tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/gmo-labelling-22353/articlesGMO labelling – The Conversation2023-05-07T20:17:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2042752023-05-07T20:17:48Z2023-05-07T20:17:48ZWhat’s the latest on GMOs and gene-edited foods – and what are the concerns? An expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524539/original/file-20230505-15-jsa8bc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C0%2C2679%2C1802&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Advances in genetic engineering have given rise to an era of foods – including genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and gene-edited foods – that promise to revolutionise the way we eat.</p>
<p>Critics argue these foods could pose risks to human health and the environment. Proponents point to their potential for enhancing yields, reducing food waste, and even combating climate change.</p>
<p>What are GMOs and gene-edited foods? And how are they shaping the future of our food systems?</p>
<h2>GMOs and gene-edited foods aren’t the same</h2>
<p>GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially altered by inserting a piece of foreign DNA. This DNA may be synthetic in origin or sourced from other organisms. </p>
<p>Gene editing involves making precise changes to an organism’s genome without the integration of foreign DNA elements. Using techniques such as CRISPR/Cas, scientists make precise “cuts” in the DNA to create new genetic variation. Unlike with GMOs, this introduces only minor modifications, which are indistinguishable from natural mutations.</p>
<p>Although GMOs and gene-edited foods have been in circulation for almost three decades, research in this space continues to deliver breakthroughs. These technologies <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cc3579en/cc3579en.pdf">are being applied</a> to provide a range of benefits, from improved nutrition in food, to reduced food waste and increased crop tolerance against climate stresses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-the-gene-editing-technology-that-won-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-147695">What is CRISPR, the gene editing technology that won the Chemistry Nobel prize?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What are the concerns?</h2>
<p>The major criticisms of GMOs are related to the overuse of specific herbicides.</p>
<p>GMOs are mainly used to produce crops that are herbicide-resistant or produce pesticides. Farmers can then use herbicides on those crops to control weeds more effectively, without the plants themselves dying. This leads to higher yields on less land, and often with less chemicals used overall.</p>
<p>However, these crops rely on the use of said lab-made <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/pages/herbicides-in-gm-foods.aspx">chemicals</a>. And although the government <a href="https://apvma.gov.au/node/15931">regulates</a> them, ethical and safety debates continue. People raise concerns over potential long-term health impacts, impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, and the <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/news/announcement/release-genetically-modified-organism-herbicide-tolerance-trait-review">increased corporate control</a> over agriculture. </p>
<p>Concerns generally aren’t related to the actual manipulation of the plants’ DNA.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZIYkYNpnP0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Is genetic modification itself unsafe?</h2>
<p>When it comes to the food we eat, how much do we really know about its DNA? Even among experts with genome-sequencing information, most have only one or a few sequenced “reference” varieties, and these often aren’t the same as the plants we eat.</p>
<p>The fact is, we don’t really understand the genomes of many plants and animals we eat. So there’s no reason to suggest tweaking their gene sequences will make consumption harmful. Moreover, there’s currently <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download">no</a> <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/is-it-safe-to-eat-gm-crops">evidence</a> regulator-approved GMOs or gene-edited foods aren’t safe for human consumption. </p>
<p>In regards to food safety, one valid concern would be the potential creation of new allergens: proteins within the crop the body recognises and creates an immune response to. </p>
<p>But it’s important to remember many foods we eat are already allergenic. Common examples include wheat, peanuts, soy, milk and eggs. Some <a href="https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/ss/slideshow-toxic-foods">common foods</a> are even toxic if consumed in large quantities or without appropriate preparation, such as rhubarb leaves, raw cassava, raw kidney beans and raw cashews. </p>
<p>Ironically, researchers are using gene editing to work towards eliminating proteins that cause allergies and intolerances. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00051/full">Gluten-free wheat</a> is one example.</p>
<h2>GMOs and gene-edited foods are widespread</h2>
<p>Due to inconsistent rules about labelling GMOs and gene-edited foods around the world, many consumers may not realise they’re already eating them. </p>
<p>For example, the most <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562892/#">widely used enzyme</a> in cheese-making, <a href="https://thecheesewanker.com/cheese-science/microbial-rennet">rennet</a>, is produced from a GMO bacterium. GMO microbial rennet produces a specific enzyme called chymosin, which helps coagulate milk and form curds. Historically, chymosin was extracted from young cow stomachs, but in the 1990s scientists managed to genetically engineer a bacterium to synthesise it. </p>
<p>GMOs and gene-edited cereal and oilseed products are also widely used in stockfeeds. There is ongoing research to improve feed through enhanced <a href="https://www.bestfoodfacts.org/what-benefits-can-gene-editing-bring-to-food-quality-and-sustainability/">nutrition</a>, and produce crops that will decrease methane <a href="https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/gene-editing-breakthrough-could-cut-ruminant-methane">emissions from cattle</a>. </p>
<p>When it comes to modifying animals themselves, ethical considerations must be balanced alongside <a href="https://cabiagbio.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43170-022-00091-w">potential</a> benefits.</p>
<p>In Australia, about 70% of <a href="https://www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/industry-news/polled-gene-testing-for-a-more-sustainable-herd/">cattle</a> are genetically polled (hornless). Having polled cows improves meat quality through less injury to meat, and is considered better for animal welfare. In the US, fast-growing <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/aquadvantage-salmon/qa-fdas-approval-aquadvantage-salmon">genetically modified salmon</a> has been approved for consumption.</p>
<p>In a horticultural context, the genetically modified rainbow papaya stands out. It was developed in the late 1990s in response to a ringspot virus outbreak that nearly wiped out the global papaya industry. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1071/APP9930002">Researchers created</a> the virus-resistant “transgenic” papaya, which now makes up a significant proportion of papayas consumed. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/524540/original/file-20230505-29-5x67m0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists in the US developed the rainbow papaya to be resistant to the papaya ringspot virus. It was commercialised in 1998.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of boosting nutritional content, “<a href="https://www.world-grain.com/articles/17357-cgiar-initiative-plants-golden-rice-in-philippines">golden rice</a>” biofortified with Vitamin A (GMO) is being cultivated in the Philippines, as are tomatoes <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2321469-gene-edited-tomato-offers-new-plant-based-source-of-vitamin-d/">biofortified with Vitamin D</a> (GE) in the United Kingdom, and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513311/#">GABA-enriched</a> tomatoes (GE) in Japan.</p>
<p>Research is also being done to create <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.19754">non-browning mushrooms</a>, apples and potatoes. A simple gene edit can help inhibit the browning oxidation reaction, leading to a longer shelf-life and less food waste.</p>
<h2>Regulation in Australia and New Zealand</h2>
<p>So why don’t you see non-browning mushrooms at your local supermarket? </p>
<p>In Australia, the <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/">Office of the Gene Technology Regulator</a> regulates GMOs. It has <a href="https://www.ogtr.gov.au/resources/publications/genetically-modified-gm-crops-australia">approved</a> four GMO crops for cultivation: cotton, canola, safflower and Indian mustard. However, many more are imported for food ingredients (including modified soy, cottonseed oil, corn and sugar beet) and stockfeed (canola, maize and soy).</p>
<p>Gene-edited food crops can be cultivated without any regulatory restrictions or labelling in Australia. The Gene Technology Act 2000 <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00573">deregulated these products</a> in 2019.</p>
<p>On the other hand, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority has maintained regulatory restrictions on both gene-edited foods and GMOs. Divergent definitions have led the bi-national agency Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to adopt a cautious approach, regulating gene-edited foods and feeds as GMOs. </p>
<p>The lack of alignment in definitions in Australian has confused producers and consumers alike. FSANZ has said it will continue to monitor developments in gene-editing technology, and will consider reviewing its regulatory approach.</p>
<h2>Responsible research</h2>
<p>Both GMOs and gene-edited foods offer great promise. Of course there are valid concerns, such as the potential to create new allergens, unintended consequences for ecosystems, and growing corporate control over food. But these can be addressed through responsible research and regulatory frameworks.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the development of future foods must be guided by a commitment to sustainability, social justice and scientific rigour.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: This article previously said the transgenic rainbow papaya made up the majority of papayas consumed worldwide. This was incorrect and the wording has been amended.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204275/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Massel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Debates about GMOs and gene-edited foods are multifaceted. There’s no evidence they’re not safe to eat, but no room for complacency either.Karen Massel, Research Fellow, Centre for Crop Science, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/989152018-06-28T10:38:13Z2018-06-28T10:38:13ZMandatory labels with simple disclosures reduced fears of GE foods in Vermont<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224796/original/file-20180625-19390-14lj6ja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vermont has had food labels that indicate food has been 'partially produced with genetic engineering.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sally McCay, UVM Photo</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been substantial debate over whether mandated labels for genetically engineered foods might increase or decrease consumer aversion toward genetic engineering. </p>
<p>This question is particularly relevant now since <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/04/2018-09389/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">comments on proposed rules</a> for implementing a national labeling law are being accepted until July 3, 2018. Two years ago, a mandatory Vermont law went in effect. </p>
<p>Mandatory labeling of GE food has been opposed by many scientific organizations, including the <a href="https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf">American Association for the Advancement of Science.</a> But, a majority of consumers have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html">consistently</a> <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/poll-finds-americans-support-gmo-food-labeling">expressed</a> <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567&page=1">desires for labeling GE foods</a>. </p>
<p>A primary concern expressed with mandatory labels is that they will signal that GE food is unsafe or <a href="http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/why-labeling-of-gmos-is-actually-bad-for-people-and-the-environment/">harmful to the environment</a>. The opposing view is that labels give consumers a sense of control or <a href="http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/new-evidence-finds-gmo-labels-will-reassure-consumers-more-than-scare-them-away">improve trust</a>, lowering perceived risk of GE food. Empirical support for these arguments, both for and against labeling, has been mixed. Importantly, they are based on hypothetical studies. That is, people are asked what they think or how they will behave, or they react to mock labels. Until the Vermont law, there were no actual GE labels to use in research on the topic.</p>
<p>Our study, <a href="http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq1413">published in Science Advances</a>, aimed to help resolve the debate about the impact of simple disclosure GE labels on consumer support of and opposition to GE food. </p>
<p>The dataset we used measured levels of opposition to GE foods in a national control group compared to levels in Vermont, the only U.S. state to have implemented mandatory labeling of GE foods. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_bMtEckAAAAJ&hl=en">Jayson Lusk</a> from Purdue University provided the national data and I provided the Vermont data. In total, 7,800 consumers from 2014 to 2017 were asked to rank their opposition to GE food. </p>
<p>By comparing the responses of Vermonters to what other states’ residents reported, we could estimate the impact of the labeling policy on consumer attitudes after Vermont consumers experienced labels in the marketplace. </p>
<p>Our analysis of opposition to GE food before and after mandatory labeling shows that the policy of providing simple disclosure labels led to a 19 percent reduction in opposition to GE food. Our estimates were obtained from a <a href="http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/linmult.htm">multiple regression framework</a> – a statistic method for comparing different variables, which in our <a href="http://www.nber.org/WNE/lect_10_diffindiffs.pdf">model</a> included location (Vermont versus the rest of the U.S.) and presence of mandatory labels (time periods before versus after mandatory labels appeared in Vermont). </p>
<p>Regardless of how we controlled for different variables, such as demographics, the impact of the mandatory labeling policy on consumer opposition to GE technologies in Vermont relative to the rest of the U.S. is significant and negative. That is, opposition to the use of GM technology in food production fell in Vermont, post labeling.</p>
<p>We know of no other U.S. study that determined the impact on consumer attitudes toward the use of GE technologies in food production using U.S. national data from states not requiring GE labels and data from a state where consumers were exposed to mandatory GE labels. </p>
<p>Our study provides evidence that a simple disclosure, one of the suggestions for the standards being developed at the federal level, is not likely to signal to consumers that GE foods are more risky, unsafe or otherwise harmful. In fact, it does the opposite. This national study cannot identify why this change occurred. But, the findings are consistent with some prior research that suggests labels give consumers a <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/DIEAVA">sense of control</a> or autonomy. </p>
<p>Previous research in food risk communication lays out <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10551-010-0724-6.pdf">seven “practical” principles</a>. These seem applicable to GE labeling for policymakers and food producers:</p>
<ol>
<li> Be honest and open</li>
<li> Disclose incentives and conflicts of interest</li>
<li> Take all available relevant knowledge into consideration</li>
<li> When possible, quantify risk</li>
<li> Describe and explain uncertainties</li>
<li> Take all the public’s concerns into account, and </li>
<li> Take the rights of individuals and groups seriously.</li>
</ol>
<p>Whether simple disclosures on GE labels improve a sense of control, improve trust, or operate by some other psychological mechanism is a question we leave to future research. </p>
<p>The proposed national labeling rules put forward simple disclosures as just one of several ways to communicate that foods are produced using GE. The proposed rules also change the wording from genetically engineered (GM, GE, GMO) to bio-engineered (BE). </p>
<p>Our results are based on actual labels seen in the marketplace, which stated “produced or partially produced using genetic engineering.” More research is needed to assess how a change in the vocabulary – from GE or GMO to BE, for instance – to describe genetic engineering, or how alternative ways for communicating GE information on labels will affect consumer attitudes and purchase decisions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98915/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from the United States Department of Agriculture and the Vermont Experiment Station.
