University of Florida professor Brandon McFadden and Oklahoma State University professor Jayson Lusk conduct and publish research on GMOs and the public. From the introduction:
The seemingly high level of public opposition is puzzling given the views of most scientists on the issue. It could be argued that gaps between science and the public has always existed (4) and is increasing (5). However, the gap is extraordinarily large regarding the safety of GM foods. Only 37% of US consumers believe GM food is safe to eat; by sharp contrast, 88% of scientist members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) believe GM food is safe to eat (6).
Deeper in:
Public concern about the safety of GM food is often expressed by demands for mandatory labeling, however, the public may prefer to default to experts for decisions related to biotechnology if they are uncertain or believe themselves unknowledgeable. Respondents were asked several questions to determine preferences for labeling (see Fig.4). While 84% of respondents supported mandatory labeling for food containing GM ingredients (fig. 4A), there was also overwhelming support for mandatory labeling food containing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) (fig. 4D). Eighty-percent of consumers supported a label for food indicating the presence or absence of DNA, an absurd policy that would apply to the vast majority of foods in a grocery store.
Rather than asking whether consumers want mandatory labeling, a more instructive question might be how they believe such an issue should be decided. A question similar to that posed by (21) was applied to the case of labeling, and results indicate only 35% thought decisions about mandatory labeling should mainly be based on the views of average Americans, with the remainder believing the issue should be decided by experts (fig. 4B). Furthermore, only 8% thought the issue of mandatory labeling should be decided by ballot initiative, and the majority, 58%, thought the issue should be decided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (fig. 4C). Therefore, although most consumers support a mandatory label for GM food, most consumers also thought the decision should be made experts with more knowledge. Indeed, as previous results suggest, consumers had little knowledge of basic genetics.
I’ve omitted the references and figures. The ignorance concerning the prevalence of DNA in the food supply is unsurprising and not particularly grievous; it’s a big world out there and I know very bright software engineers who aren’t really aware of the contents of the solar system.
As the authors themselves note, the more interesting question concerns who should be making decisions, and quite clearly the respondents felt that the experts in the field should be in charge of making such decisions. This is quite reasonable, even reassuring on its face, although I think there will be, depending on the field, legitimate questions concerning who’s an expert and who’s not.
I think there is a delicate incongruity in this particular example in that deciding whether or not mandatory labeling is appropriate should be one for the experts, but if the answer is ‘yes’, then the vast majority of the responsibility for understanding the issues of GMOs shifts right back to the consumers. It leads back to the question of democracy and science, as we discussed in a political context here. It’s a kinky problem – there’s a shared responsibility for what we eat, between ourselves and the suppliers. But will mandatory labeling help when most consumers do not realize DNA is deeply intertwined with our food supply? Is more education the panacea, or are most consumers just too busy making a living to really have the time to care about this sort of thing? And after all that study, what if they choose to believe the GMO analog of Jenny McCarthy, the anti-vaxxer queen who does terrible damage to the efforts to extirpate many diseases from the world? It’s a head-scratcher.
(h/t NewScientist’s delicious Feedback column, 18 June 2016, paywall)
