Can scientists learn from listening to public reaction to the products they develop? And should they?
As a philosopher by training (and as a science journalist by profession) I am delving into ethical questions surrounding genetic modification. My reflections were triggered by an article by my friend Alle Bruggink, a professor in industrial chemistry at the University of Nijmegen in The Netherlands. He explored why the public remains suspicious about biotechnology – a surprise to many biotechnological researchers.
“Bringing new products or concepts to the market resembles running the gauntlet in many ways,” he wrote. “Invariably, there are many more obstacles than foreseen and they arise from unforeseen angles.” He made a case for considering the public reception of biotechnological innovations before bringing products to the market, or even before starting the research at all. “The psychology of innovation is unrelenting: researchers develop their product for the good of the public; it is their judgement that counts. Researchers will have to learn to listen: with their hearts, with their moral senses.” And they should look to social researchers, if possible, for guidance.
Alle Bruggink has quite a track record in genetic modification. Backed by a team of 80 researchers, both academic and corporate, he developed the first fully fermentative synthesis of an industrial product (cephalosporin, a semi-synthetic penicillin). The project established the corporation DSM as a player in the green chemical industry, and it still contributes to DSM’s balance sheet.
An innate wisdom in the public mind
Biotechnological researchers need to learn from the public’s views; it seems to me that there is a kind of innate wisdom in the public mind. Public judgments can steer us away from unfortunate genetic developments like Herman the bull, the first genetically modified cow (1990-2004) and embrace production of medicines by genetic engineering. That is to say: an unfavorable public reaction is not just a nuisance, but may well represent a genuine moral judgment.
“Without pressure from the public and NGOs, we might have seen meadows full of GMO bulls and sheep. Or we might have produced embryos on a large scale, in order to mine stem cells,” Bruggink wrote.
So in this commentary, I look into how the public forms its views in order to unravel the logic of the public mind. I submit that public judgment is largely determined by three dimensions: health, fashion and ethics. Researchers can better anticipate how the public receives their products if they take these three dimensions into account. This does not mean to say that the public is always ‘right’. On the contrary, the public’s judgment is often inconsistent. Nevertheless, my quest may provide researchers with some guidelines when developing new production pathways for food ingredients, nutraceuticals and other materials. I will restrict myself to genetic modification of microorganisms.
The difference between medicines and food
I was struck by the major difference in how the public has received genetically engineered drugs versus GE foods. In the medicine, almost anything goes. In general, science journalists write favorably about the role of synthetic biology in the development of new drugs, and nobody minds. In the race for a vaccine against Ebola, there has generally been just one criterion: the drug should work. (Although more recently, the Organic Consumers Association has begun criticizing the use of genetically engineered tobacco in developing GE drugs to fight Ebola). But when it comes to food, public criticism of pathways involving GE organisms may be severe.
The production of nutraceuticals and food ingredients by fermentation, using genetically engineered organisms, is growing fast. Public reception varies greatly. Isobionics, a daughter of DSM, produces valencene, the orange flavoring, nootkatone, the grapefruit flavoring and similar products using fermentation technology. Would orange juice, produced with this valencene, be equivalent to traditional orange juice? Is it somehow artificial or unnatural? These are questions to which we can directly apply the wisdom in the public mind by consulting our own emotions. Most of us will view the original as superior, even if industry could approach the natural composition of orange juice by adding vitamin C, fibers (e.g. from wood) and micronutrients. ‘Natural’ would imply ‘better’.
But this does not hold true in the case of genetically engineered drugs. Nobody would suggest that the natural artemisinin (the most powerful antimalarial drug now) made from Artemisia Annua is superior to industrially produced artemisinin, administered through a pill. The public long ago embraced the view that a cure could come from a pill, rather than from a vegetable extract. In fact, the proposed ‘natural’ cure might even be perceived as quackery. Many people view the industrial production of artemisinin as a major scientific breakthrough.
