The Escalating Anti GMO Sentiment: A Growing Rebellion
Updated July 2023
Even after over two decades of advancements in genetic engineering within agriculture, consumers still maintain a level of scepticism and, in some cases, express strong aversion towards genetically modified (GMO) foods, as revealed in a recent study conducted by Washington University in St. Louis. Sydney Scott, an assistant professor and the lead author of the paper titled “An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Foods,” posited that people hold a deep reverence for what is perceived as natural, and GMO foods are seen as a transgression against this naturalness.
However, what remains perplexing is that consumers appear more accepting of heavily processed foods while recoiling from GMOs, a phenomenon not fully explained by the study’s authors. As Scott explained in a news release, consumers seem to be conveying a substantial discomfort with the notion of tampering with DNA, deeming it unappealing and, in some cases, “yucky.”
The study authors also discovered notable variations in the regulatory approaches towards genetically modified crops, with the United States adopting a relatively permissive stance, generally considering them safe. In contrast, the European Union adheres to a more restrictive approach, permitting the commercial cultivation of only two genetically engineered crops: potatoes and maize. A significant objective of the research team was to shed light on the substantial divide between proponents of genetically engineered foods and their opponents. Scott expressed, “What we’re presently striving to ascertain is what could facilitate the emergence of a more unified consensus. I don’t believe it’s an insurmountable challenge.”
Despite decades of genetic engineering in agriculture, consumer apprehension towards genetically modified foods persists. This unease is attributed to a deep-seated attachment to the concept of naturalness, making GMOs a point of contention even when compared to heavily processed foods. The study also highlights the contrasting regulatory approaches concerning genetically modified crops between the U.S. and the European Union, underscoring the need to bridge the gap between GMO advocates and opponents to foster a more harmonious discourse. Full Story
Anti Gmo: What Does The Public Think
Despite the increasing utilization of genetically modified (GM) crops in the past two decades, most Americans indicate that they possess only limited knowledge about GM foods. Moreover, a significant portion of the population seems to hold tentative views regarding the impact of GM foods on health, expressing uncertainty about whether these foods are better or worse for one’s well-being. When asked to align with one of three stances regarding their perspectives, nearly half of Americans (48%) assert that GM foods exhibit no discernible difference in health effects compared to other foods, while 39% contend that GM foods are potentially worse for one’s health. A smaller fraction, constituting one in ten (10%), opine that such foods might actually be beneficial for one’s health.
Approximately one-sixth (16%) of Americans demonstrate a profound level of concern regarding the issue of GM foods. This subset of individuals primarily holds the belief that GM foods carry health risks. Moreover, a significant majority within this category also harbor concerns that GM foods are highly likely to lead to environmental issues and health problems on a broader scale for the population as a whole. Full Story
Nearly half of Americans are Anti Gmo.
To illustrate, consumers were presented with various bottles of canola oil, each bearing different forms of disclosure:
1. Bottles with no Bioengineered (BE) logo or text.
2. Bottles with one of three symbols (a plant, a sun, or a smile).
3. Bottles featuring a symbol along with the text “bioengineered.”
4. Bottles featuring a symbol and the text “may be bioengineered.”
Additionally, a separate group of consumers was shown bottles with text disclosure only, devoid of any BE logo.
When consumers were shown bottles without any disclosure (Option 1), approximately one-third (31%) of respondents expressed concerns about human health. However, this percentage increased to 50% when they were shown the BE “plant” symbol (Option 2). Furthermore, when text indicating “bioengineered” was added alongside the symbol (Option 3), these health concerns rose to 51%. The most substantial increase occurred when “may be bioengineered” was added to the “plant” logo (Option 4), with 57% expressing human health concerns. Notably, human health concerns consistently showed the greatest increase, surpassing other factors such as concerns about animal health or the environment.
The survey also delved into broader perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). More than one-third (36%) of respondents admitted knowing very little or nothing at all about bioengineered or genetically modified foods, a figure identical to those who claimed to have at least a fair amount of knowledge. Despite this low level of knowledge, a significant percentage (47%) stated that they avoid GMO foods to some extent.
Among those who avoid GMOs, the vast majority (85%) do so primarily due to concerns about human health. Concerns about the environment (43%), animal health (36%), and agriculture/farming (34%) trailed behind in importance.
Joseph Clayton, CEO of the IFIC Foundation, highlighted the disconnection between the broad scientific consensus that GMOs are safe to consume and the majority of Americans’ contrary beliefs. He stressed the need for more innovative public education initiatives to elucidate the science behind our food. Full Story
Other articles of Interest:
BIIB stock Price: Is it time to buy
Stock market crashes timelines
Dow theory no longer relevant-Better Alternative exists
In 1929 the stock market crashed because of
Where is gold headed in 2016; Up, down or sideways (April 13)
Do Investors need to own Gold; The answer might surprise you (April 13)
Fiat Currency: silent but deadly weapons of Mass Destruction (April 12)
Data manipulation; The Fraudulent Economic Recovery (April 11)
