“Everybody thinks, ‘GMOs … consumers are all against that,’ ” Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, was quoted on the website FoodDive.com. “But at the end of the day, they’re really not.”
You may have heard about the controversy anti-GMO advocates tried to stir up when Carter’s company introduced the Arctic Apple two years ago, a fruit that’s genetically modified so that it doesn’t brown after being cut. Along with its marketing efforts, the firm also created a consumer information campaign, launched a website, published a toll-free 800 information number and put scannable QR codes on the stickers placed on the apples.
“Basically, only two people looked up the QR code to get more information last year,” Carter said.
What does that tell us? Simple: The problem with GMOs, other than opposition from a small subset of food purists who loathe anything they deem as “unnatural,” is not the technology itself, but how it’s been applied in the marketplace.
Because genetic engineering was commercialized — with great fanfare — to develop commodity crops resistant to toxic herbicides, it started out with two strikes against it. Strike one, an application that does nothing for consumers, even if it does offer efficiencies to growers ….
Read full, original article: Dan Murphy: A GMO Turning Point?