</span></em></p>Vermonters’ views on labels for genetically engineered foods shed light on consumers’ views, as the federal government considers mandatory labels.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/947962018-04-13T10:41:53Z2018-04-13T10:41:53ZWealthy Americans know less than they think they do about food and nutrition<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214583/original/file-20180412-536-167ybzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Organic? Conventional? Genetically modified? Decisions, decisions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://pixabay.com/en/vegetables-supermarket-food-market-449950/">dawnfu</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Socioeconomics play a significant role in attitudes about food – especially concerns about safety and purchasing behavior. And higher income doesn’t always correlate with informed choices. On the contrary, our research shows that affluent Americans tend to overestimate their knowledge about health and nutrition.</p>
<p>The latest <a href="https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/msu-food-literacy-and-engagement-poll">Food Literacy and Engagement Poll</a> from Michigan State University’s <a href="http://www.canr.msu.edu/food/">Food@MSU initiative</a> reveals that nearly half of Americans (49 percent) in households earning at least US$50,000 annually believe they know more than the average person about global food systems, while just 28 percent of those earning less are as confident. However, when we surveyed people on a variety of food topics, affluent respondents fared no better, and at times worse, than their lower-earning peers. </p>
<p>We sampled over 2,000 Americans age 18 and over online. Results were weighted to reflect U.S. census demographics for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, region and household income to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214597/original/file-20180412-549-1gu2g0c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many foods carry non-GMO labels, but experts debate whether these tags are meaningful.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/T1N3UT">theimpulsivebuy</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Access to information – and misinformation</h2>
<p>In our survey, we asked people whether they avoid products containing “chemicals” when purchasing groceries, without further defining the term. Seventy-three percent of respondents with high incomes said yes, compared to 65 percent of people living in lower-income households. Chemicals tend to be demonized in popular culture, but they are fundamental to the ways we see, hear, smell and interpret the world. </p>
<p>We suspect that many Americans confuse the general term “chemicals” with pesticides or food additives, such as artificial flavors and colors, because these ingredients often make the news when they are shown to be harmful. But broadly, chemicals are what make up humans and our food. This example highlights the vast disconnect that <a href="https://theconversation.com/americans-are-confused-about-food-and-unsure-where-to-turn-for-answers-survey-shows-82124">we have found</a> between science, food and the public broadly, and also suggests that wealthy Americans are not more informed than their less affluent peers.</p>
<p>Our new poll data also adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating how socioeconomic factors influence access to information about health, safety and nutrition.</p>
<p>For example, just 59 percent of lower-earning Americans recognized the term “<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-youd-have-to-eat-64-cans-of-green-beans-per-day-every-day-to-get-too-much-bpa-68788">Bisphenol A (BPA)</a>,” an industrial chemical in some plastics and resins that can seep into food and beverages. In contrast, 80 percent of wealthier consumers were familiar with it. </p>
<p>Similarly, 85 percent of lower-income respondents were familiar with the term “<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-consumers-want-in-gm-food-labeling-is-simpler-than-you-think-56530">genetically modified ingredients (GMOs)</a>” compared to 93 percent of higher earners. Although BPA and GMOs are two very distinct topics, both are hotly debated in policy discussions and it appears that lower earning Americans are disproportionately being left out of the conversation.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjaoN9Mvf4s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dietary fads such as ‘clean eating’ often have little or no science basis and may even be harmful.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also observed that even though higher earners have more access to information about food, they are also more likely to be influenced by misinformation and pseudoscience.</p>
<p>For example, a comprehensive 2016 <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">study by the National Academy of Sciences</a> concluded that genetically engineered crops are just as safe to eat as their non-genetically engineered counterparts. Yet in our survey, 43 percent of those with high incomes and 26 percent of lower earners reported that they avoid purchasing them. </p>
<p>We suspect affluent Americans are more likely to encounter unsubstantiated information – online, among friends and family, and at farmers’ markets and pricier upscale grocery stores – that raise unfounded concerns about this widely used technology.</p>
<p>The result is a persistent perception that certain “organic” or non-GMO products are somehow healthier, which is unsupported by research. This attitude puts pressure on some consumers to pay more for produce with these labels or suffer from feelings of guilt or shame if they cannot afford to provide pricier items for their families.</p>
<p>Our findings reveal that household income has a significant influence on access to information and shapes attitudes about diet and nutrition, although higher income does not consistently correlate with better understanding. We believe they show the need for food experts and health professionals to work with social scientists to understand ways in which different communities make decisions about food.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94796/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sheril Kirshenbaum is affiliated with Science Debate. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Douglas Buhler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Affluent consumers may have more access to information about food than lower-income earners, but they are just as vulnerable to misinformation and pseudoscience.Sheril Kirshenbaum, Food@MSU, Michigan State UniversityDouglas Buhler, Director of AgBioResearch and Assistant Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/806572017-08-29T01:29:26Z2017-08-29T01:29:26Z‘Gluten-free water’ shows absurdity of trend in labeling what’s absent<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183371/original/file-20170824-18734-g7730j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gluten-free, GMO-free and 100 percent vegan.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ericlefrancais/Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/media/healthy-or-hype-16-most-misleading-food-labels/">food labeling craze</a> coupled with banner headlines about the dangers of <a href="https://paleoleap.com/11-ways-gluten-and-wheat-can-damage-your-health/">gluten</a>, <a href="http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/">genetically modified organisms (GMOs)</a> and <a href="http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20458816,00.html">hormones</a> are leading to increasingly absurd results. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://getblk.com">you can now buy “premium” water</a> that’s not only free of GMOs and gluten but certified kosher and organic. Never mind that not a single drop of water anywhere contains either property or is altered in any way by those designations. </p>
<p>While some labels provide useful information that is not readily detectable by consumers, others contain misleading claims that exploit a knowledge gap with consumers and take advantage of their willingness to pay a premium for so-called process labels. For example, details on a product’s country of origin are helpful; <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Blk-Beverages-Spring-Enriched-Fulvic/dp/B00CQ00PX4">labeling a bottle of water</a> “gluten free” and “non-GMO” much less so. </p>
<p>In my experience as a food economist, such “fake transparency” does nothing to inform consumers about the nature of their foods. Moreover, it can actually decrease well-being when accompanied by a higher price tag. A new labeling law set to take effect next year will only make matters worse.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=835&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=835&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=835&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1049&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1049&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/183374/original/file-20170824-18702-1evlkei.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1049&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A side-by-side comparison shows the differences between old and new food Nutrition Facts labels after changes were made earlier this year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Food and Drug Administration via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Brief history of food labels</h2>
<p>Until the late 1960s, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/">consumers knew very little</a> about the nutritional content of the prepared foods they purchased. </p>
<p>The dramatic growth in processed foods changed this and led to a system of voluntary and mandatory nutrition labeling in the early ‘70s. As we learned more about the relationship between diet and health, Congress sought to provide consumers more information by passing the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/3562">Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990</a>, which gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to require companies to <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/labelingnutrition/ucm20026097.htm">list certain nutrients</a> and other details on food packages. </p>
<p>Since then, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/eco-labels-sustainability-trust-corporate-government">food labeling has only gotten wilder</a>. Some labels, such as “<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic">organic</a>,” follow strict federal guidelines, while others aren’t regulated, such as “<a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm456090.htm">natural</a>.” <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms">Eggs might come from chickens</a> that are “cage-free” (which isn’t regulated) or “free range” (which is), while your milk could come from cows that are “grass-fed” (<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/beef/grassfed">no standard</a>) or “hormone-free” (requires verification).</p>
<p>These labels are largely the result of the consumer desire to know more about the way food is produced – and the willingness to pay more for the claims, spurious or not. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180599/original/file-20170801-15867-1bzkicn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180599/original/file-20170801-15867-1bzkicn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180599/original/file-20170801-15867-1bzkicn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180599/original/file-20170801-15867-1bzkicn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180599/original/file-20170801-15867-1bzkicn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180599/original/file-20170801-15867-1bzkicn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180599/original/file-20170801-15867-1bzkicn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Healthier internet?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/socsci/34789062406/in/photolist-V1c3dN-PQE2p-bmJ3L6-wW3aM-9jKpL4-ssYfx2-seaCPU-jRa2AH-9esntf-omP5ap-qFqZHZ-ULCgB4-8h2kvi-c4YoE7-7g9uKH-7UVHR5-aUbnd2-e6fp5H-PNoBz-TR8Yyk-bft1q4-9bNySv-b9EtP-edrN5D-T69Q1A-nTW3hC-WEWbhk-7gb5UQ-4Pb8Ao-ed3UeP-7PZ1mf-7UqYfR-T8D97i-apVaLm-7PVFeH-wW3mj-bLoXV4-bSKEjB-HP3CJb-7PVEVD-wW1Jg-7NCsiP-7PVDT6-7PVEdi-99UxCP-5uWWHo-9nAo9o-7PVEDK-8pFW7X-7PYZmw">Mr. Gray</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Characteristics of a product</h2>
<p>To understand how all this labeling drives consumer behavior, let’s turn to economics. </p>
<p>The economist Kevin Lancaster <a href="http://policonomics.com/characteristics-demand/">hypothesized</a> that consumers derive happiness not from a product they might buy but from its characteristics. </p>
<p>For example, when purchasing a car, it’s the characteristics – color, brand, size, price or fuel efficiency – that make you want to buy it. Browsing online even allows us to refine searches by these characteristics. Some of these characteristics, such as size and color, are visible and verifiable to they eye before purchase, while others, like a car’s fuel efficiency, can’t be confirmed until you sign on the dotted line and collect the keys. </p>
<p>In other words, the company knows more about the car than you do, something economists call <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/asymmetricinformation.asp">asymmetric information</a>. Economist George Akerlof won a Nobel Prize <a href="http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehfang/teaching/socialinsurance/readings/fudan_hsbc/Akerlof70(2.1).pdf">for his work on asymmetric information</a> and how it leads to terrible market outcomes.</p>
<p>Similarly, food has characteristics that can be observed only after purchase. You can pick up an apple and see whether it has any <a href="http://www.endfoodwaste.org/ugly-fruit---veg.html">blemishes</a>, but you don’t really know how it will taste, and you cannot know how many calories it has even after consumption. That’s where food labels can help.</p>
