Reports a survey indicating that Americans lean toward optimism regarding biotechnology, but a substantial minority has concerns. "Controversy in this area is unlikely to go away any time soon."
9 pages., Via online journal., Food labels legislated by the U.S. government have been designed to provide information to consumers. It has been asserted that the simple disclosures “produced using genetic engineering” on newly legislated U.S. food labels will send a signal that influences individual preferences rather than providing information. Vermont is the only US state to have experienced mandatory labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering (GE) via simple disclosures. Using a representative sample of adults who experienced Vermont’s mandatory GE labeling policy, we examined whether GE labels were seen by consumers and whether the labels provided information or influenced preferences. Nearly one-third of respondents reported seeing a label. Higher income, younger consumers who search for information about GE were more likely to report seeing a label. We also estimated whether labels served as information cues that helped reveal consumer preferences through purchases, or whether labels served as a signal that influenced preferences and purchases. For 50.5% of consumers who saw a label, the label served as an information cue that revealed their preferences. For 13% of those who saw the label, the label influenced preferences and behavior. Overall, for 4% of the total sample, simple GE disclosures influenced preferences. For a slight majority of consumers who used a GE label, simple disclosures were an information signal and not a preference signal. Searching for GE information, classifying as female, older age and opposing GE in food production significantly increased the probability that GE labels served as an information source. Providing such disclosures to consumers may be the least complex and most transparent option for mandatory GE labeling.
15 pages., via online journal, Genetic modification (GM) science has received considerable pushback from consumers despite the research finding GM products are safe for consumption. This may be partly due to the disconnect between consumers and farms since most consumers are disconnected from the farm by at least three generations. The largest consumer population is composed of millennials, which is the generation furthest removed from the farm which may mean they need to be educated differently about GM science than other generations. The purpose of this research was to determine if there were generational differences regarding the perceived attributes of GM science to inform the development of extension programs designed to educate consumers about GM science. A survey was used to collect consumers’ perceptions of GM science. The respondents were grouped into generational classifications and perceptions between groups were compared. The findings revealed generations do perceived GM science differently and extension programs should be designed for specific generational audiences.
Via online., Author described favorable media coverage and public relations support for new crop biotechnologies announced - and lack of scientific evidence of effectiveness during the following 18 years.
3 pages., via online journal, This study is motivated by the importance of communication with societal stakeholders when food is involved. This case adopts an internal view of Monsanto's challenge of engaging with consumers and the broader public when discussing biotechnologies and specifically, genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Multiple interviews were conducted at Monsanto's world headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, to understand the challenges within the organization in terms of their public persona and why and how they want to change it.