Why is there such a difference? There may be perceived health issues (natural orange juice might be thought of as healthier than the manufactured counterpart); natural produces may be thought of as more fashionable; or ethics might be in play. In general, I submit, public opinion will flow along these three dimensions. In this case of orange juice vs. medicines, we might learn that according to public opinion healing is more important than consuming (the ethical and health angles), leaving more room for genetic engineering in the field of medicines; and that as far as food is concerned, ‘natural’ has an extra (the fashionable angle, with a so far unproven bit of perceived health effects).
Fashion may change
But some of these conclusions are immediately challenged by our next example, the development of artificial, cow-free milk by Muufri, a start-up founded by vegans. “Our solution is to make real milk from the bottom up,’ wrote Muufri on its website. “It’s a fairly simple mixture: six key proteins for structure and function, eight key fatty acids for flavor and richness. In different ratios, these components give us cow’s milk, goat’s milk, or even buffalo milk – all suitable to become countless products, from toppings to cheeses to desserts.”
Muufri then elaborates the advantages of artificial milk, an argument that can be extended easily beyond milk. Synthetic milk conceivably could circumvent the environmental problems associated with milk production. Dairy cows produce so much methane gas in in their stomachs that they are major contributors to the greenhouse effect. Synthetic milk tackles that very serious problem. Questions of animal welfare also do not arise with synthetic milk. And less agricultural land may be needed. Muufri even suggests that its synthetic food might be better than the natural stuff. “We don’t just solve problems,” it says, “we add new value to dairy, too.
Because we choose what goes into our product, we can choose to leave out lactose, which is at least partially indigestible by 75 percent of adults; and we can choose to leave out bad cholesterol for a much healthier product. And because our products are made with the same precision as medicines, they’ll be free of all bacteria – meaning a great-tasting milk with unprecedentedly long shelf life, no pasteurization needed.” The takeaway: It’s healthy because it’s artificial!
Fashion may (and will) change. ‘Natural’ – quite a multi-faceted and scientifically imprecise term – is a fashionable marketing tool at the moment; the booming ‘natural’ cosmetics market and Ottolenghi’s cooking testify to that. But the next fashionable fling might well be ‘scientifically cutting-edge products’. These might even carry health claims, as the Muufri example illustrates. So, if the ethical dimension is absent (like in this case), public opinion may surprise us in the future. Or alternatively, Muufri’s milk might remain a fringe product.
Genetic modification in cheese
In other issues, matters may get complicated very much by a combination of marketing tools and public ignorance. Let us apply the three dimensions to deconstruct the public reaction to cheese and beer production. From time immemorial, cheese was produced using rennet extracted from the maw or fourth stomach of ruminant calves. But since the nineties, cheese has been increasingly produced from rennet obtained from genetically engineered microorganisms (except in France, where food laws prohibit their use). Researchers extract rennet-producing genes from animal stomachs and insert them into bacteria, fungi or yeasts to make them produce rennet by fermentation. The genetically modified microorganism is killed after fermentation, and rennet is isolated from the fermentation broth. The final product does not contain any GE component or ingredient. And lo and behold, public opinion does not seem to mind. The Vermont legislature, very strict on labelling GE foods, has exempted cheese from this obligation – although almost all cheese sold in Vermont is produced in this way.
The difference may be that cheese has always been looked upon as processed foods anyway, whereas orange juice was not. Isn’t the difference that most of us never saw beer or cheese being produced from scratch, unlike orange juice? In other words: most consumers are just ignorant about how beer and cheese are produced. They value the proliferation of unique varieties made possible by special kinds of rennet. They have no idea that those unique qualities are linked, in part to genetic engineering. The next premium cheese might proudly advertise and brand itself as being produced from cutting edge, science developed, sustainable rennet.