<h2>Exploiting the knowledge gap</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, the problem of asymmetric information can never be eliminated entirely, and consumers may never have as much knowledge as they’d like when making purchases. </p>
<p>Mandated labeling has helped narrow this gap, particularly when the additional information increases consumer well-being, such as knowledge that a food contains 160 calories or 60 percent of the recommended daily does of vitamin C. </p>
<p>Some companies, however, use food labels to exploit this knowledge gap by preying on consumer concerns about a certain ingredient or process in order to collect a premium or increase market share. One of the ways they do this is by providing fake transparency through so-called absence labels (like “does not contain”), which are increasingly found on products that could not possibly have the ingredient in the first place.</p>
<p>While the water example I mentioned earlier is the most clear-cut illustration of this, others only require a bit more knowledge to see that they don’t serve a purpose. Since <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms#15">federal regulation</a> requires that hormones not be used in pork or poultry, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/no-added-hormones-chicken-pork-usda-fda-regulations-2016-3">advertising a chicken breast</a> as “hormone-free” doesn’t make sense – yet doing so allows a company to charge more or help its products stand out from the less-labeled competition. </p>
<p>The FDA allows a business to use the phrase as long as the label also notes that “federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones.”</p>
<h2>Signaling safety</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Final%20Bill%20S764%20GMO%20Discosure.pdf">new law</a> that makes GMO labeling of some foods mandatory will likely compound these problems once it takes effect in the summer of 2018. </p>
<p>To understand why, let’s return to asymmetric information and a related economic theory called the signaling effect. A signaling effect occurs when a buyer receives an implicit message from an explicit cue. For example, a food labeled “low sodium” may implicitly communicate that salt should be avoided. When the government is involved in the signaling effect, such as when a label is mandatory, the impact tends to become stronger.</p>
<p>Thus the new GMO labeling law is bound to signal to consumers that bioengineered foods are somehow bad. While some countries have banned the use of GMOs, <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/">such as in Europe</a>, the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461805.htm">FDA has said</a> that “<a href="http://www.agrobio.org/bfiles/fckimg/Nicolia%202013.pdf">credible evidence</a> has demonstrated that foods from the GE plant varieties marketed to date are as safe as comparable, non-GE foods.”</p>
<p>As a result of the new law, companies selling products without GMOs will likely slap “GMO free” on the label even though the law doesn’t apply to those foods.</p>
<p>My worry is that consumers will become ever more mystified as more businesses make increasingly absurd claims on their labels so that their products stand out from the competition in the grocery store aisle. I expect that the only thing consumers will get in return for these “fake transparency” labels is a higher price tag.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80657/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brandon McFadden expects to soon join Monsanto's Sustainability Advisory Council as a paid consultant. </span></em></p>Companies are exploiting a knowledge gap with consumers and fears of the supposed health hazards of certain ingredients with so-called absence labels.Brandon R. McFadden, Assistant Professor of Food and Resource Economics, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/770792017-05-12T06:38:34Z2017-05-12T06:38:34ZForcing consensus is bad for science and society<p>The <a href="https://satellites.marchforscience.com/">March for Science</a> that took place in cities around the world on April 22 was intended to “speak for science”, defending evidence-based policies, the strength of peer-reviewed facts and government-funded research. </p>
<p>The marches reflect a growing trend. In February 2017, the text Ethics & Principles for Science & Society Policy-Making, <a href="http://www.sci-com.eu/main/docs/Brussels-Declaration.pdf">known as the Brussels declaration</a>, was adopted at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, in Boston. And both the <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/scientific-advice-for-policy-making_5js33l1jcpwb-en">OECD</a> and <a href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245801e.pdf">UNESCO</a> have recently published documents supporting the role of science in informing policy. </p>
<p>Open dialogue between scientists and the societies in which they live and work is, of course, an essential ingredient of democracy. But insisting that science operate under a mandate of consensus, which is the timbre of numerous debates, from vaccines to climate change to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is not. </p>
<p>Faux unanimity in science actually underexposes <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343510001090">policy-relevant scientific and political dissent</a>. </p>
<h2>The risks of scientism</h2>
<p>Critics of the March for Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-scientists-march-on-washington-is-a-bad-idea-heres-why-73305">ourselves included</a>, have noted that the march’s program is dangerously close to “scientism” – the adoption of science as a <a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism">worldview</a> or <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/the_march_for_science_was_eerily_religious.html">a religion</a> to the exclusion of other viewpoints.</p>
<p>In doing so, both the march and agreements such as the Brussels declaration ignore the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-tackle-the-post-truth-world-science-must-reform-itself-70455">deep crisis</a> facing science, with its daily <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/20/new-record-major-publisher-retracting-100-studies-cancer-journal-fake-peer-reviews/">bulletin of casualties</a>. </p>
<p>Nor is it a good sign that few are reflecting on the <a href="https://twitter.com/AndreaSaltelli/status/835806232497831936">power asymmetries</a> that taints what science is used in policy: citizens can’t easily create scientific knowledge, while corporate interests can and do. And evidence has become a currency used by lobbies to <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-business-of-america-is-lobbying-9780190215514?cc=fr&lang=en&">purchase political influence</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mCT-My1_ViA?wmode=transparent&start=95" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">What is Scientism? MIT professor Ian Hutchinson explores the difference between science and scientism.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the issue of climate change, most scientists have likely formed the opinion that <a href="http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.pdf">humanity is basically conducting a large-scale geophysical experiment</a> with the planet by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. </p>
<p>The problem is not that thesis (it’s essentially correct) but that it is been presented as the scientific consensus concerning the proposed strategy for phasing out fossil fuels. Reasonable minds can <a href="http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/scientificamerican0114-521.pdf">differ on the urgency or the feasibility of the strategy</a> for mitigating global warming. </p>
<p>This is one reason why observers on both sides of the “<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/climate-change-uncertainties-bret-stephens-column">act now!</a>” versus “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?_r=0">wait and see</a>” camps can’t agree on how to tame the <a href="http://www.nusap.net/spe/UPEMmonsters.pdf">doubt</a> hounding both climate research and effective responses to the challenge. </p>
<h2>What climate, vaccines and GMOs have in common</h2>
<p>Childhood vaccination is another <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy">hotly contested topic</a>, and the controversy around them has flared for two decades. It started with a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 – later <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext">retracted</a> – that purported to show links between vaccines and autism. </p>
<p>The controversy is as fierce as ever today thanks to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/10/donald-trump-is-rekindling-one-of-his-favorite-conspiracy-theories-vaccine-safety/?utm_term=.a11768722530">involvement of US President Donald Trump and his entourage</a>. </p>
<p>We support vaccination. But we cannot overlook that science holds the <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7001">responsibility</a> for both starting the scare and for taking a long time to correct its errors. It is unfortunate that we (<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/2015/05/heretic-academy">and others</a>) need to exhibit pro-vaccine credentials in order to attempt a meaningful discussion.</p>
<p>It is also regrettable that vaccines end up being mentioned in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/18/scientists-take-streets-global-march-truth">same sentence as climate and GMOs</a>. The frequent implication is that science is not the problem but rather the people, who, lacking the knowledge necessary to formulate a clear judgement, end up resisting scientific facts. </p>
<p>This perpetuates the so-called <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003">deficit model</a>, an old theory that blames the lay public’s ignorance of science for many problems in the adoption of evidence-based policies.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"482146505001033728"}"></div></p>
<h2>Golden rice and crimes against humanity</h2>
<p>Should science speak with one voice? It did, without doubt, last year when 107 Nobel laureates signed an open letter accusing the environment organisation Greenpeace of <a href="http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html">crimes against humanity</a> for delaying the commercialisation of a genetically modified rice variety called golden rice. </p>
<p>The Nobel laureates argued that golden rice, which is high in beta carotene, has the potential to “reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency” and possibly avoid the one to two million “preventable deaths [that] occur annually as a result of this nutritional imbalance”.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/millions-spent-who-is-to-blame-failure-gmo-golden-rice/">Some observers</a> stressed the gravity of the accusations, while prominent journals such as <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6295/104.full">Science</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/the-week-in-science-1-7-july-2016-1.20210">Nature</a> downplayed the letter. </p>
<p>Either way, its content is, frankly, incendiary (more <a href="http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html">extracts here</a>). In addition to the above claims, the laureates asserted that Greenpeace has “spearheaded opposition” to golden rice. “Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped”, they wrote. “How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a ‘crime against humanity’?”</p>
<p>Many claims in the letter are either patently false or highly contended. Even the thesis that golden rice is an instrument in the battle against vitamin A deficiency is questionable, according to <a href="http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri">the International Rice Research Institute</a>. The enhanced beta carotene content of the crop appears to be variable and its value possibly reduced by cooking. Its effectiveness merits further study.</p>
<p>Other scientists have <a href="http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/">pointed out</a> that vitamin deficiencies are more efficiently fought with better nutrition, direct supplementation, nutrition education programs, the promotion of home gardens, or with the enrichment of staple food with essential nutrients such as vitamin A. All these policies have been implemented successfully over the past decade in many countries.</p>
<p>Golden rice is also a poor solution for vitamin A deficiency because of its <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7524_supp/full/514S55a.html?message-global=remove">lower yield</a> compared to other rice varieties, which could <a href="http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri">deter farmers</a> from growing it. This is one of the reasons why golden rice is <a href="http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri">not yet approved</a> for commercialisation.</p>
<p>Finally, its yellow colour makes it more difficult <a href="https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/dont-eat-the-yellow-rice-the-danger-of-deploying-vitamin-a-golden-rice/">to detect contamination</a> from a dangerous mycotoxin that can cause serious health problems in humans.</p>
<p>All of which is to say that claiming that the introduction of the crop in Asia and Africa by early 2000 would have been beneficial and saved lives is doubtful at best. The evidence does not even contradict the alternative conclusion: that the delayed commercialisation was actually better for the populations concerned.</p>
<h2>Safe or fair?</h2>
<p>GMOs are a battlefield showing how the issue of framing – deciding on the nature of the problem – is of paramount importance. </p>
