GMOs and Their Lack of Appeal

This month Campbell Soup Co. announced that it will put GMO ingredients on its label in the U.S. while other food makers are dragging their feet. It will be interesting to see how consumers respond. Similarly high proportions of Americans (92%) and Canadians (nearly 90%) want GMO labelling but it is questionable how such labels can help consumers make rational decisions about whether GMO labelled products are good for them or not. For one thing defining GMO (genetically modified organism) for food labelling purposes is complicated and the current definition doesn’t include genetic modifications like radiation mutagenesis or making gene changes without leaving foreign genetic material using the new CRISPR technology. If we can define it, can it be labelled without looking unnecessarily scary?

GMOs are all different, someincrease herbicide use (glyphosate-resistant corn, cotton, soybean), somedecrease insecticide use (Bt corn), some have more vitamins (golden rice), some grow faster (AquAdvantage Salmon) and some don’t turn brown (Arctic Apple), but instead of treating them as individual products, many people reject them categorically. This past year a philosopher and some plant biotechnologists published a paper in Trends in Plant Science that promotes a better understanding as to why the public is so opposed to GMOs when there are clear benefits to using this technology when used responsibly.

At the surface, the anti-GMO issues are about health, environment or mistrust towards big agriculture and government. Stefaan Blancke and co-authors, argue that beneath the surface it is intuition that rejects these foods rather than rational judgement and it is just the way our brains work.  “The preferential adoption of negative GMO representations takes place reflexively, instantaneously, and largely under the radar of conscious awareness.” This is because it requires a lot of effort for people without a specialized science background to learn and incorporate all of the technical aspects of genetic engineering into their thinking. People certainly aren’t likely to suddenly decide to augment their biotechnology knowledge in the grocery store aisle. So this is precisely the situation where people will rely on their intuitions, which often quickly leads to a sympathy towards popular anti-GMO characterizations like ‘frankenfoods’.

In an attempt to change the psychological playing field science communicators often point out how imprecise traditional selective plant breeding is and that it is also a form of genetic modification. They love to point out that Ruby Red Grapefruits produced by radiation to induce genetic changes can be sold under an organic label. Pro-GMO arguments point out that whereas with genetic engineering scientists insert a specific gene that will do something beneficial for the plant, with traditional breeding agronomists select for a trait but in so doing end up with many unintended genetic changes, just like how certain dog breeds are prone to hip dysplasia. Traditional plant breeding can affect the nutritional composition, and even resulted in a poisonous potato. Despite these arguments genetic engineering is perceived as riskier.

Maybe these arguments don’t help because taking DNA from one organism and putting it into another seems to be a real sticking point. Blancke and co-authors point out that people see DNA as the essence of an organism. Why wouldn’t people feel that way? Our DNA is unique to each of us; it identifies criminals, and dads in paternity tests. In this perspective, of course it can seem beyond creepy to take DNA from one organism and put it into another. But our unique DNA is mainly between genes and the genetic sequences of genes themselves are nearly identical even between unrelated humans and similar between humans and animals thanks to our evolutionary past. Humans even share 47% of our genes with fruit flies. This perspective might make the thought of introducing genes from one organism into another might seem less creepy.  

Emotions interfere with people’s ability to rationally judge the risk of eating GMOs. Our feelings of disgust in relationship to food is a huge part of this. It is said humans evolved to feel disgust because the feeling stopped us from eating rotten or poisonous food that could make us sick.  In the modern world sometimes we can feel disgust toward foods that are not harmful. I can attest to this. I once had the opportunity to eat chef prepared chocolate ‘chirp’ cookies with a cricket on top. My disgust prevented me from eating a single one even though I knew it wouldn’t do me any harm. Obviously I’m used to seeing insects in my food not as nutrients but contamination. Similarly Blancke and colleagues point out that some people see genetic engineering as contaminating the very essence of the organism and thus feel disgust toward GMOs. 

Clearly a GMO label would have a lot of power to persuade people to stop buying GMO products. The public perceives genetic engineering as the opposite of “natural” and this conversely explains how “natural” or “organic” on a label can entice people to buy a product even though its health benefits aren’t necessarily more than any other food. Many scientists, science writers and communicators have been trying to convince the public that GMOs are safe but often aren’t addressing the feelings of ‘yuck’ that some people can’t help feeling because GMO food are perceived to be simply unnatural. Maybe it’s time to try a different tact.

Genetic engineering and GMOs are in need of image makeovers. Being open about the use of these technologies on labels is a good start as far as public trust is concerned. Communication strategies suggested in this paper might help anti-GMO and pro-GMO camps become less polarized. These include 1) A more understanding attitude about the anxieties of the public.  2) Emphasis on some benefits of genetic engineering, like sustainable agriculture, which should trigger an intuitive sympathy toward them. 3) Encourage the public to look at the risks and benefits of each individual GMO product, rather than grouping them together under the process used to make them.

Images

Man shopping in supermarket by USDA on flickr

March Against Monsanto, Vancouver, By Rosalee Yagihara from Vancouver, Canada (032A3231) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Reference

Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Blanke, S. et al. (2015) Trends in Plant Science DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011