The courage to face opposition
Still, I see no reason to diverge from my earlier conclusion that that in wisdom in the public mind, medicines are more important than food and that therefore, companies developing food ingredients with the intermediate of GE organisms will have to think twice. But public ignorance is a major factor producing uncertainty. Will people react favorably to biodegradable and biobased carpets, or will they be dismayed when they discover that they let their babies crawl on a substance produced by GE organisms? People might even refuse to know the truth because this could complicate life – this might be the case with beers and cheese. Companies make themselves vulnerable to unfavorable reactions in the future, not just by deceiving their customers, but also by hushing up uncomfortable truths. They might be better off proudly advertising their products as the result of cutting-edge technology, than sitting still waiting for the storm that might descend on them. For all it is worth, the acceptance of GE production methods in cheese and beer production shows that there is a certain basis for accepting this technology in the food industry.
A company that has understood this message is Ecover, a Belgian company that produces household and personal care products. Ecover is sold in the US under the name Method. Ecover is quite a remarkable company; it has conquered the niche of environmentally benign products and has the environmental community as the backbone of its customers. The company recently decided to substitute a vegetable oil produced by Solazyme by modified algae for palm kernel oil as the feedstock for its detergents (palm kernel oil being regarded by many environmentalists to have a poor sustainability record). And – this being the point here – it decided to announce this project before embarking upon it. This project too became the object of criticism of Friends of the Earth. As a result of that opposition, Ecover shelved its plans for the time being. Both parties agreed to engage in a mediation process, that still goes on at the time of writing.
What should Ecover do on the basis of the arguments developed in this article? Well, just carry through their project, as far as that is commercially advisable in view of the specific makeup of their customers. There are no ethics nor health issues here; and as people already accept food produced by the intermediate of genetic modification, why should they object to a similar product they apply to their floors?
Baby milk
So far, the ‘innate wisdom in the public mind’ appears to boil down to two ground rules: technology is questioned more in food production than in medicines, and: be careful about potentially misleading your customers. But reflections on the case of baby milk challenge that conceptual framework.
Scientists generally agree that breast-feeding, when possible, is best for the baby (with a few exceptions). And yet, we also have been feeding processed animal and soy milk to our babies for many decades. Fashion? To some degree yes. Prolonged breast-feeding is increasingly at odds with women’s role in society. Apparently, those economic and social demands are so powerful that many women push aside the maternal instinct.
Science might help alleviate the guilt of parents who are concerned that they might be hurting their child in some way by not raising him or her on breast milk. Researchers are narrowing the differences between breast milk and their processed cow milk. The Flemish company Inbiose recently developed special carbohydrates on demand as additives to (for instance) baby milk powder. Using GE organisms, to be sure. In production method, there is virtually no difference in with Evolva’s vanillin or Isobionics’ valencene. One would tend to expect resistance to mount, because it is not our own health but our baby’s that is at stake – and yet, no social upheaval here. Maybe even to the contrary: we will go the extra mile for the health of our baby!
So health and fashion lead the way to our emotions in the case of artificial baby milk, although the outcome is unexpected. Ethics: not an issue, otherwise than a general preference for sustainability. But here, if I am not mistaken, a fourth dimension comes into play: reputation. One of the strongest trademarks in this area is Nutricia, a subsidiary to Danone. Its baby milk powder is not an exceptional product, according to food experts; but once one has the reputation that one’s trade mark has an extra for the baby, and one succeeds in keeping that up throughout the years – then that appears to constitute a premium product to the consumer. Reputation, consumer confidence, premium product. Something worthwhile the premium price, no questions asked.
Conclusion
When it comes to medical biotechnology we accept each production method, provided the pill actually cures. But that does not hold true in the case of food. Producers of food ingredients will have to be very careful to account for their actions to themselves and to their customers. Today’s fashion appreciates the ‘natural’. But then, in the confusing example of baby milk that does not hold true. As long as there is no adverse health effect, fashion is the strongest factor. But do not neglect ethics. Ethical deceit can backfire on the entire industry.
Diederik van der Hoeven is a Dutch science journalist, specializing in energy, sustainability and the biobased economy. He is the editor of www.biobasedpress.eu. Follow @biobasedpress on Twitter.