<p>For two decades, we have been told that GMOs are safe for human consumption. The tunnel vision on food safety has led to the neglect of other legitimate inquiries on, say, issues of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083956/">the power, regulation and control of the genetic fabric of our food</a>. Such issues are central to why many constituencies opposed GMO crops. </p>
<p>Relevant, too, and also under discussed, are lessons from <a href="https://theconversation.com/lessons-to-be-learnt-from-burkina-fasos-decision-to-drop-gm-cotton-53906">unsuccessful GMO adoption</a>. </p>
<p>Today, increasingly more voices are asserting that new technologies should be regulated not only on their benefit-risk profiles but also on their <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6305/1187">societal context and need</a>, and searching The Conversation for “<a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/search?utf8=%25E2%259C%2593&q=golden+rice&sort=relevancy&language=en&date=all&date_from=&date_to=">golden rice</a>” returns a wealth of opinions, indeed – the opposite of a consensus. </p>
<p>This happens because <a href="http://www.bitss.org/2015/12/31/science-is-show-me-not-trust-me/">science is a “show me”, not a “trust me”</a>, field. Purporting to speak on behalf of all science, as the Nobel laureates sought to do with golden rice, conflated <a href="https://mises.org/blog/neil-ty-scientism-guy">science, the scientific method and truth</a>.</p>
<p>We live in times of <a href="http://thepenguinpress.com/book/galileos-middle-finger-heretics-activists-and-the-search-for-justice-in-science/">intense ideological confrontations surrounding scientific work</a>. The notion that science works for a common good, which is occasionally imbued with the prestige and authority of Nobel Prize winners, is reassuring. But it is dangerous. </p>
<p>“Science is strictly impersonal; a method and a body of knowledge,” wrote the sociologist John Dewey <a href="http://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Excerpts_Science_Society.pdf">in the 1930s</a>. “It owes its operation and its consequences to the human beings who use it. It adapts itself passively to the purposes and desires which animate these human beings.”</p>
<p>Dewey called the problem involved in our control of science “the greatest which civilisation has ever had to face”. This calls for a vigilant society and a scientific field that never tires of being critical of itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77079/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mario Giampietro received funding from the European Commission.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Saltelli and Tiziano Gomiero do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Insisting that science has a monopoly on the truth invalidates dissent and undermines what should be an open dialogue between science and society.Andrea Saltelli, Adjunct Professor Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, University of BergenMario Giampietro, Professor for Sustainability and Integrated Assessment, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaTiziano Gomiero, Fellow at Department of Environmental Studies Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/615602016-06-24T21:30:23Z2016-06-24T21:30:23ZWhy the GM food labeling debate is not over<p>The U.S. Senate this week reached a compromise to require food manufacturers to label foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients, a bill that would preempt state-level laws. The <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/23/483290269/senate-unveils-a-national-gmo-labeling-bill">deal</a> comes only one week before Vermont’s law to require GM food labeling will go into effect. If the Senate compromise bill is voted on and passed by a supermajority and signed into law by President Obama, Vermont’s law will be superseded.</p>
<p>The Vermont law stipulates a positive declaration – that is, a label must indicate there are some ingredients are genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Senate proposal, which <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/roberts-stabenow-reach-deal-gmo-labeling#.V2xPNvmgZ28.mailto">backers</a> said is meant to avoid a patchwork of state laws, gives food manufacturers a number of options for how to disclose which products have GM ingredients. Companies could place text on labels, offer a Quick Response (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code">QR</a>) code that would be read with a smartphone or provide a phone number or website with more information. Organic products can be <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article85533907.html">labeled</a> “non-GMO.”</p>
<p>Although the Vermont law and the Senate bill bring the question of labeling to the forefront, the debate over GM food and consumer education has been percolating for some 25 years. </p>
<p>I have studied the social science research about whether and how GM foods should be labeled. In my view, the proposed federal legislation, while consistent across the country, makes it very difficult for consumers to obtain the information they want to know – namely, whether a product has been produced using GM technology or ingredients. </p>
<h2>What labels convey</h2>
<p>In a 2013 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.26163">study</a>, Arizona State University professors Gary Marchant and Guy Cardineu identified five issues that are important to the decision of whether or not to label: </p>
<ul>
<li>public opinion </li>
<li>consumer choice </li>
<li>the legality of labeling requirements</li>
<li>costs and benefits of labeling, and </li>
<li>risks and benefits of GM foods. </li>
</ul>
<p>They concluded: “While the case for GM labeling seems compelling on first appearance, a closer examination of the scientific, legal, economic and policy arguments and evidence demonstrates that compulsory GM labeling is unwarranted, unnecessary and being manipulated by a cynical and self-serving campaign funded and organized by the organic food industry.” </p>
<p>But I have examined the current state of evidence and have come to the opposite conclusion, as have American courts and several major corporations.</p>
<p>For starters, for at least 15 years, research surveys have found that consumers desire labeling. This has been indicated by <a href="http://4bgr3aepis44c9bxt1ulxsyq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/foodpoll2008.pdf">Consumer</a> <a href="http://4bgr3aepis44c9bxt1ulxsyq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2014_GMO_survey_report.pdf">Reports</a>, my <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.9987&rep=rep1&type=pdf">own research</a> and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97567">many</a> <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt015">others</a>. Public opinion is on the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2990/32_1_73">side of labeling</a>.</p>
<p>Labels play a significant role in <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org">facilitating consumer choice</a> in the case of credence goods. These are goods for that consumers cannot determine, through search nor experience, whether a product contains an attribute or quality they prefer, such as the use of GM technology. Labels convey to consumers a <a href="http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjpolec/v_3a82_3ay_3a1974_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a729-54.htm">desired or undesired attribute</a>.</p>
<p>On the question of legality of labeling requirements, it is worth noting that legal arguments against labeling have failed. Challenged by the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association of America and several other trade groups, the Vermont law was <a href="http://www.agweb.com/blog/ag-in-the-courtroom/recapping-round-1-of-the-vermont-gmo-labeling-lawsuit/">upheld in April 2015</a>. And, while bill HR 1599 passed the U.S. House of Representatives in July of 2015, which would have prohibited states from promulgating their own labeling laws, it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/business/bill-to-stop-states-requiring-labeling-of-gmo-foods-fails.html">failed to pass the U.S Senate</a> in March 2016.</p>
<p>Also, there is no published evidence that GM labels will increase the cost of food. Reports, funded by industry, advocacy and consumer groups have estimated cost ranges between <a href="https://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GMO_labeling_cost_findings_Exe_Summ.pdf">zero and US$500 per year for a family of four</a>.</p>
<p>But the Campbell’s company has publicly stated the cost of labeling is negligible. If there are costs, they will not be passed on to consumers. Company spokesman Tom Hushen <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/campbell%E2%80%99s-will-label-gmos%E2%80%94and-sky-will-not-fall">said</a>, “To be clear, there will be no price increase as a result of Vermont or national GMO labeling for Campbell products.”</p>
<h2>Changing corporate positions</h2>
<p>That leaves only Marchant and Cardineu’s fifth point: the risks and benefits of GM foods. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine earlier this year released an <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">exhaustive report</a> on GM foods and found there is no evidence of health risks from genetically modified ingredients.</p>
<p>But pro-GM labeling advocates have not used the GM safety issue in their arguments. Instead, they focus on consumers’ right to know what is in their food and how it is produced.</p>
<p>Several major corporations, which have previously spent millions of dollars to defeat mandatory GM labels, have indicated they will label their products or have already. Campbell’s, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars and ConAgra had said <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/2016/04/02/companies-begin-embracing-gmo-labeling/82267542/">they would label</a> their products nationwide in order to be in compliance with Vermont’s anticipated law. PepsiCo and Frito Lay have quietly <a href="https://consumerist.com/2016/05/11/pepsi-frito-lay-quietly-adding-gmo-ingredient-labels-to-some-foods/">begun to label</a> already without public fanfare.</p>
<p>Campbell’s President and CEO Denise Morrison <a href="http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/newsroom/news/2016/01/07/labeling/">said in a statement</a>, “Our decision (to label) was guided by our Purpose; rooted in our consumer-first mindset; and driven by our commitment to transparency – to be open and honest about our food. I truly believe it is the right thing to do for consumers and for our business.” </p>
<p>However, the Senate proposal, if it comes into law, does not make it easy for consumers to actually find out whether a product has GM contents at the supermarket.</p>
<p>One food manufacturing company may choose a QR code, another a label, another a symbol and another a toll-free number. If consumers do not see a disclosure using words, as the Vermont law requires, they look for a symbol. If they don’t see a symbol, they scan the product with a smartphone or call a telephone number. If that doesn’t provide information, they go to a website. For a consumer purchasing multiple products, this will be a cumbersome process. While it has been said that Vermont’s law, in isolation, <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/282763-assaults-on-modern-agriculture">may cause chaos for industry</a>, as proposed, the compromise bill will cause chaos for consumers seeking more transparency in the food system.</p>
<p>In the months ahead, we will see whether the Senate bill is turned into law and how food makers choose to comply with any disclosure requirements. But given the strong consumer support for labeling, it is unlikely that the debate over GM food labeling will die down.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from USDA. She provided a literature review on consumer perceptions of the word natural related to GMOs for the VT Attorney General and has consulted with them on origin labels. She is a professor at the University of Vermont and Directs their Center for Rural Studies/Food Systems Research Collaborative. She has conducted research on the issue of the economics of information for almost 30 years. </span></em></p>Lawmakers reach a deal on national labeling rules for foods that contain GMOs, but if passed, it won’t give consumers what research has shown consumers want.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565302016-06-24T14:42:45Z2016-06-24T14:42:45ZWhat consumers want in GM food labeling is simpler than you think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127835/original/image-20160622-7158-whqi66.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Social research shows that consumers want a say in GM food labeling. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ctsenatedems/8777078498/in/photolist-enAPDC-aAWFte-mewcDs-aAZo1f-en2rKP-hRL2AF-o24vU2-22rMwT-dxDPTg-6RFrVE-emLR4X-F5FJYd-encnLw-emLSSH-fcATGZ-emLN3a-encmhd-nbFeP4-aAZodU-domMbu-enAWZf-emLY5e-emLWB4-emLQhp-eoj2RG-encwqf-emLNXR-eFuPac-eFuNX6-encz6N-emLNsF-encscu-emLWDB-emLYSB-nGdqwj-pHG6cJ-emLXhk-encwwQ-emLXK2-emLSkV-dBmsTC-emLPBD-emLYor-gvEQFy-nJ25cB-fk4oJw-axmtsC-etV6fy-dnf1dp-ofh6vU">ctsenatedems/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fast-approaching July 1, 2016, deadline for Vermont’s new labeling law – and a new federal proposal that would set a <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/23/483290269/senate-unveils-a-national-gmo-labeling-bill">national system for disclosure</a> – for genetically modified (GM) food has provoked a range of responses from food manufacturers while reigniting debate about the need to balance the weight of scientific evidence against consumer demand for transparency. At the center of the debate lay questions of trust in science and how the ways we communicate risk serve to increase or decrease that trust. </p>
<p>On the industry side, in January, Campbell declared support for <a href="http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/newsroom/news/2016/01/07/labeling/">mandatory labeling for products containing GM ingredients</a>, and in March, General Mills announced its own intent to <a href="https://www.generalmills.com/News/Issues/on-biotechnology">voluntarily label GM food products</a>. Other big players, such as chocolatier Mars, have made similar <a href="http://www.mars.com/global/about-us/policies-and-practices/gmo-policy">announcements</a>. With Vermont’s labeling law looming, General Mills and others have appeared to focus their efforts on arguing for a nationwide approach to GM food labeling. </p>
<p>Perhaps not coincidentally, General Mills’ announcement came only days after the failed efforts by the U.S. House and some members of the U.S. Senate to ban states from requiring mandatory GM food labeling. Specifically, the House bill would have prohibited states from requiring GM food labeling on the basis that informing them is not <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599">“necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent the label from being false or misleading.”</a> The Senate bill sought to establish voluntary labeling standards for GM foods, an effort that ultimately expired due to <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/opposition-stalls-gmo-food-labeling-bill-us-senate">lack of needed support</a>. </p>
<p>As the debate over GM food labeling continues to rage, it’s worth looking at the reasons consumers support or oppose labeling. A body of communication research, including a recent study we co-authored, suggests that consumers’ views on GM foods reflect their values and how information about labeling is communicated to them more than the actual science. </p>
<h2>Shouldn’t latest science settle it?</h2>
<p>The fault lines over GM food labeling at this point are well-established. </p>
<p>On the one hand, labeling proponents argue that consumers have the <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/03/124802/#.V2rHeZMrI6g">right to know</a> what is in the food they purchase so as to avoid possible health risks associated with GM ingredients. Others argue that labeling gives consumers the ability to avoid GM ingredients as a larger ideological statement about agro-food industry. </p>
<p>More generally, one could say that resistance to labeling flies against consumer demand in an age when experts admonish us to read nutrition labels to watch our sugar intake and avoid certain types of fats. Also, not telling people makes it look like there is something that the food manufacturers are hiding, which can damage the trust consumers place in them. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127838/original/image-20160622-7175-1jm2vz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campbell’s is one food company that has come out in support of labeling genetically modified ingredients in foods, despite the fact that scientific reviews do not show any harm to human health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scjn/11969323654/in/photolist-j7u8wJ-dAZEwX-qJT9mH-8Pqijw-mabeTx-jeFUVd-8aBmdL-jbrrkZ-9s54D-8aBm4s-7pKv3G-7FHswk-5Uzeat-48V57s-qiTEkC-qap3o3-pmKmdU-fVnQ62-q9Kgqx-ont589-p38XLp-ctkEGE-2R7zbX-qxczwx-jhtXgn-kvnaDL-nZ4N9y-hc9w1f-n2mvyk-8VA5Sw-fS7Txw-HRhJMw-gFK7rw-3ZtJF-DAgsKP-4C8kXz-7983Dc-5ErcXJ-6iZQ9U-i2TF1-6iZQmq-6iZQx7-dpYqaK-2CXULP-2twVSL-tUdKu8-7q4b8w-frx1E-2mEua3-2eDSA7">scjn/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On the other hand, labeling opponents point to a lack of scientific evidence that GM ingredients are harmful to public health or the environment and argue that labeling will present an unnecessary financial burden on food manufacturers. Others note that consumers who wish to avoid food with GM ingredients <a href="http://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites/people.forestry.oregonstate.edu.steve-strauss/files/Strauss%20-%20GMO%20labeling%20summary%20-%20Univ%20N%20TX%20-%20Oct%202014.pdf">already have the option to purchase organic food products</a>, which provide non-GM options. </p>
<p>Regarding the balance of scientific evidence on safety, a recently released <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395">National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report</a> would seem to <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-report-on-ge-crops-avoids-simple-answers-and-thats-the-point-study-members-say-59289">lay to rest the issue</a>. Its exhaustive review of over 900 scientific publications found, among other things, no solid findings showing a difference between the health risks of eating genetically engineered or conventionally bred food ingredients. </p>
<p>It is doubtful, however, that the NAS report will entirely remove public doubt about the risks or demands for labeling. </p>
<p>Research on public risk perceptions <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/236/4799/280">shows</a> that it is not only the objective scientific assessment of risk that matters but also the subjective qualities of risk. These include whether people have control over their exposure to potential risks and whether they believe the risks are well-understood by scientists. Trust in the risk managers is also key, and people want to have a voice in decisions that ultimately affect them. </p>
<h2>Value of consumer involvement</h2>
<p>In terms of risk perceptions, results from a 2015 Pew Center study found that 57 percent of Americans did not believe that GM foods are safe. The Pew study found that 67 percent do not believe that scientists yet have a clear understanding of the public health implications of GM foods. Indeed, the Pew study found that the strongest predictor of believing that GM foods are safe is whether people believe scientists have a <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/">clear understanding of the risks</a>. </p>
<p>In comparison, 88 percent of scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/">believed GM foods to be safe</a>.</p>
<p>Some may see this opinion divide as evidence of an irrational public. We see it as evidence of communication processes that have paid inadequate attention to how consumers’ values affect risk-based decision making. </p>
<p>Rather than having a voice in the decisions, consumers are mostly asked to trust the experts, typically a faceless government institution or regulatory body. This can lead to a disconnect in what scientists and consumers consider the relevant facts in a decision.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118149">own research</a>, recently published in the Journal of Risk Research, found that people are much more supportive of a labeling decision (regardless of the outcome) when they were told that food companies had considered public input before making their decision. Therefore, recounting consumers’ influence in GM labeling decisions is an important factor on how people support the decisions.</p>
<p>Examples show how some organizations are recognizing the importance of conveying this information. In the <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=23395.">press release</a> accompanying the recent NAS report, Committee Chair Fred Gould offered this statement: that the committee “focused on listening carefully and responding thoughtfully to members of the public who have concerns about GE crops and foods….” </p>
<p>Similarly, Campbell’s President and Chief Executive Officer Denise Morrison said in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/business/campbell-labels-will-disclose-gmo-ingredients.html?_r=0">New York Times article</a> about the food manufacturer’s labeling decision, “We’ve always believed consumers have a right to know what’s in their food…. We know that 92 percent of Americans support G.M.O. labeling, and transparency is a critical part of our purpose.” </p>
<p>Examining the effect of these statements remain questions for future research. Our previous work would suggest, however, that underscoring how public input was considered may likely lead to greater support for the NAS conclusions or Campbell’s decision, even if people do not wholly endorse the outcomes. </p>
<p>Although transparency is not a cure-all, including people in the decision-making process and providing information about how an organization reached its decision can lead to greater decision acceptance. </p>
<p>To this end, incorporating consumers’ values in decisions that affect them, such as what ingredients manufacturers put in their food products, and communicating that back to the public can go a long way toward building trust and bridging the gaps between scientific and public understanding of risk.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56530/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine McComas has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. National Parks Service. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Dixon receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Besley receives funding from the Department of Agriculture.</span></em></p>The Senate has just reached an agreement for a national system to label foods with genetically modified ingredients. What do consumers actually want from GM food labeling?Katherine McComas, Professor of Communication, Cornell UniversityGraham Dixon, Assistant Professor of Science and Risk Communication, Washington State UniversityJohn C. Besley, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/562562016-04-04T13:47:36Z2016-04-04T13:47:36ZAll our food is ‘genetically modified’ in some way – where do you draw the line?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116953/original/image-20160331-28451-gq905k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pixeljoy / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the past week you’ve probably eaten crops that wouldn’t exist in nature, or that have evolved extra genes to reach freakish sizes. You’ve probably eaten “cloned” food and you may have even eaten plants whose ancestors were once deliberately blasted with radiation. And you could have bought all this without leaving the “organic” section of your local supermarket.</p>
<p>Anti-GM dogma is obscuring the real debate over what level of genetic manipulation society deems acceptable. Genetically-modified food is often regarded as something you’re either for or against, with no real middle ground. </p>
<p>Yet it is misleading to consider GM technology a binary decision, and blanket bans like those in <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-of-european-union-votes-to-ban-growing-gm-crops/">many European countries</a> are only likely to further stifle debate. After all, very little of our food is truly “natural” and even the most basic crops are the result of some form of human manipulation. </p>
<p>Between organic foods and <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/glowing-plants-spark-debate-1.13131">tobacco engineered to glow in the dark</a> lie a broad spectrum of “modifications” worthy of consideration. All of these different technologies are sometimes lumped together under “GM”. But where would you draw the line?</p>
<h2>1. (Un)natural selection</h2>
<p>Think of carrots, corn or watermelons – all foods you might eat without much consideration. Yet when compared to their wild ancestors, even the “organic” varieties are <a href="http://ediblebajaarizona.com/what-the-ancestors-ate">almost unrecognisable</a>. </p>
<p>Domestication generally involves selecting for beneficial traits, such as high yield. Over time, many generations of selection can substantially alter a plant’s genetic makeup. Man-made selection is capable of <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3428689/What-fruit-vegetables-look-like-Researchers-banana-watermelon-changed-dramatically-ancestors-ate-them.html">generating forms</a> that are extremely unlikely to occur in nature.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=207&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116629/original/image-20160329-13709-16zucpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Modern watermelons (right) look very different to their 17th-century ancestors (left).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/giovanni-stanchi-watermelons-peaches-pears-a-5765893-details.aspx;%20https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watermelon_slices_BNC.jpg">Christies/Prathyush Thomas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. Genome duplications</h2>
<p>Unknowing selection by our ancestors also involved a genetic process we only discovered relatively recently. Whereas humans have half a set of chromosomes (structures that package and organise your genetic information) from each parent, some organisms can have two or more complete duplicate sets of chromosomes. This “polyploidy” is widespread in plants and often <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-being-polyploid-1554633">results in exaggerated traits</a> such as fruit size, thought to be the result of multiple gene copies.</p>
<p>Without realising, many crops have been unintentionally bred to a higher level of ploidy (entirely naturally) as things like large fruit or vigorous growth are often desirable. Ginger and apples are triploid for example, while potatoes and cabbage are tetraploid. Some strawberry varieties are even <a href="http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/12/3295.full">octoploid</a>, meaning they have eight sets of chromosomes compared to just two in humans.</p>
<h2>3. Plant cloning</h2>
<p>It’s a word that tends to conjure up some discomfort – no one really wants to eat “cloned” food. Yet <a href="http://agridr.in/tnauEAgri/eagri50/GBPR211/lec24.pdf">asexual reproduction</a> is the core strategy for many plants in nature, and farmers have utilised it for centuries to perfect their crops.</p>
