The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permits most GMO practices while consumer advocacy groups push for greater transparency.
Even though the controversy may seem to stem from questions of ethics, technology or health, the real issue at hand lies in branding psychology. Associations that GMOs are “unnatural” or “unsafe” beset CPG and agricultural brands, while organic food brands continue to see unprecedented growth.
However, neither GMO nor organic inherently promises more or less nutritious foods, just a methodology for growing it. Food brands that want to overcome stigma and be embraced by the public must therefore pay close attention to the weight verbiage carries in food conversations.
The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permits most GMO practices while consumer advocacy groups push for greater transparency. Even though the controversy may seem to stem from questions of ethics, technology or health, the real issue at hand lies in branding psychology. Associations that GMOs are “unnatural” or “unsafe” beset CPG and agricultural brands, while organic food brands continue to see unprecedented growth.x
However, neither GMO nor organic inherently promises more or less nutritious foods, just a methodology for growing it. Food brands that want to overcome stigma and be embraced by the public must therefore pay close attention to the weight verbiage carries in food conversations.
Who Started the Food Fight?
GMOs have been a hotbed of controversy ever since their announcement as an experimental technology in the mid-70s. Today, GMOs can be found everywhere in mass production, from tomatoes that resist fungal parasites to goats that excrete spider silk in their milk glands.
While experimentation may be fine in the laboratory, having foods made from GMO plants means — in the eyes of opponents — unwanted experimentation on people. Among their lengthy list of objections to mass producing GMO crops is the invisibility of the practice. There is simply no telling which foods have GMOs and which do not without clear labels.
To correct this ambiguity, many are pushing for mandatory labeling of foods that use GMO ingredients, including plants or animal products. Some companies, such as The Campbell Soup Co, are already coming to terms with labeling requirements. They recently announced a plan to voluntarily declare which products have GMO ingredients using a label statement such as “Partially produced with genetic engineering.” Other companies, like Chipotle, seek out bragging rights by declaring their products are “GMO free.” These efforts can mean little when it comes to the chemical makeup and nutritional content of food, but they do often mean big wins in the realm of public perception.
A Non-GMO, Organic Rose by Any Other Name?
And what the public thinks about food is a driving factor in purchasing decisions. The perception of whether a food is healthy or nutritious is largely guided by arbitrary qualities – the so-called “health halo.” For instance, many may think of granola as healthier than a chocolate candy snack without regard for caloric content or portion size. This can lead to making food choices based on perception instead of facts, something that marketers have long used to their advantage to shape public opinion.
In the case of GMO labeling, voluntarily identifying contents addresses the issue that companies have something to hide. While the scientific community largely stands behind GMO techniques as healthy and safe, many are skeptical that they are not receiving all the information. Moves by companies like Campbell’s can somewhat satisfy both crowds by essentially declaring the labeling requirements as part of their pledge to consumers to be honest and forthright about what they can expect, even if it means keeping the GMO ingredients.
Such moves are steps towards quieting the debate, but at the heart of the issue is that GMOs simply have a bad “brand” among the non-scientific public. Pew Research recently discovered that GMO safety had the largest opinion gap between the public and the scientific community of any of their issues, even climate change.
Major food brands will have to dutifully monitor public conversations in order to discover ways to best approach entrenched feelings about food products and safety. Offering more insight into product origins may help remove mistrust. Perhaps others in the multibillion-dollar global food industry will come to agree, and voluntarily enabling consumer choice will become the solution to the hand-wringing and hard-lining that the GMO debate seems to invite.