This article was very interesting. I can only speak for myself, but as a GMO skeptic, my concerns are mostly ethical, somewhat health, and very little, if at all, fashion. I do see the unwillingness to label food products as GMO as public deceit that fosters distrust. For GMO producers, it’s a business decision based on profits that gives the appearance of profits before people – which again, breeds distrust. In the end, the smart move for GMO food producers would be to own the concept of GMO labeling. Instead of spending multi-millions on obfuscating the truth in labeling, spend it on educating the public to the benefits of GMO products. This would facilitate public acceptance and (more importantly) trust far sooner.
I *kindof* agree with you on the GM labeling, in that companies making an effort to label their products might help to reduce unsubstantiated consumer concerns that the food companies are “hiding something” and the conspiratorial thinking that follows. (I’m not saying that anti-GM/GM skeptics are all conspiracy theorists, What I mean by that is that it’s human nature to be suspicious that someone is trying to trick you if you perceive them to be hiding something). But this could also backfire, creating even more irrational fear, “If GMOs are so safe, why are companies required to label them?” Not to mention the fact that a number of proponents of GM labeling have admitted that the reason they want GMO’s labeled is because they want them banned, but can’t get enough people to support such an extreme me sure as a complete ban, so they want them labeled so consumers will stop buying them. Honestly, I could se either happening, or some combination of both.
It seems to me that once GMO food products have been around for a generation or two, they’ll either be completely banned for being proven unhealthy or completely accepted and not thought of at all. Personally, I am ambivalent towards labeling. As 90% or so of US corn and soy are already GMO, virtually everybody has already consumed plenty. If it were to be a health hazard, it’s already too late for labeling to make a difference. That’s why, to me, labeling is an ethical issue.
As for labeling leading to banning, I doubt that will be the outcome. While I believe it’s possible for some genetic engineering to go horribly wrong, the vast majority of positive benefits should outweigh any negatives. Again, educating the public to these benefits might be money well spent versus money spent trying to keep product development a secret.
Why is only one breeding method an “ethical issue’ Peter?
I’m not sure what you mean by “breeding method.” Can you elaborate?
What he means is that GMOs are not a product or an ingredient, but a breeding method – just like radiation breeding, chemical mutagenesis etc, etc. None of them are labeled, but if one, and only one was labeled – it would indicate to the public that there must be a reason – and that reason would not be thought of as good. If one breeding method is required to be labeled it is the end of that method, period, full stop. You may not think that would be the case, but it will be.
Let’s take GE/GMO. Already I don’t have a clue why any company attempts to brings those products to market. Yes, it is the best method, and safer than other methods that the general public is completely oblivious to, but seeing as we live in a completely irrational world, the costs and time of getting those products through an extreme over-regulatory gauntlet that is irrational and anti-science, and just keeps on getting worse, leaves me surprised that any company is still willing to do so…especially when they just go back to the dark-ages and bombard seeds with radiation or chemicals.
So now, after having spent many years and countless millions of dollars showing the product is safe (something that the products of no other breeding method has to do), then they have to slap on a label that the will indicate to the public that it is not safe. If you think that any company would ever be stupid enough to spend the time and money to develop another GE product, you are dreaming.
Instead plant genetics in all universities will be done with modern techniques, but when it comes to producing food we will return to the old stupid methods. Because food is so important we should restrict ourselves to the dumbest methods possible.
You can say that they will be fine if the benefits outweigh the negatives. Not true.
You can say that instead they should be spending money educating the public, but that won’t matter. All it takes is a small percentage of the consumer base who will not buy GE products to shift corporations away from using the current ones (and as I said no new GE products would ever be developed) and there is a small percentage of the population who have been lied to about GMOs to the point where they simply can’t be educated….like you. You comment here frequently, yet still don’t understand the basics and are as misinformed now as you were months ago.
I was going to post something more eloquent, but your last comments were so over-the-top, I changed my mind. One note, I’ve only been a member of Disqus for 37 days, so it’s hardly “months” I’ve been *uneducated*.
Okay, things are bred, things die. Death is inevitable, right? We all die. Is one method any different than another? So dying of old age should be considered the same as being shot to death while attending grade-school, by your thinking then.
YES, the process matters. Simply put, the “old stupid methods” are known through millennia of use. The “best method, and safer than other methods that the general public is completely oblivious to” are new and NO ONE knows just how the process will affect or interact with our existing biome fully until it has been around for several generations. So get off your holier than though horse and come back to reality. If GMO breeding is the best, it will win out in the end. Give it time and be patient. The world was once considered flat and the earth at the center of the universe by everyone that mattered. Those that disagreed were ridiculed or worse. But in the end, the truth came out and was accepted as fact to the point of banality.
Again, as I said, despite plenty of time here you are still completely misinformed. Most of the commonly used old methods are not known through millennia. Many, if not most, of the methods that would be replacing GE are less than 100 years old.
Your comments in May are as misinformed as your comments were in April.
There are people who start with a large amount of knowledge and expertise and let that guide them to a position – which changes based on new, better information.
There are people who start out with little knowledge, but then form their position based on the best evidence and are willing to change that based on new, better information.
Then there are people who form a position based on ideology/worldview, and refuse to budge no matter how far their position strays from the evidence-based position.
You are in the latter group. After more than a month of posting here you have made that abundantly clear.
As was said in the interview between Rachel Maddow and Frank Schaeffer about creationists:
Maddow: … How do you work to move people off of that position? It doesn’t seem like facts are relevant in trying to move people away from these beliefs.
Schaeffer: You don’t work to move them off this position. You move past them. Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.
Your comments are logically perverse.
Village idiot? Okay then. I guess you are superior. Feel better now?
Using xrays and chemicals to mutate seeds is a millennia old method? LOL
Follow the money.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
Somewhat controversially,[19] several organic food and seed companies promote and sell certified organic products that were developed using both chemical and nuclear mutagenesis. Several certified organic brands, whose companies support strict labeling or outright bans on GMO-crops, market their use of branded wheat and other varietal strains which were derived from mutagenic processes without any reference to this genetic manipulation. These organic products range from mutagenic barley and wheat ingredient used in organic beers[20] to mutagenic varieties of grapefruits sold directly to consumers as organic.[21]
Well said. It’s just sad to see much ingnorance every day.
This is the opinion of the European National Academies of Science (Europe being the centre of GMO rejection)
There is compelling evidence that GM crops
can contribute to sustainable development
goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the
environment and the economy…There
is NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE that GM crops
have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used inplant breeding…There is abundant and accumulating evidence from extensive worldwide experience for benefit, and lack
of evidence for environmental or human health risk associated with GM crop technology. Thus, there is a compelling casefor the EU to re-examine its current policy governing the broad area of agricultural biotechnology…It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets.”
and this from the European Commission:
A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research
2001-2010
Food Safety:
“The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects,
covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500
independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs,
are not per se more risky than conventional
plant breeding technologies.”
if you change the font/ capitalization of a source, you’re supposed to put [emphasis mine] after the quote.
just saying. your ALL CAPS are useful help highlight your point, but that’s the standard practice.
Environmentalists are not interested in facts and science.
They have to keep the hype train rolling so they can continue to go from conference to conference extorting money from companies.
The aim of most environmentalists is to destroy any company that produces GMOs.
They want to literally destroy them. But the GMO companies are the evil ones of course. Lead by the devil himself. Monsanto.
GMO is a meaningless term. Every apple or banana in every supermarket on this earth is a GMO.
Mutational breeding is done by organic food producers.
Interesting article. It is surprising how the public can be so headscratchingly inconsistent at times, some uses are embraced while the identical process in a different product is rejected.
It is curious to me why mutation breeding never faced the same public perception dynamics. Why does the public mistrust genetic engineering but has been largely indifferent to foods derived from genetics resulting from exposing plants to radiation and chemicals. Iin the first place, the public fear is that ge might accidentally and unpredictaly create novel mutations and in the latter we intentionally try to cause novel unpredictable mutation.
Perhaps part of the issue is that we never created a term to refer to mutagenic modified organisms (MMO) like we have with genetic modified organisms (GMO). The latter was never meant to be descriptive of the composition or qualites of the harvested products or foods derived from them, just as a convenient means to indicate that one or more traits of the underlying crop was acquired via biotechnology mediation. But the public interprets the term to mean a wholesale synthetic replacement of food. Mutagenesis is probably more violative of our concept of natural than genetic engineering but there is not the same wariness. There was no disclosure through labeling or otherwise about mutated genetics in our food crops.
I would be interested how you would explain the apparent indifference to mutation breeding in the context of your article.
GMO is just a buzzword that environmentalists use to make keep the hype up. It’s a brand/trigger word that everyone knows.
OMG GMO!!
They spent 20 years trying to label it as sth negative. If people hear about mutational breeding they will not know what you are talking about and they will not care.
Environmentalists have to keep the donation train rolling and have to keep making headlines or else their funding will dry up.
interesting article. have to question however, “medicines are more important than food” to people, and that’s why they are more accepting of GM pills than potatoes. It seems highly unlikely and illogical. Perhaps people see a food as a very complex thing, pills as very simple (often a single purified molecule, after all). Maybe they don’t trust GM as much for complex things.
I questioned this too. Perhaps people are more willing to overlook the “GMO taboo” when taking medicines because their affliction worries them more than the consumption of the GMO. But with food, there is no underlying affliction, other than the hypothetical affliction that consuming a GMO might cause.
I also think people aren’t as aware of GMO’s in medication. If those who are virulently anti-GMO became aware of it they would probably transfer their oppositional opinion to the medication as well.
This is a long article on an issue that
could receive a fairly short answer.
There is now a whole new industry: that
of dysinformation. It thrives thanks to the Internet and some
acomplices in the media, politics and industry (at large).
Any product or class of products that
gets into the shooting line of the dysinformation industry gets into
serious trouble if the said industry can line up some elementary
arguments (FUD, conspiracy theories or anti-corporate,
anti-globalization, nationalistic sentiments, etc.).
Genetic engineering applied to plants
got caught in all of these arguments. Popular concerns were largely
fabbricated.
Some products can escape, such as cell
phones. The hype against electromagnetic fields and relay antennas
could not win over the phones’ convenience.
“Most beers nowadays are made using GE yeasts.”. I submit this statement is factually wrong. None are GE. So let’s hear from the author on where the idea came from.
i also find no evidence for beer GE yeasts. perhaps the author meant that bears are made with GE yeasts, which would make for some highly alcoholic ursines, which would explain why they can’t survive global warming of the arctic since they are bottom fermenters, bears are. some small bears aren’t, but at least the lager varieties are.
“People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals…”
don’t hear the left screeming about biotech, but the cry day and night about GMO’s.
It makes sense to me that the public would be more suspicious and cautious of the food supply than in medicine. When you take a medication you know that it may cause side effects. The number of people who are taking the medication and the amount they are taking is comparatively small when compared to our daily intake of food. The caution about artificial foods is warranted because Science has not yet completely unravelled the mysteries of the human body and what nutrients it needs nor how various food compounds are used by the body. Food is like a long term drug in some ways and how it affects us over the long haul is still relatively unknown. Yet many scientists seem to act as if we’ve got nutrition all figured out. That arrogance leads them to believe they can tinker with basic foodstuffs like milk without causing potentially long term problems in individuals health. We evolved eating naturally produced foodstuffs and that seems safest to consumers who’ve been around long enough to have various nutritional ideas shown to be wrong.
“food is like a long term drug…..how it affects us is still relatively unknown”
Sorry that’s just wrong. There isn’t anything in this world that has been researched better and is regulated more than foods. Including GMOs
I’m talking about nutrition, not food safety. And I have read a ton of research on the topic of nutrition and it is no where near known what the best diet is. On top of which there probably isn’t a one-size-fits-all diet because we are genetically different and have different needs. There are MANY areas of nutritional science which are still mysteries. Take a look at recent findings about menaquinones for example. They appear to play a special role in carboxylating Gla Proteins. Those are needed to prevent tissue calcification. We may have removed some of the prime sources by changing cattle from grass to grain or altering the ways we make cheeses.