<p>Once a plant with desirable characteristics is found – a particularly tasty and durable banana, for instance – cloning allows us to grow identical replicates. This could be entirely natural with a cutting or runner, or artificially-induced with plant hormones. Domestic bananas have long since lost the seeds that allowed their wild ancestors to reproduce – if you eat a banana today, <a href="http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/bananas-are-clones-from-the-stone-age/">you’re eating a clone</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116630/original/image-20160329-13688-1jqabfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Each banana plant is a genetic clone of a previous generation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/design-dog/1249337589">Ian Ransley</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Induced mutations</h2>
<p>Selection – both human and natural – operates on genetic variation within a species. If a trait or characteristic never occurs, then it cannot be selected for. In order to generate greater variation for conventional breeding, scientists in the 1920s began to <a href="https://www.biofortified.org/2010/07/all-you-wanted-to-know-about-induced-mutations-in-crop-breeding/">expose seeds to chemicals or radiation</a>. </p>
<p>Unlike more modern GM technologies, this “<a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0956e/i0956e00.htm">mutational breeding</a>” is largely untargeted and generates mutations at random. Most will be useless, but some will be desirable. More than 1,800 cultivars of crop and ornamental plants including varieties of wheat, rice, cotton and peanuts have been developed and released in more than 50 countries. Mutational breeding is credited for <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1004162323428">spurring the “green revolution”</a> in the 20th century.</p>
<p>Many common foods such as <a href="https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/05/pasta-ruby-grapefruits-why-organic-devotees-love-foods-mutated-by-radiation-and-chemicals/">red grapefruits and varieties of pasta wheat</a> are a result of this approach and, surprisingly, these can still be sold as certified “organic”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116651/original/image-20160329-13691-ii03s1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Golden Promise’, a mutant barley made with radiation, is used in some premium whiskeys.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chetty Thomas/shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>5. GM screening</h2>
<p>GM technology doesn’t have to involve any direct manipulation of plants or species. It can be instead used to screen for traits such as disease susceptibility or to identify which “natural” cross is likely to produce the greatest yield or best outcome.</p>
<p>Genetic technology has allowed researchers to identify in advance which ash trees are likely <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12167224/New-hope-for-tackling-ash-dieback-as-researchers-claim-charcoal-treatment-makes-trees-more-resilient.html">to be susceptible to ash dieback disease</a>, for instance. Future forests could be grown from these resistant trees. We might call this “genomics-informed” human selection.</p>
<h2>6. Cisgenic and transgenic</h2>
<p>This is what most people mean when they refer to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – genes being artificially inserted into a different plant to improve yield, tolerance to heat or drought, to produce better drugs or even to add a vitamin. Under conventional breeding, such changes might take decades. Added genes provide a shortcut.</p>
<p>Cisgenic simply means the gene inserted (or moved, or duplicated) comes from the same or a very closely related species. Inserting genes from unrelated species (transgenic) is substantially more challenging – this is the only technique in our spectrum of GM technology that can produce an organism that could not occur naturally. Yet the case for it might still be compelling.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=270&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116954/original/image-20160331-28445-1nxcr2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Campaigns like these are aimed at cis- and transgenic crops. But what about the other forms of GM food?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/65421715@N02/6262784640/">Alexis Baden-Mayer</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since the 1990s several crops have been engineered with a gene from the soil bacteria <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em>. This bacteria gives “<a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413">Bt corn</a>” and other engineered crops resistance to certain pests, and acts as an appealing alternative to pesticide use. </p>
<p>This technology remains <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/">the most controversial</a> as there are concerns that resistance genes could “escape” and jump to other species, or be unfit for human consumption. While unlikely – many <a href="http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gmo-escape-20150121-story.html">fail safe approaches</a> are designed to prevent this – it is of course possible. </p>
<h2>Where do you stand?</h2>
<p>All of these methods continue to be used. Even transgenic crops are now widely cultivated around the world, and have been for more than a decade. They are closely scrutinised and rightly so, but the promise of this technology means that it surely deserves improved scientific literacy among the public if it is to reach it’s full potential. </p>
<p>And let’s be clear, with global population set to hit nine billion by 2050 and the increasingly greater strain on the environment, GMOs have the potential to improve health, increase yields and reduce our impact. However uncomfortable they might make us, they deserve a sensible and informed debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Borrell is currently a NERC funded PhD student.</span></em></p>Everything from domesticated carrots to glow-in-the-dark tobacco fits somewhere on the spectrum. ‘Banning GM’ isn’t a simple yes-no decision.James Borrell, PhD researcher in Conservation Genetics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/501062015-11-06T05:48:42Z2015-11-06T05:48:42ZSeeds of doubt: why consumers weigh up GM produce – and turn it down<p>I harvested potatoes the other day. Each plant had two to three kilos of potatoes beautifully arranged just under the foliage. But if you believe this is natural, you are mistaken. Like all modern crops, they are genetic variants selected by our ancestors and improved by modern breeders. Breeding always involves changing genes. That this is genetic modification (GM) is generally overlooked. The combination of whole gene families by grafting gets even less attention.</p>
<p>What people usually mean when they talk about GM is specific genetic engineering (GE) of crops. Scientists prefer the term GE because it advertises the real innovation, that they know which genes they introduce and why. </p>
<p>Introduced in the 1990s, GE crops have become much more commercially available. There are currently ten different crops available in the US alone, including corn, soybeans, sugar beet and cotton. Yet ask ten people in the street what they think about GE crops you will find a lot of caution, some rejection, and no support. None of them are likely to have anything against traditional breeding or grafting. Neither will they object to injecting insulin, say, even though it has been purified from a GE micro-organism. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100919/original/image-20151105-16253-k6rc5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cotton is more genetically engineered than most.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?autocomplete_id=&language=en&lang=en&search_source=&safesearch=1&version=llv1&searchterm=cotton&media_type=images&media_type2=images&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=106885658">THPStock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Important mishaps</h2>
<p>Efforts <a href="https://gmoanswers.com/sites/default/files/GTK_GMOs_TriFold_InfoGuide_Spread.pdf">to genetically engineer crops</a>, have tended to focus on things like herbicide tolerance and disease and insect resistance. Insect resistance was tackled as far back as the early 1990s <a href="http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_crop.html">by the creation of</a> transgenic crops that produce small amounts of the <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em> (Bt) toxin. This removed the need to combat insect pests by spraying fields with tonnes of this chemical, which ends up in the soil because it falls next to the plant or is washed off with the next rain. It sounded like a win-win – both better for the environment and more effective.</p>
<p>Herbicide-resistant crops also began appearing in the 1990s. Farmers traditionally controlled weeds using herbicides like <a href="http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/paraquat.htm">paraquat</a> that can only be sprayed before the crop has started growing. These are highly toxic, harming biodiversity and also animals and humans. Scientists engineered crops with built-in resistance to less toxic and more biodegradable herbicides. This has enabled farmers to switch to the likes of Roundup, which kills all weeds and can be sprayed on even once the crop is already growing. Another win-win? </p>
<p>Not quite. Both types of crops are grown in many parts of the world, but they are not embraced by consumers. Hardly anyone seems to know about the drawbacks of spraying Bt toxin or paraquat. Yet the <a href="https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/foee_briefing_hr_gm_crops_2011.pdf">typical criticism that</a> herbicide-resistant crops are just a marketing strategy to promote the use of different herbicides seems to have stuck. </p>
<p>These examples highlight two key failures in the industry. The first is about marketing: from the start, these products have lacked appropriate advertising and consumer information. </p>
<p>The second failure relates to the disproportionate focus on crop protection: trying to improve resistance to things like pests, frost and droughts is both very difficult and will only benefit farmers’ production costs. Only a small proportion of this is passed on to consumers. </p>
<h2>Field of dreams</h2>
<p>Some true GM jewels have meanwhile failed to make an impact. Take golden rice, a GE rice that contains high levels of vitamin A. It could really make a difference to vitamin A deficiency, which <a href="http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/126004-overview">leads to</a> blindness and death in many parts of the developing world. This rice is one of the best examples of genetic engineering, achieving a trait that could take millennia to stumble upon through conventional breeding. </p>
<p>Yet people are not benefiting. Opposition has <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/">meant that</a> it has not been licensed anywhere. Golden rice received far better public support compared to insect or herbicide-resistant crops, but by the time it emerged in the late 1990s, GE negativity had taken hold.</p>
<p>More recently scientists have succeeded in dramatically increasing protein content in <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19473-transgenic-indian-superspuds-pack-more-protein/">potatoes</a> and <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927984-800-cassava-packs-a-protein-punch-with-bean-genes/">cassava</a>. This is much simpler and cheaper than engineering resistance to insects and the like, and also promises to improve nutrition in many parts of the world. If the first GM crop had been golden rice or a high-protein potato, public perception of the new technology might have been very different. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100913/original/image-20151105-16235-1ke66qv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Mmmmm, cheaper production’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=aaqS_qsxRD_FlzptkgAhvg&searchterm=tomato%20puree%20tube&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=85564">Miss Louise Worth</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When I think about the opportunity we have missed with GE foods, I think of Flavr Savr tomatoes. I would have loved to try one: sweet, juicy, beautifully red and yet crunchy, great for a salad with mozzarella, basil and olive oil and a sprinkle of sea salt. If only I could buy them in the supermarket.</p>
<p>But as one of the first GE products to be licensed, it was withdrawn in 1997. Why did it fail? Instead of putting any emphasis on the benefits to the consumer, much of it was turned into tomato puree, marketed as 10% cheaper to manufacture. Would you have been drawn by an advert offering such dazzling features? I guess not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50106/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jurgen Denecke receives funding from the BBSRC to research fundamental processes related to intracellular protein transport in plant cells. </span></em></p>Over 20 years since GM crops reached the public consciousness, the industry has struggled to get off the ground. Had it played a better hand, it could all have been very different.Jurgen Denecke, Professor for Plant Cell Biology and Biotechnology, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/487092015-11-06T02:44:56Z2015-11-06T02:44:56ZHow we got to now: why the US and Europe went different ways on GMOs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98569/original/image-20151015-30702-72jvjq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Part of the ongoing debate: some papaya growers in Hawaii have planted a strain that has been genetically modified to resist a virus.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/remembertobreathe/17580233976/in/photolist-rTakd9-sMvi5m-e8uS69">remembertobreathe/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a myth that circulates on both sides of the Atlantic: Americans accepted genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their food supply without question, while the more precautionary Europeans rejected them. But GMOs went through a period of significant controversy in the US during the early years starting in the 1980s. </p>
