The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard
1.2. SmartLabel
1.3. Disclosure and Public Understanding of GM Science
1.4. Research Questions
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study 1
2.2. Study 2
2.2.1. Study 2 Procedures
2.2.2. Study 2 Participants
2.2.3. Study 2 Measures
3. Results
3.1. Study 1
3.2. Study 2
Study 2 Post hoc Analysis
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | As noted above, prior literature suggests that knowledge of a risk [60] and affective judgements about GM technology, including moral assessments [50,61], may influence risk and benefit perceptions. We collected these data as control variables in an effort to isolate the effect of our experimental conditions. |
2 | Standardized coefficients are reported in-text, as the independent variables had different measurement scales. Both the standardized and unstandardized coefficients are available in Table 3. |
References
- International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. ISAAA Brief 54-2018: Executive Summary | ISAAA.org; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2018; Available online: http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/54/executivesummary/default.asp (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Washington, DC, USA, 2017. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). Grocery Manufacturers Association Launches www.FactsAboutGMOs.org; Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA): Washington, DC, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/grocery-manufacturers-association-launches-wwwfactsaboutgmosorg/ (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Leary, W.E. F.D.A. Approves Altered Tomato That Will Remain Fresh Longer. The New York Times, 19 May 1994. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/19/us/fda-approves-altered-tomato-that-will-remain-fresh-longer.html(accessed on 1 April 2018).
- James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. (ISAA Brief No. 46); International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Applications: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- United Stated Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Recent Trends in GE Adoption; United Stated Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Genetically Engineered Organisms Public Issues Education. Genetically Engineered Foods: A Consumer Guide to What’s in Store; Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2001; Available online: http://blogs.cornell.edu/gmodialogue/files/2013/06/GE_Foods-1s8zr15.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Zilberman, D.; Holland, T.G.; Trilnick, I. Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallman, W.K.; Cuite, C.L.; Morin, X.K. Public Perceptions of Labeling Genetically Modified Foods; Rutgers University School of Environmental and Biological Sciences: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hallman, W.K.; Cuite, C.L.; Morin, X.K. Public perceptions of animal-sourced genetically modified food products. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pew Research Center. The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides over Food Science; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/ (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Bittman, M. G.M.O. Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution. The New York Times, 2016. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/opinion/gmo-labeling-law-could-stir-a-revolution.html(accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Charles, D. Congress Just Passed A GMO Labeling Bill. Nobody’s Super Happy About It; National Public Radio: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/14/486060866/congress-just-passed-a-gmo-labeling-bill-nobodys-super-happy-about-it (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Plumer, B. The Controversial GMO Labeling Bill That Just Passed Congress, Explained—Vox; Vox Media, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/12111346/gmo-labeling-bill-congress (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Rosenberg, J. GMO Law Forces Small Food Companies to Make Tough Decisions About Labels, Ingredients; Genetic Literacy Project: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2016; Available online: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/08/08/gmo-law-forces-small-food-companies-to-make-tough-decisions-about-labels-ingredients/ (accessed on 8 August 2016).
- Hallman, W.K. Consumer Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods and GMO Labeling in the United States. In Consumer Perception of Food Attributes; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Public Law No. EDW16734; National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. United States Government Publishing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Zhang, S. QR Codes for GMO Labeling Could Actually Be a Great Idea. Could. WIRED. 2016. Available online: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/qr-codes-gmo-labeling-actually-great-idea/ (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Tallapragada, M.; Hallman, W.K. Implementing the national bioengineered food disclosure standard: Will consumers use QR codes to check for genetically modified (GM) ingredients in food products? AgBioForum 2018, 21, 44–60. Available online: https://scholarshare.temple.edu/handle/20.500.12613/7305 (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Grocery Manufacturers Association. Frequently Asked Questions; Grocery Manufacturers Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: http://www.smartlabel.org/faq (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Grocery Manufacturers Association. SmartLabel Transparency Initiative; Grocery Manufacturers Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Available online: http://www.gmaonline.org/issues-policy/health-nutrition/smartlabeltm-consumer-information-transparency-initiative/ (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Kvidahl, M. GMA Q&A: What You Should Know about SmartLabel. Supermarket News. 2016. Available online: http://www.supermarketnews.com/marketing/gma-qa-what-you-should-know-about-smartlabel (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Consumer Brands Association. SmartLabel. Consumers Want Information. SmartLabel Delivers. 2022. Available online: https://consumerbrandsassociation.org/about-us/smartlabel/ (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Sunstein, C. On mandatory labeling, with special reference to genetically modified foods. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 2016, 165, 1043–1095. [Google Scholar]
- Adler, J. There is no consumer right to know. Regulation 2016, 39, 26. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, D.M.; Hallman, W.K. Consumer Risk Perceptions and Marketing Strategy: The Case of Genetically Modified Food. Psychol. Mark. 2013, 30, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. 2012. Available online: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Hallman, W.K.; Hedben, W.C.; Aquino, H.L.; Cuite, C.L.; Lang, J.T. Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion; Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runge, C.F.; Jackson, L.A. Labelling, rade, and genetically modified organisms—A proposed solution. J. World Trade 2000, 34, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trotter, G. GMO Labeling Debate Puts Food Industry on Defensive. Chicago Tribune. 2016. Available online: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-gmo-food-labeling-0313-biz-20160311-story.html (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Waxman, H. Non-GMO Foods: U.S. and Global Market Perspective. In Market Research Report (No. LA5472800), 2nd ed.; Packaged Facts: Rockville, MD, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.packagedfacts.com/Non-GMO-Foods-8775964/ (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Watson, E. Mintel GNPD Data: 15.7% of New US Food/Bev Products Made Non-GMO Claims in 2015 vs. 2.8% in 2012; Food Navigator: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Available online: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Markets/Mintel-GNPD-label-claims-trends-Non-GMO-vegan-all-natural (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Non-GMO Project. Verification FAQs—The Non-GMO Project; Non-GMO Project: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.nongmoproject.org/product-verification/verification-faqs/ (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Greene, C.; McBride, W.; Cooke, B.; Ferreira, G.; Wells, H.F. The Outlook for Organic Agriculture; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/past_speeches/2016_Speeches/Greene.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- United States Department of Agriculture. Organic 101: Can GMOs Be Used in Organic Products? United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Miller, S. Deficit Model. In Encyclopedia of Science and Technoogy Communication; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 208–210. [Google Scholar]
- McNeil, M. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Deficit Model, the Diffusion Model and Publics in STS. Sci. Cult. 2013, 22, 589–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suldovsky, B. The Information Deficit Model and Climate Change Communication. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simis, M.J.; Madden, H.; Cacciatore, M.A.; Yeo, S.K. The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst. Sci. 2016, 25, 400–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suldovsky, B. In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public Underst. Sci. 2016, 25, 415–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, H. In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? How do the shifting information flows in healthcare affect the deficit model of science communication? Public Underst. Sci. 2016, 25, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suldovsky, B.; McGreavy, B.; Lindenfeld, L. Evaluating Epistemic Commitments and Science Communication Practice in Transdisciplinary Research. Sci. Commun. 2018, 40, 499–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Finucane, M.L.; Holup, J.L. Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: An overview of the literature. Soc. Sci. Med. 2005, 60, 1603–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaskell, G.; Allum, N.; Wagner, W.; Kronberger, N.; Torgersen, H.; Hampel, J.; Bardes, J. GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott, S.E.; Inbar, Y.; Rozin, P. Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 11, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N.F. Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? Risk Anal. 2005, 25, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Knight, A. Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications. Risk Anal. 2007, 27, 1553–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Gardner, G.E.; Troelstrup, A. Students’ Attitudes Toward Gene Technology: Deconstructing a Construct. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2015, 24, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Department of Agriculture. No. 120. An Act Relating to the Labling of Food Produced with Genetic Engineering; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
- United States Department of Agriculture. FDA/HHS Technical Assistance on Senate Agriculture Committee Draft Legislation to Establish a National Dislcosure for Bioengineered Foods (No. EDW16734); United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. Available online: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/fda-to-senate-ag-on-draft-legislation_29928.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Genetically Modified Organisms—Traceability and Labeling, 1830/2003. 2003. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l21170 (accessed on 1 April 2018).
- Sturgis, P.; Allum, N. Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes. Public Underst. Sci. 2004, 13, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bucchi, M.; Neresini, F. Science and Public Participation. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed.; Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wajcman, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 449–472. [Google Scholar]
- Brossard, D.; Lewenstein, B. A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. In Communicating Science; Lahlor, L., Stout, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shangguan, S.; Afshin, A.; Shulkin, M.; Ma, W.; Marsden, D.; Smith, J.; Saheb-Kashaf, M.; Shi, P.; Micha, R.; Imamura, F.; et al. A Meta-Analysis of Food Labeling Effects on Consumer Diet Behaviors and Industry Practices. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2019, 56, 300–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woźniak, E.; Tyczewska, A.; Twardowski, T. A Shift Towards Biotechnology: Social Opinion in the EU. Trends Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 214–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siegrist, M.; Cvetkovich, G. Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bredahl, L. Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Food—Results of a Cross-National Survey. J. Consum. Policy 2001, 24, 23–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Term | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Characterization | Genetically Modified | Bioengineered | ||
Condition | n | Condition | n | |
Ubiquitous | 1 | 125 | 4 | 125 |
Safe | 2 | 125 | 5 | 125 |
Improves Yields | 3 | 125 | 6 | 125 |
Code | Definition/Example | Number of Products | Cohen’s Kappa |
---|---|---|---|
Ubiquitous | GMOs are ubiquitous in our food system and are in most of the food we eat; “At least 70−80% of the foods we eat contain genetically modified ingredients” | 648 | 0.942 |
Safe | GM ingredients are safe for human consumption and for the environment; “Foods from genetically engineered plant varieties marketed to date are as safe as comparable, non-genetically engineered foods” | 582 | 1.000 |
Improves Yields | GM technology improves crop yields; “GM technology allows farmers to generate more stable—and sometimes higher—yields” | 582 | 0.942 |
Comparable to non-GM crops | GM crops are comparable to non-GM crops along some dimension; “GM food is as safe and nutritious as food that is non-gm” | 569 | 0.968 |
Not New | GM is a technology that is not new or novel; “GM has been around for the past 20 years” | 569 | 1.000 |
Economical | GM crops are more economical than non-GM crops in that they cost less to produce and, thus, can be sold at a lower price to consumers; “GM technology helps reduce the price of crops used for food… by as much as 15–30%” | 551 | 0.969 |
High Quality | GM crops are of higher quality or desirability than non-GM crops; “GM adds specific desirable traits from one plant or microorganism to a food plant” | 535 | 0.966 |
Distinct | GM crops are different from non-GM crops; “GM is different from traditional plant breeding” | 82 | 1.000 |
Contaminate | GM ingredients are a contaminant to be avoided; “Identity Preservation requires practices and processes for controlling contamination from at-risk GMO inputs and ingredients” | 67 | 1.000 |
Sustainable | GM crops are more sustainable and better for the environment than non-GM crops; “Examples of GM efforts include those designed to allow crops to use less water or be grown on less land” | 45 | 1.000 |
Nutritious | Foods produced with GM crops are nutritious; “Foods that contain GM ingredients are nutritious” | 18 | 1.000 |
Not Risky | GM crops are not risky to human health or the environment; “There is no health risk associated with GM foods or ingredients” | 17 | 1.000 |
Unstandardized B | Standardized B | p | R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1: Perceived Risks | ||||
Morality | −0.810 | −0.586 | <0.001 | |
Self-Report Knowledge | 0.150 | 0.119 | <0.001 | |
Objective Knowledge | −0.063 | −0.024 | <0.05 | |
0.400 | ||||
Model 2: Perceived Benefits | ||||
Morality | 0.465 | 0.409 | <0.001 | |
Self-Report Knowledge | 0.262 | 0.253 | <0.001 | |
Objective Knowledge | −0.046 | −0.149 | <0.001 | |
0.198 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Suldovsky, B.; Hallman, W.K. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States. Societies 2022, 12, 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050133
Suldovsky B, Hallman WK. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States. Societies. 2022; 12(5):133. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050133
Chicago/Turabian StyleSuldovsky, Brianne, and William K. Hallman. 2022. "The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Intersection of Technology and Public Understanding of Science in the United States" Societies 12, no. 5: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050133