GMO label may not dissuade buyers but rather encourage sales

| | May 15, 2015

Opponents of genetically modified food claim that their demand for labeling is only intended to provide choice for consumers. In truth, as many of them have said, they hope that labels will scare people away from buying such products and kill GMO technology itself. But a new survey suggests that by giving consumers choice, labels might actually reassure, and encourage sales, more than scare and dissuade.

The monthly Food Demand Survey by Jayson Lusk at Oklahoma State asks several questions about labeling and choice that I proposed to Lusk, based on the risk perception research of Paul Slovic and others who have found that when we engage in a potential risk voluntarily, the very fact that we are taking a possible risk by choice makes the risk feel less scary. Slovic’s research on risk perception has also established that if we trust the government agencies that are supposed to protect us, we’ll be less afraid, which suggests that a government/FDA label should also reassure, since we trust FDA food labels in general. Lusk asked about that too.

Lusk asked whether “requiring mandatory labels on genetically modified food would increase the confidence I have in the safety of genetically engineered food. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) a majority of respondents (3.49) said that labels would reassure. And he asked whether “the presence of a ‘contains genetically engineered ingredients label,’ by providing choice, would encourage me to consider buying a product.” A slight majority (3.14) said yes.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: GMO Labels Could Reassure Consumers More Than Scare Them Away

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

8 thoughts on “GMO label may not dissuade buyers but rather encourage sales”

        • 1) I don’t make assumptions about confused statements like yours. I said what I meant based on what you said. I meant what I said.

          2) “Like a shill….” I AM a shill. For farmers and for science. If you have any more assumptions you want to make about me, go ahead, but kindly label them as …. assumptions.

          3) You know nothing about what we farmers do. You don’t respect farmers much, obviously. Sad.

          • Again you reveal yourself as a corporate shill pretending to be a farmer by a mass of the silliest assumptions.

  1. If products are labeled I will actively seek out GMO food. I’m pro-science and want to encourage the development of better foods, especially given the fact that climate change poses serious risks to the food supply. The non-GMO, “organic” or “all natural” or whatever label they want to put on it is cute, but it’s not better and it’s primarily just a greenwashing sales pitch.

  2. I would love to see ge foods labeled “genetically modified to use less pesticide.” Or “genetically modified to reduce harmful tilling of the soil; better for the environment.”

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend