Summary: Researchers aim to clarify the divide between proponents and opponents of genetically engineered foods.
Source: WUSTL.
Is a non-browning apple less “natural” than skim milk? One product involved inserting a change into apple DNA to prevent browning after cutting; the other involved removing fat that naturally occurs in milk.
The issue of what people mean by “natural” and how that affects their views on genetically engineered foods is at the center of new research led by Sydney Scott, assistant professor of marketing at Washington University in St. Louis’ Olin Business School. The review, titled “An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Foods,” was published in the Annual Review of Nutrition.
Scott, who has published earlier work on the moralization of genetically modified foods and the role of disgust in consumer choices, describes the paper as a synthesis of the current research and regulatory landscape. “We examined what has been done so far and what we understand about public attitudes,” she said.
Poking around in DNA
The authors conclude that despite more than two decades of development and use of genetic engineering in agriculture, public skepticism remains substantial. For many consumers the idea of altering DNA provokes a visceral reaction.
“In some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred, and they see genetically engineered food as a violation of that sacredness,” the paper explains. Research shows that people tend to apply what psychologists call the “magical law of contagion”: the belief that even minimal contact between a natural item and something perceived as unnatural contaminates the whole. That intuition can make the presence of foreign DNA or the idea of human intervention seem contaminating.
The review highlights a puzzle: many consumers accept highly processed convenience foods—frozen dinners, boxed mixes, or artificial-flavored syrups—but resist genetically engineered crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans, vitamin A–fortified rice, or faster-growing salmon. The distinction appears less about processing per se and more about perceived interference with the inherent nature of a food.
“People often say it’s not acceptable to ‘poke into’ DNA — that feels yucky,” Scott noted. She argues that scientific data alone cannot fully explain or resolve these reactions because much of the opposition appears to rest on moral beliefs and intuitions about naturalness rather than on empirical risk assessments.
Regulation and public attitudes
The review summarizes how governments vary in their responses to genetically engineered crops, outlining four broad approaches: promotional, permissive, precautionary, and preventative. The United States largely follows a permissive model: many genetically engineered crops are cultivated and are considered by regulators to be “generally recognized as safe.”
By contrast, the European Union has taken a more restrictive route, with only a small number of genetically engineered crops permitted for commercial cultivation and substantial consumer resistance to human-food uses.
Globally, genetically engineered crops now account for a large share of cropland in some countries—covering roughly half of U.S. cropland and a significant portion of farmland in parts of the Americas and Asia—while demand for organic products has also grown rapidly. The coexistence of expanding genetically engineered acreage and rising organic sales underscores the divided consumer landscape.
One central goal of Scott and her coauthors was to reveal the gap between scientific advocates of genetic engineering and public perceptions. The scientific literature generally finds no evidence that genetically engineered foods cause harm to human health or the environment when regulated and used responsibly. Still, those findings do not automatically translate into public acceptance.
“Communicating about this technology requires more than presenting scientific facts,” Scott said. “If we want constructive conversations, we have to recognize that many people’s objections are moral or emotional. Understanding those foundations is essential to building better consensus.”
Scott remains cautiously optimistic: “Figuring out how to bridge these differences is possible. It will take attention to values and communication, not just data.”
Source: Neil Schoenherr – WUSTL
Publisher: Organized by NeuroscienceNews.com.
Image Source: Image adapted from the WUSTL news release.
Original Research: Abstract for “An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food” by Sydney E. Scott, Yoel Inbar, Christopher D. Wirz, Dominique Brossard, and Paul Rozin in Annual Review of Nutrition. Published August 2018.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071715-051223
Abstract
An Overview of Attitudes Toward Genetically Engineered Food
Genetically engineered foods are those whose DNA, RNA, or proteins have been intentionally altered by human intervention. This review summarizes the importance, prevalence, and regulation of genetically engineered foods and examines public attitudes toward them. We describe the pronaturalness context in the U.S. and Europe that preceded the introduction of these foods, outline regulatory differences across regions, and document the widespread controversy surrounding their use.
Across studies, life scientists tend to be more positive about genetically engineered foods than laypeople. Many nonexperts perceive these foods as risky and see few benefits. A substantial portion of lay opposition appears to stem from moral and intuitive concerns: some individuals view naturalness as sacred and see genetic modification as a violation of that sacredness, while others apply a contagion-based intuition, believing that contact with an “unnatural” entity—whether a scientist, a process, or foreign DNA—pollutes the food and makes it unacceptable to consume.