Open letter to CEOs of ‘BigAgTech’: Change stance on GMO labeling, build consumer trust

Washington State GMO labeling initiative to go to the voters in a November ballot strict xxl
via Big Think

David Ropeik, former director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and one of the country’s foremost experts on risk, has written an open letter to “CEOs of BigAgTech” companies, urging them to change their stance on labeling GMOs, although he did not endorse I-522 in Washington.

Agricultural corporations are fighting the wrong battle, Ropeik wrote. It’s not enough to say that science overwhelmingly supports GM technology—agriculture companies must understand that the labeling fight is more about trust and the psychology of risk. When agricultural companies spend millions of dollars fighting a labeling campaign, the consumer is led to believe that something is being hidden from them, and an already unfamiliar and complex issue like genetic engineering becomes something to fear.

In response to labeling efforts, agriculture companies are put on the defensive, afraid that labeling will kill revenue—and this fear does little for their public image, which is already damaged. This is a psychological trap that Ropeik calls “Fear of Fear.”

The chance that a label like “may contain genetically modified ingredients” could scare away even one end-consumer, has frightened you into opposing such labeling. Your direct customers, the farmers who grow the food and the food companies who sell it, are even more afraid of this consumer fear than you are. The Fear of Fear is common. It seems to make sense. And certainly you and the food production and retail industry are right to some degree. Such labels almost certainly will scare some people away.

But consumers engage in risky activities all the time, Ropeik wrote, so why would consuming genetically modified food be any different? The difference is that people engage in risky activities knowingly. By offering consumers the opportunity to make informed decisions, Monsanto and other agriculture companies could reduce the unsubstantiated fear of GMOs, he argued.

     [Labeling] would demonstrate your belief that “It’s safe and we have nothing to hide.” It would acknowledge people’s concerns, respect the public’s feelings. A dramatic and sincere shift to support GMO labeling will demonstrate that you are not being purely defensive and self-interested. It would significantly ease the “We hate GMOs because we hate Monsanto (i.e. Big Ag Tech companies)” mistrust that lies at the heart of this conflict. Not only would it encourage acceptance of GMOs, it might even help ease public mistrust in your company and industry, though that’s a bigger longer battle.

Andrew Revkin, who runs the Dot Earth blog at The New York Times, highlighted Ropeik’s piece and teased out the debate in a follow up column. He said he “tended to agree” with Ropeik, but also understood why industry and many scientists and physicians oppose GMO labeling in general or the Washington initiative in particular—because of “the loopholes, the fact that they wouldn’t provide the public with much useful information in any case and the reality that such campaigns are pretty clearly not just about access to information.”

Revkin also quoted an editorial by Ramez Naam, a technology expert who also supports labeling although believes Washington’s labeling initiative is misguided. If GMOs are listed alongside other approved ingredients, Naam wrote last week, consumers would believe their sense of control is restored.

Revkin also cited the Genetic Literacy Project’s article and infographic posted last week which addressed the anti-GMO motivations behind Washington’s labeling initiative.

Read the full, original story here: “To: CEOs of BigAgTech Re: Labeling of GMOs”

Additional Resources:

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

Video: Test everyone – Slovakia goes its own way to control COVID

As Europe sees record coronavirus cases and deaths, Slovakia is testing its entire adult population. WSJ's Drew Hinshaw explains how ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend