Messaging May Overcome Bias Against Gene-Edited Foods
by Alli Romano
Two Cornell researchers have discovered that while many consumers have reservations about genetically modified ingredients in food, they are somewhat less resistant to a newer food technology — gene editing — when they find out it has health and environmental benefits.
Gene editing, an emerging technology, could potentially improve food quality, lower costs, and reduce waste, said Brad Rickard, professor at the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business, and Elena Krasovskaia, a Dyson School doctoral student, who published the paper “Food Labeling: Ingredient Exceptions and Product Claims” in the journal Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, with coauthors Brenna Ellison from Purdue University, Brandon McFadden from the University of Arkansas, and Norbert Wilson from Duke University.
Gene editing differs from an older and more familiar technology, genetic engineering — also known as bioengineering, which incorporates genetic material from an external source. Gene editing involves modification of the food’s own DNA.
“We were trying to get into consumers’ heads and present some scenarios: Do they care if a food product is made with gene-edited ingredients?” Rickard asked. And does their reaction change when they learn about the benefits of gene-editing?
“Part of our motivation is to see whether people’s reactions to labels for gene-edited products would be similar to those for genetically engineered ones,” Krasovskaia said.
The study presented participants with several versions of two common American foods — potato chips and apple pie. They were asked how much they were willing to pay for the products with gene-edited ingredients compared to what they would pay for the products with conventional ingredients. The researchers also compared participants’ attitudes when unrefined ingredients (e.g., apples and potatoes) were gene-edited versus when the highly refined components (e.g., vegetable oil) were gene-edited.
Consumers were consistently biased against gene-edited ingredients, they found. Krasovskaia said she had anticipated that consumers would discount a food product more when it used gene-editing for the potatoes and apples rather than the oil, but this wasn’t the case.
“We observed a similar reduction in the likelihood of purchase, which was unexpected,” she said. “Apples and potatoes are fresh produce and perceived as healthy, while vegetable oil is considered less healthy, but the introduction of any gene-edited ingredient had a very similar negative effect on consumer evaluation of the food product.”
After being informed about gene-edited foods’ health and environmental benefits, participants expressed a willingness to pay slightly more. However, they still did not value these products at the same level they did for the conventional items.
Some food producers are already communicating the advantages of genetic modifications. For example, Arctic Apples are genetically engineered to brown more slowly than conventional apples, and the company contends this makes kids less likely to discard them. Potato producer Innate claims its genetically engineered potatoes are less prone to bruising, which could result in American food processors tossing fewer spuds.
Rickard said that someday, if and when regulators require labeling of gene-edited ingredients, as they have done with bioengineered ingredients, the study’s insights could help them establish consistent labeling rules and alleviate negative perceptions about gene-edited ingredients.
“Policymakers and food manufacturers should be encouraged that additional knowledge of benefits shows some rebound effect,” he said. “Consumers respond to this.”