<p>A boomerang effect is only now being felt in the US, as the last half-decade has seen a rise in consumer concern, state-based initiatives for <a href="https://theconversation.com/study-gm-food-labels-do-not-act-as-a-warning-to-consumers-45283">labeling</a> and the emergence of “GMO-free” claims on a growing number of products marketed in the US.</p>
<p>In Europe, meanwhile, the controversy seems to have never subsided. Earlier this month, half of the European Union’s 28 countries indicated they intend to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/01/half-of-europe-opts-out-of-new-gm-crop-scheme">opt out of a new GM crop plan</a>, apparently over concerns over food safety, in a blow to the biotech industry.</p>
<p>Why have EU and US consumers and policymakers taken such different routes? A look at the recent history of GMOs helps explain why. </p>
<h2>An uproar over dairy cows</h2>
<p>The first two genetically engineered food products in the US were recombinant chymosin, or rennet (an enzyme used in cheese production), and recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST), a growth hormone used to extend the lactation cycle in dairy cows. Both are produced in a genetically engineered microbe in much the same manner as many drugs. Recombinant rennet was accepted without a whisper in both the US and Europe. Recombinant BST caused an uproar. </p>
<p>It began in 1985 when economists predicted that recombinant BST (rBST) would lead to concentration in the dairy industry. The US dairy industry was already starting to consolidate due to computerized record keeping, herd management and control of milking equipment. Yet there were worries that small dairies across the United States would go bankrupt as the industry transitioned to milking not dozens or hundreds but thousands of cows thanks to the longer lactation cycle. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=280&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98567/original/image-20151015-30705-138y4ri.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=352&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Touting a rBST-free cheese.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tillamook/4663970660/in/photolist-j9a71c-grLsBx-pfGa5-ne676T-pfBX3-pfB17-pfGXE-pfFCZ-pfFj5-pfEJ4-pfEnM-pfDdN-pfCV1-pfCyS-pfChH-pfBEw-pfBkP-pfDy3-pfGFt-pfGpE-pfFTh-pfF1S-pfAFZ-pfAkv-pfzYj-anuKGE-8794Zf-uSF7rj-6TU51u">tillamook/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>rBST went through an <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n23/v3n23a14-collier.htm">extraordinarily long and drawn-out approval process</a> at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and was in fact withheld from the market after it was approved by a highly unusual act of Congress. The <a href="http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm130321.htm">special review</a> mandated by this act concurred with the FDA’s assessment of safety and further stated that the US government had never before regulated a novel technology in light of predicted socio-economic consequences. The moratorium against rBST was allowed to expire during the early years of the Clinton administration in the early 1990s, allowing rBST to go on the market. </p>
<p>This did not end the controversy, however. There were numerous attempts to promote labels for “rBST-free” milk, especially in New England where people love their small dairies. And in general, there is a tendency for any food-related claim to be regarded as a health claim by a subset of consumers. The FDA judged the rBST-free claim to be misleading since all milk contains BST, and they had already concluded that rBST milk was as safe as regular milk. </p>
<p>The agency was quite aggressive in policing these claims. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was one of the few companies willing to jump through all the hurdles to maintain its “rBST-free” label. The company added disclaimers saying that all milk has BST and that sourcing their milk from non-rBST dairies was found to have no health implications. By the time they added further required language stating that they couldn’t be sure all of their suppliers had done the same thing, the label that satisfied the FDA was a paragraph long. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, agencies in Canada and Europe ruled against rBST on animal health grounds. Inducing higher milk production is accompanied by a statistical increase in the <a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00902768/document">risk of mastitis</a>. </p>
<p>The US, by contrast, was primed for a political environment that was pro-biotechnology and hostile to demands for regulation or labeling on any but the strictest of health-based claims. </p>
<h2>Ethics</h2>
<p>If the larger social context in agriculture was pro-biotech, this was certainly not true for a loose-knit coalition that was to prove its mettle in the years to come. </p>
<p>An almost forgotten document from 1990, <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Biotechnologys-Bitter-Harvest.pdf">Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest</a> laid out a series of complaints. Foremost among them were concerns about small-farm bankruptcies and concentration in agriculture and the tendency for US agricultural research to underfund and ignore more environmentally-friendly alternatives to large-scale monoculture, mechanization and chemical inputs. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=577&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97471/original/image-20151006-7335-1j9nhwr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Published in 1990, Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest argued that traditional methods, now generally referred to as organic, were better than a heavy reliance on biotech.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The authors of Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest predicted that genetic manipulation would follow this path and they demanded that land-grant universities and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) expand their portfolio to be more accommodating to production methods, which today we associate with organic farming. It is at least arguable that had agricultural research institutions followed this advice, we would not see the extreme alienation and bifurcation between industrial and alternative agriculture that exists today. </p>
<p>There may also have been a brief moment when the biotechnology industry itself could have endorsed such a move. During the early 1990s, the nonprofit Keystone Center facilitated a series of “national conversations” on new genetic technologies, discussing the ethical issues associated with both medical and food applications. I attended one of these sessions and read all the reports. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97469/original/image-20151006-7378-1xcwszh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Resistance to GM foods in the US appears to be building through state-level efforts to label products.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/khalidhameedphotos/14115527258/">khalidhameedphotos/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The effort testified to significant and growing dissatisfaction with mainstream agriculture, but the human medical questions were clearly the gorilla in the room. The upshot of these talks was recognition that people want drugs that could be developed by manipulating genes, but saw ethical issues with applications of genetic engineering to the <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/editing-human-germline-cells-sparks-ethics-debate">human germ line</a>. Similar ethical concerns with the manipulation of food crops and especially food animals tapered off. </p>
<p>In any event, although concerns were being expressed, US regulatory agencies were reluctant to base their decisions on factors that are not clearly articulated by Congress in the authorizing legislation. US regulatory decisions can be and regularly are challenged in court. </p>
<p>Although the internal discussions at the USDA, EPA and FDA are not made public, we can presume that legal advisers at these agencies would have urged them to resist the pressure to consider anything but health and environmental impact, narrowly construed. The first genetically engineered crops were approved in the late 1990s, and by 2000 a large percentage of US corn and soybean farmers were growing GMO varieties. </p>
<h2>Safety and regulation</h2>
<p>What about food safety? Understanding this part of the story requires a look at how food is regulated in the US. The FDA has clear authority to regulate additives (like coloring agents or preservatives) and animal drugs (like rBST). Foods themselves, however, are not subject to any mandatory review under US law, and the FDA has long circulated a list of foods and food ingredients that are Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Food companies combining items on the GRAS list have a blanket endorsement from FDA that shields them from arbitrary lawsuits that might otherwise be brought under US liability law. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, dating back to the days of the first Bush administration, regulatory agencies had been directed to use existing laws to regulate biotechnology – that is, no mandatory review of GMO foods. This is a decision that remains controversial to this day. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumers Union continue to argue for mandatory regulatory review of GMOs.</p>
<p>The FDA eventually announced that it would treat any gene product, such as the protein or active agent produced by a genetic modification, that was not itself from a source on the GRAS list as an additive, giving the agency strong authority over truly novel introductions into food. </p>
<p>But given that it had no authority to require regulatory review, the FDA was in the position of relying upon voluntary action by biotechnology companies to report what genes had been introduced into crops. The case for animals has been different: all genetic modifications are regulated as animal drugs – a difference that may explain why no transgenic animals have yet been approved for food use in the United States. </p>
<p>This approach has subsequently been called “substantial equivalence,” which falls short of a regulatory <em>approval</em> since the FDA only reviews data submitted by companies on the chemical composition of GRAS foods. GMOs do receive formal approval from the US Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, but these agencies are reviewing environmental rather than food safety risk.</p>
<p>The approach has endured in part because nothing has gone wrong (at least nothing we know of) and because the alternative is difficult to define. Natural variation in the chemical composition of virtually all common foods is quite large, which means the use of standard toxicological methods for testing the safety of whole foods is subject to many confounding variables. </p>
<p>Food safety experts are well aware that there are many ways in which ordinary plant breeding can produce unsafe whole foods. This would be especially true for foods such as tomatoes or potatoes, which are known to carry the genes for potent toxins. However, there is no law in the US that would require any whole food to be subjected to any regulatory review. The only protection that keeps toxic plants off the shelves of grocery stores in the US is the professional ethic of plant breeders, reinforced by the fear of a product liability lawsuit.</p>
<p>Indeed, the litigious nature of American society and the ready supply of trial lawyers anxious to have a shot at any well-heeled company that might market an unsafe food is an important feature that is often overlooked in comparing the US regulatory approach with the rest of the world. </p>
<h2>US biotech goes to Europe</h2>
<p>The development of GMO foods in Europe played out at the same time as the initial steps toward integration of national food safety systems into the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) were taking place. It was politically contentious because national constituencies were losing some of their influence over home-based regulation. For example, the <a href="http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/beginners.html">Reinheitsgebot</a>, or German beer purity laws, had virtually insured that anything labeled as beer had to have been produced in Germany. The economic interests of individual countries threatened by EU-wide food safety rules created a touchy political climate. </p>
<p>What is more, a series of high-profile food safety debacles undercut Europeans’ confidence in the food and agricultural industry, as well as the regulatory science behind government mandated food safety risk assessments. <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/1040/mad-cow-disease/timeline-mad-cow-disease-outbreaks">Mad cow disease in the UK</a> was the most prominent of these events, while the radioactive contamination of European fields after Chernobyl led Europeans to be especially leery of bad scientific decisions made elsewhere. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=781&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98568/original/image-20151015-30718-1jmrk1d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The FlavrSavr was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption, but it was pulled from store shelves within a few years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavr_Savr#/media/File:Tomatoes_ARS.jpg">Jack Dykinga</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The US biotechnology industry blustered its way into this already touchy regulatory environment with GMO crops that they hoped to sell to European farmers. They insisted that Europeans simply accept the safety assessments that had already been made by a trio of US regulatory agencies – the FDA, USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Needless to say, the Europeans were not having any of it. </p>
