Study: GMO labels not viewed as warnings

In July, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill to block states from mandating labelling of genetically modified foods. At its root is a fear that such labels will be seen as ‘warnings’ by consumers and will adversely affect purchase behaviour. But data from a new study suggests this concern may be unfounded.

Advocates of the controversial Bill say it will ensure that US agriculture can use GM technology in its quest to feed an exploding global population, while its critics say it will keep American consumers in the dark about origins of the food they are eating.

The basis for such legislation, which is yet to reach the US Senate, is the assumption that labelling GMO products would deter consumers from buying it. Those against compulsory labelling fear that labelling GM foods would serve as a warning to consumers that the ingredients are somehow inherently risky.

But a new study has provided evidence to refute this assumption, providing evidence that GMO labelling would not act as a warning to consumers.

The study, presented at the annual conference of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, is based on five years of data (2003, 2004, 2008, 2014 and 2015) and includes 2012 responses to a representative, statewide survey of residents of the US state of Vermont. Using data from Vermont residents is significant as it is to date the only US state that has passed laws to mandate GMO labelling. The Vermont law is yet to take effect; however, it would be nullified by the federal law, if it successfully passed the Senate.

The research focuses on the relationship between two primary questions: whether respondents are opposed to GMOs in commercially available food products and if they thought products containing GMOs should be labelled.

The results showed no evidence that attitudes towards GMOs are strengthened in either a positive or negative way due to a desire for labels that indicate the product contains GM ingredients. On average across all five years of the study, 60% of respondents reported being opposed to the use of GMO technology in food production and 89% desire labelling of food products containing GMO ingredients. The numbers increased slightly over the survey period — in 2015, the percentages were 63% and 92%, respectively.

Responses varied slightly by demographic groups. For example, given a desire for positive GMO labels, opposition to GMO decreased in people with lower levels of education, in single-parent households and in those earning the highest incomes. Opposition to GMO increased in men and people in the middle-income category. No changes were larger than three percentage points.

“When you look at consumer opposition to the use of GM technologies in food and account for the label, we found that overall the label has no direct impact on opposition. And it increased support for GM in some demographic groups,” said Jane Kolodinsky, author of the study and professor and chair of the Department of Community Development and Applied Economics at the University of Vermont. “This was not what I hypothesised based on the reasoning behind the introduction of The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Bill. We didn’t find evidence that the labels will work as a warning.”

New information for policymakers

Advocates for GMO labelling say the study proves that such labels will not serve as a warning and that ultimately the market will decide.

Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG), said the GMO labels that Vermont’s law would require will provide important information so that consumers who have legitimate health or environmental concerns about GMOs can make informed purchasing decisions.

In her conference presentation of ‘An Investigation of the Endogeneity of Attitudes Towards Genetic Modification and Demand for GM Food Labels’, Kolodinsky said the findings provide evidence that in Vermont, GMO food labels would provide consumers with information on which to base their purchasing decisions. Consumers who wish to avoid GMO ingredients would do so, she added, and those who either want GMO ingredients or are indifferent can also make that choice. “The label would not signal to consumers that GMO ingredients are inferior to those produced using other agricultural production methods,” she said.

“We need more evidence to determine which position is correct,” Kolodinsky said at the conference. “This study adds to the GM labelling evidence by showing that, in the only US state that has passed a mandatory positive GM labelling law, the label will not act as a ‘warning label’. When only the label is considered, it has no impact on consumer opposition. And there is some evidence that the label will increase consumer confidence in GM technology among certain groups.”

Image credit: ©iStockphoto.com/humonia