food nanotechnology industry can be expected to look to the precedent of the GMO debate to head off specific nano-regulations and nano-testing. As cloning becomes economically viable, then this may be another wave of food innovation that muddies the regulatory waters with the confused – and ultimately self-contradictory – concept of “substantial equivalence”. Nanotechnology engineers particles in the size range 1 to 100 nanometres – a nanometre is one billionth of a metre. This is interesting for manufacturers because at this size chemicals behave differently, or as the Australian Office of Nanotechnology expresses it, “new functionalities are obtained” (AON). Globally, government expenditure on nanotechnology research reached US$4.6 billion in 2006 (Roco 3.12). While there are now many patents (ETC Group; Roco), regulation specific to nanoparticles is lacking (Bowman and Hodge; Miller and Senjen). The USFDA advises that nano-manufacturers “must show a reasonable assurance of safety … or substantial equivalence” (FDA). A recent inventory of nano-products already on the market identified 580 products. Of these 11.4% were categorised as “Food and Beverage” (WWICS). This is at a time when public confidence in regulatory bodies is declining (HRA). In an Australian consumer survey on nanotechnology, 65% of respondents indicated they were concerned about “unknown and long term side effects”, and 71% agreed that it is important “to know if products are made with nanotechnology” (MARS 22). Cloned animals are currently more expensive to produce than traditional animal progeny. In the course of 678 pages, the USFDA Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment has not a single mention of “substantial equivalence”. However the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) in its single page “Statement in Support of USFDA’s Risk Assessment Conclusion That Food from Cloned Animals Is Safe for Human Consumption” states that “FASS endorses the use of this comparative evaluation process as the foundation of establishing substantial equivalence of any food being evaluated. It must be emphasized that it is the food product itself that should be the focus of the evaluation rather than the technology used to generate cloned animals” (FASS 1). Contrary to the FASS derogation of the importance of process in food production, for consumers both the process and provenance of production is an important and integral aspect of a food product’s value and identity. Some consumers will legitimately insist that their Kalamata olives are from Greece, or their balsamic vinegar is from Modena. It was the British public’s growing awareness that their sugar was being produced by slave labour that enabled the boycotting of the product, and ultimately the outlawing of slavery (Hochschild). When consumers boycott Nestle, because of past or present marketing practices, or boycott produce of USA because of, for example, US foreign policy or animal welfare concerns, they are distinguishing the food based on the narrative of the food, the production process and/or production context which are a part of the identity of the food. Consumers attribute value to food based on production process and provenance information (Paull). Products produced by slave labour, by child labour, by political prisoners, by means of torture, theft, immoral, unethical or unsustainable practices are different from their alternatives. The process of production is a part of the identity of a product and consumers are increasingly interested in food narrative. It requires vigilance to ensure that these narratives are delivered with the product to the consumer, and are neither lost nor suppressed. Throughout the GM debate, the organic sector has successfully skirted the “substantial equivalence” debate by excluding GMOs from the certified organic food production process. This GMO-exclusion from the organic food stream is the one reprieve available to consumers worldwide who are keen to avoid GMOs in their diet. The organic industry carries the expectation of providing food produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers, and by extension, without GMOs. Most recently, the Soil Association, the leading organic certifier in the UK, claims to be the first organisation in the world to exclude manufactured nonoparticles from their products (Soil Association). There has been the call that engineered nanoparticles be excluded from organic standards worldwide, given that there is no mandatory safety testing and no compulsory labelling in place (Paull and Lyons). The twisted rhetoric of oxymorons does not make the ideal foundation for policy. Setting food policy on the shifting sands of “substantial equivalence” seems foolhardy when we consider the potentially profound ramifications of globally mass marketing a dysfunctional food. If there is a 2×2 matrix of terms – “substantial equivalence”, substantial difference, insubstantial equivalence, insubstantial difference – while only one corner of this matrix is engaged for food policy, and while the elements remain matters of opinion rather than being testable by science, or by some other regime, then the public is the dupe, and potentially the victim. “Substantial equivalence” has served the GMO corporates well and the public poorly, and this asymmetry is slated to escalate if nano-food and clone-food are also folded into the “substantial equivalence” paradigm. Only in Orwellian Newspeak is war peace, or is same different. It is time to jettison the pseudo-scientific doctrine of “substantial equivalence”, as a convenient oxymoron, and embrace full disclosure of provenance, process and difference, so that consumers are not collateral in a continuing asymmetric knowledge war. References Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON). Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) 6 Aug. 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/ AustralianOfficeofNanotechnology.aspx >.Bowman, Diana, and Graeme Hodge. “A Small Matter of Regulation: An International Review of Nanotechnology Regulation.” Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 8 (2007): 1-32.Burger, Warren. “Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty, et al.” Supreme Court of the United States, decided 16 June 1980. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=447&invol=303 >.Curet, Monique. “New Rules Allow Dairy-Product Labels to Include Hormone Info.” The Columbus Dispatch 7 Feb. 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/02/07/dairy.html >.Engdahl, F. William. Seeds of Destruction. Montréal: Global Research, 2007.ETC Group. Down on the Farm: The Impact of Nano-Scale Technologies on Food and Agriculture. Ottawa: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Conservation, November, 2004. European Commission. Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin. Brussels: European Commission, 15-16 March 1999.Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). Statement in Support of FDA’s Risk Assessment Conclusion That Cloned Animals Are Safe for Human Consumption. 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=191 >.Grist, Stuart. “True Threats to Reason.” New Scientist 197.2643 (16 Feb. 2008): 22-23.Hochschild, Adam. Bury the Chains: The British Struggle to Abolish Slavery. London: Pan Books, 2006.Horsch, Robert, Robert Fraley, Stephen Rogers, Patricia Sanders, Alan Lloyd, and Nancy Hoffman. “Inheritance of Functional Foreign Genes in Plants.” Science 223 (1984): 496-498.HRA. Awareness of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies: A Report of Findings. Washington: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 25 Sep. 2007.Levidow, Les, Joseph Murphy, and Susan Carr. “Recasting ‘Substantial Equivalence’: Transatlantic Governance of GM Food.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 32.1 (Jan. 2007): 26-64.Lightfoot, David, Rajsree Mungur, Rafiqa Ameziane, Anthony Glass, and Karen Berhard. “Transgenic Manipulation of C and N Metabolism: Stretching the GMO Equivalence.” American Society of Plant Biologists Conference: Plant Biology, 2000.MARS. “Final Report: Australian Community Attitudes Held about Nanotechnology – Trends 2005-2007.” Report prepared for Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR). Miranda, NSW: Market Attitude Research Services, 12 June 2007.Miller, Georgia, and Rye Senjen. “Out of the Laboratory and on to Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture.” Friends of the Earth, 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://nano.foe.org.au/node/220 >.Miller, Henry. “Substantial Equivalence: Its Uses and Abuses.” Nature Biotechnology 17 (7 Nov. 1999): 1042-1043.Millstone, Erik, Eric Brunner, and Sue Mayer. “Beyond ‘Substantial Equivalence’.” Nature 401 (7 Oct. 1999): 525-526.Monsanto. “Posilac, Bovine Somatotropin by Monsanto: Questions and Answers about bST from the United States Food and Drug Administration.” 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.monsantodairy.com/faqs/fda_safety.html >.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “For a Better World Economy.” Paris: OECD, 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.oecd.org/ >.———. “Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles.” Paris: OECD, 1993.Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Adelaide: ebooks@Adelaide, 2004 (1945). 30 Apr. 2008 < http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george >.Paull, John. “Provenance, Purity and Price Premiums: Consumer Valuations of Organic and Place-of-Origin Food Labelling.” Research Masters thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 2006. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://eprints.utas.edu.au/690/ >.Paull, John, and Kristen Lyons. “Nanotechnology: The Next Challenge for Organics.” Journal of Organic Systems (in press).Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA). “Revised Standards and Procedure for Approval of Proposed Labeling of Fluid Milk.” Milk Labeling Standards (2.0.1.17.08). Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 17 Jan. 2008. ———. “Standards and Procedure for Approval of Proposed Labeling of Fluid Milk, Milk Products and Manufactured Dairy Products.” Milk Labeling Standards (2.0.1.17.08). Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 22 Oct. 2007.Roco, Mihail. “National Nanotechnology Initiative – Past, Present, Future.” In William Goddard, Donald Brenner, Sergy Lyshevski and Gerald Iafrate, eds. Handbook of Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007.Romeis, Jorg, Detlef Bartsch, Franz Bigler, Marco Candolfi, Marco Gielkins, et al. “Assessment of Risk of Insect-Resistant Transgenic Crops to Nontarget Arthropods.” Nature Biotechnology 26.2 (Feb. 2008): 203-208.Schauzu, Marianna. “The Concept of Substantial Equivalence in Safety Assessment of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Organisms.” AgBiotechNet 2 (Apr. 2000): 1-4.Soil Association. “Soil Association First Organisation in the World to Ban Nanoparticles – Potentially Toxic Beauty Products That Get Right under Your Skin.” London: Soil Association, 17 Jan. 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047 cb466780256a6b00298980/42308d944a3088a6802573d100351790!OpenDocument >.Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes! Books, 2007.———. Seeds of Deception. Melbourne: Scribe, 2004.U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC). Bovine Somatotropin (BST) Backgrounder. Arlington, VA: U.S. Dairy Export Council, 2006.U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment. Rockville, MD: Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 28 Dec. 2006.———. FDA and Nanotechnology Products. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/faqs.html >.Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS). “A Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory.” Data set as at Sep. 2007. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Technologies, Sep. 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer >.