{"id":1547,"date":"2018-06-28T17:18:21","date_gmt":"2018-06-28T09:18:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.agrinoon.com\/agriculture\/?p=1547"},"modified":"2018-06-28T17:18:21","modified_gmt":"2018-06-28T09:18:21","slug":"survey-nearly-half-u-s-consumers-avoid-gmo-foods-large-majority-primarily-concerned-human-health-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.agrinoon.com\/agriculture\/2018\/06\/28\/survey-nearly-half-u-s-consumers-avoid-gmo-foods-large-majority-primarily-concerned-human-health-impact\/","title":{"rendered":"Survey: Nearly half of U.S. consumers avoid GMO foods; Large majority primarily concerned about human health impact"},"content":{"rendered":"

Labels proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to disclose \u201cbioengineered\u201d (BE) foods dramatically increase a wide variety of consumer concerns, especially regarding human health.<\/p>\n

Those are among the findings of new research by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation into areas where AMS sought comments on its proposed BE labeling standards, as well as consumers\u2019 views generally of genetically modified foods, or GMOs.<\/p>\n

CONCERNS ARISE WHEN BE FOODS ARE LABELED<\/strong><\/p>\n

With AMS\u2019s July 3 deadline to comment on the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law fast approaching, the IFIC Foundation tested reactions to the three BE labeling symbols and two variations of text disclosures. In every combination, levels of concern across a variety of factors increased\u2014often substantially\u2014when a disclosure label was applied.<\/p>\n

\"\"For example, consumers were shown bottles of canola oil 1) without any BE logo or text, 2) with one of the three symbols (a plant, a sun or a smile), 3) with a symbol, plus \u201cbioengineered\u201d in text and 4) with a symbol, plus \u201cmay be bioengineered\u201d in text. An additional group of consumers were shown just text disclosure, without any BE logo.<\/p>\n

When shown the bottle without any disclosure, approximately one-third (31 percent<\/strong>) of a group of respondents had human health concerns. But that rose to 50 percent <\/strong>when shown the BE \u201cplant\u201d symbol, further increasing to 51 percent <\/strong>when text was added to indicate that the product was \u201cbioengineered,\u201d and to 57 percent<\/strong> when \u201cmay be bioengineered\u201d was added to the \u201cplant\u201d logo. Human health concerns almost always showed the greatest increase, compared to other factors such as animal health or environmental concerns.<\/p>\n

The survey also asked about broader perceptions of GMOs. More than one-third (36 percent<\/strong>) of respondents said they know very little or nothing at all about bioengineered or genetically modified foods, identical to the number who say they know at least a fair amount. Despite the low level of knowledge, a greater number (47 percent<\/strong>) said they avoid GMO foods at least somewhat.<\/p>\n

The vast majority (85 percent<\/strong>) of those who avoid GMOs do so out of human health concerns, with the environment (43 percent<\/strong>), animal health (36 percent<\/strong>) and agriculture\/farming (34 percent<\/strong>) concerns trailing far behind.<\/p>\n

\u201cDespite broad scientific consensus that GMOs are safe to consume, a majority of Americans seem to be convinced otherwise. It\u2019s a significant disconnect and it underscores the need for more creative public education on the science behind our food,\u201d said Joseph Clayton, CEO of the IFIC Foundation.<\/p>\n

WHAT IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE?
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

When consumers were asked which combination of logo and text provided the \u201cright amount\u201d of information, a significant majority said that any of the three logo disclosures plus the text disclosure provided the right amount. Far fewer said that the logos alone provided the right amount.<\/p>\n

Consumers were also asked how they preferred to receive the legally required GMO disclosure information from food companies on GMOs, ranking their choices among six methods. \u201cSymbol or visual representation\u201d was selected as the top method by 51 percent<\/strong>, followed by \u201ctext on a food package\u201d at 29 percent<\/strong>. Trailing far behind were sending a text message to receive more information (7 percent<\/strong>), visiting a website (6 percent<\/strong>), calling a phone number (4 percent<\/strong>) and scanning an electronic or digital link (3 percent<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

VARIOUS LABEL CLAIMS CAN IMPACT CONSUMER PURCHASES
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The survey also seeks to understand how statements about GMOs, or GMO-free claims, stack up against other front-of-pack labels. Several claims rank higher than GMO-free claims. In fact, when given a list to choose from, the top labeling claims consumers seek out when buying food are:<\/p>\n