<p>At the same time, European scientists themselves were moving into GMOs. A <a href="http://www.agbioforum.org/v3n4/v3n4a12-nunn.htm">canned and labeled GMO tomato</a> had been successfully test-marketed in the mid-1990s through a cooperative agreement between Sainsbury’s, a major UK grocery chain, and the University of Nottingham. </p>
<p>As news about the US biotechnology industry’s attempt to force its way into European markets began to break, activists began campaigns against “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_4647000/4647390.stm">Frankenfoods</a>.” Sainsbury’s competitors began to advertise that their store brands were “GMO-free” and Sainsbury dropped the experiment, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/298229.stm">saying</a> “our customers have indicated to us very clearly that they do not want genetically-modified ingredients.”</p>
<p>One lasting legacy of this episode is that European grocery stores are willing to compete against one another by making claims that impugn the safety of foods being sold by their competitors, while American grocery chains are generally not. The aggressive approach taken by FDA against claims about rBST may well be a contributing factor to a legacy of American stores accepting the safety of GMO products. And as FDA has relaxed its efforts to police claims about the alleged health benefits of foods, the American food industry has shown signs of willingness to attract customers by touting the attractiveness of organic or “GMO-free” foods. The putative benefits of either are still not recognized by US regulatory agencies. </p>
<p>A slightly more complete history would point to a number of other incidents that have led to the sharp division of opinion that exists today. The <a href="http://ucanr.org/repository/CAO/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes">Flavr Savr tomato</a> in 1994 was the first genetically modified crop to be commercialized. Designed to stay ripe and firm longer, the product <a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v13/n6/full/nbt0695-540.html">failed to meet the needs</a> of the US tomato industry. But there is also ice-nucleating or “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/10/business/altered-bacteria-fight-frost.html">Frostban</a>” bacteria; <a href="http://ccr.ucdavis.edu/biot/new/StarLinkCorn_new.html">StarLink corn</a>; the <a href="http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm">Pusztzai incident</a>; African <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/jhannah/geog270aut07/readings/GreenGeneRevolutions/Zerbe%20-%20GMOs%20in%20food%20aid.pdf">rejection of US food aid</a> – the list continues. </p>
<p>At the same time, contemporary activists, who have probably never heard of Biotechnology’s Bitter Harvest, are now building steadily on the dissatisfaction expressed a quarter of a century ago to create an economically and politically vibrant “food movement” that wants nothing to do with biotechnology or genetically engineered foods.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48709/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul B Thompson receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Sloan Foundation and the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology.</span></em></p>What explains the huge gap between US and European consumers on GMO foods? A short history helps explain.Paul B. Thompson, Professor & W K Kellogg Chair in Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/452832015-07-29T18:33:20Z2015-07-29T18:33:20ZStudy: GM food labels do not act as a warning to consumers<p>There is an economic and political battle taking place in America over the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. In 2015, 19 US states considered GM food labeling legislation and three States, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont have passed mandatory GM labeling laws. </p>
<p>The US House on July 23 passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling bill (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599">HR 1599</a>), which will move to the Senate and, if passed, will prohibit both state-level legislation regarding GM labels and the labeling of products that contain GM ingredients. </p>
<p>Proponents of HR 1599 argue that GM labels will act as a warning. Another reason people oppose labeling is that they say scientific evidence has shown GM foods are safe. </p>
<p>Opponents of this legislation call it the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act. Food and biotechnology companies reported more than US$60 million in anti-GM labeling lobby expenditures in 2014, almost <a href="http://www.ewg.org/research/anti-label-lobby">three times</a> what was spent in 2013. </p>
<p>As an applied economist who studies the economics of information and consumer choice, I wondered what the evidence was regarding the labels-as-warnings argument.</p>
<p>It turned out that there is scant, if any scientific evidence to show that GM food labels will act as warning labels. Surveys of people in Vermont show that people are unlikely to see GMO labels as an indicator of a dangerous or inferior product. And for some people, the label can actually build trust in the technology.</p>
<h2>The Vermont situation</h2>
<p>In the US, there have been only two published studies about whether GM labels will serve as warning labels. Neither study provides strong evidence that GM labels will signal a warning to consumers.<br>
A 2014 study on GMO labeling <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.08.005">concluded</a>, “any (negative) signaling effects, should they exist, are likely to be small.” Another in 2008 <a href="http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/42460/2/LuskRozan.pdf">found</a> that labels are likely to affect consumers’ views toward GM-labeled food with the caveat that their results are based on consumer beliefs that a labeling law is in effect, not whether they support such a law or the existence of a law. </p>
<p>In Vermont, where a GM labeling law will go into effect in July 2016, we have been collecting information from citizens for over 15 years about their attitudes, beliefs and intentions toward GM technology and products derived from it. We have five years of data (2003, 2004, 2008, 2014 and 2015) where questions about both support for and opposition to GM were asked. We also have information on whether and what kind of labeling citizens prefer. </p>
<p>These questions were asked as part of the annual Vermonter Poll administered by the University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies. </p>
<p>The Vermonter Poll is a representative statewide poll that includes questions about a variety of issues important to consumers, ranging from employment and health care to agriculture and community development. We analyzed the data from 2,102 respondents to better understand whether labels change people’s preferences toward GM foods or whether they provide information which provides a basis for choosing products to purchase.</p>
<p>Labels help consumers make choices. In some products, consumers cannot determine whether a product contains an attribute or quality they prefer by looking or handling it, which is the case with GM foods. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1243501">Research shows</a> it is for these kinds of goods that labels play a more important role in choice. </p>
<h2>The data</h2>
<p>I presented the results of the study at the annual conference of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in San Francisco on July 27. </p>
<p>On average, across all five years of the study, 60% of Vermonters reported being opposed to the use of GMO technology in food production and 89% desire labeling of food products containing GMO ingredients. These numbers have been increasing slightly since 2003. In 2015, the percentages were 63% and 92%. </p>
<p>The study focuses on the relationship between two primary questions: whether Vermonters are opposed to GMOs in commercially available food products; and if respondents thought products containing GMOs should be labeled. </p>
<p>When analyzed in a way that accounts for the possibility that labels influence opposition, we found no evidence that GMO labeling would act as warning labels and scare consumers away from buying products with GMO ingredients. </p>
<p>Results also found that for some demographic groups, GM labels decrease opposition toward GM technology. For people with less education, who live in single-parent households and those earning the highest incomes, a GM label builds more trust in GM technology. </p>
<p>Opponents to labeling often refer to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/gmo-labels-congress_n_5576255.html">consumers’ lack of education</a> on the issue as a reason not to label. In addition, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00003.x/abstract">two</a> <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223810676_Preferences_and_willingness_to_pay_for_GM_labeling_policies">studies</a> have shown that higher income households and households with children have been found to be more willing to pay for labeling. Households with children may also be more risk-averse regarding foods. </p>
<p>Men are the least opposed demographic overall. The analysis found that for men and people living in middle-income households, desiring a GM label increases opposition. For all of these demographic characteristics, the change in opposition toward GMOs was not larger than three percentage points in the positive or negative direction. </p>
<p>Overall, we found that supporting labeling (including after Vermont’s labeling law was passed) has no direct impact on opposition to GM foods. This conclusion is not what I had expected and runs counter to the reasoning behind the introduction of The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling bill. </p>
<h2>Beyond Vermont</h2>
<p>In Vermont, GMO food labels would provide consumers with information on which to base their purchasing decisions. </p>
<p>Consumers who wish to avoid GMO ingredients would do so and those who either want GMO ingredients or are indifferent can also make that choice. The label would not signal to consumers that GMO ingredients are inferior to those produced using other agricultural production methods. </p>
<p>The study was conducted in one state. Because there are no labels currently in the marketplace, the study is based on survey data. Using a statistically valid methodolgy, it seems that for Vermont, where a labeling law has been passed, the law will act as intended: it will provide consumers with the information they want in order to make choices about the food they want to buy and it will not scare them away from GM technology. </p>
<p>More research is needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to consumers in other states.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>For other studies on GMO labeling, see:</em></p>
<p><em>- Caswell, J. A. (1998). <a href="http://agbioforum.org/v1n1/v1n1a06-caswell.htm">Should Use Of Genetically Modified Organisms Be Labeled?</a> AgBioForum, 1(1), 22-24. http://www.agbioforum.org</em></p>
<p><em>- Caswell, J. A., & Mojduszka, E. M. (1996). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1243501">Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products</a>. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(4), 12481253.</em></p>
<p><em>- Costanigro, M., & Lusk, J. L. (2014). <a href="http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4929.pdf">The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food</a>. Food Policy, 49, Part 1(0), 259-267.</em></p>
<p><em>- Fulton, M., & Giannakas, K. (2004). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00561.x">Inserting GM products into the food chain: The market and welfare effects of different labeling and regulatory regimes</a>. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(1), 42-60.</em></p>
<p><em>-Loureiro, M. L., & Bugbee, M. (2005). <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00003.x">Enhanced GM foods: Are consumers ready to pay for the potential benefits of biotechnology?</a> Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 52-70.</em></p>
<p><em>-Loureiro, M. L., & Hine, S. (2004). [Preferences and willingness to pay for GM labeling policies](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.001 Food Policy, 29(5), 467-483.</em></p>
<p><em>- Lusk, J. L., & Rozan, A. (2008). <a href="http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/42460/2/LuskRozan.pdf">Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically Modified Food</a>. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33(2), 270-289.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Kolodinsky receives funding from Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station for this research. She is affiliated with the Vermont Public Health Association, the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Vermont Chapter of the American Heart Association. None of her findings represent the views of funding organizations or affiliations.
I have received funding from a host of funders for a variety of researchers over the past 30 years to conduct applied research in a variety of areas.</span></em></p>Statewide survey in Vermont finds GM food labels don’t scare consumers or indicate an inferior product. In some cases, labels built trust in the technology.Jane Kolodinsky, Professor and Chair Community Development and Applied Economics, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.