Media influence on consumer perception of GMOs

Studies have revealed that the information about food technology shared on social media often trumps the facts put out by the scientific community and food experts, leading to the dissemination of disinformation, ‘fake news’ and conspiracy theories. This is evidenced by the consumer mistrust of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), despite assurances from the scientific community and food experts. A recent symposium in the US addressed the widespread risk perception of food technologies, at the 2019 Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) Annual Meeting.

Despite offering greater global food security and sustainability, food technologies are increasingly perceived by consumers as risky. Consumers continue to prefer organic and less efficient techniques of food production, due to the amount of disinformation about GMOs spread through social media. The disinformation is shared for the sole purpose of gaining attention which can be monetised, as opposed to providing education.

Social media campaigns also often stir up conspiracy theories and rely on this attention by disseminating salacious headlines and compelling information, often lacking in factual accuracy. Resultantly, disinformation has become a form of currency for many vendors. A study, titled ‘Monetising disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)’, analysed 94,993 unique online articles about GMOs. The study revealed that a small group of alternative health and pro-conspiracy sites received higher engagement on social media than media outlet sites. Therefore, social and political controversy continues to surround the GMO narrative, despite the scientific consensus of its safety.

A second study, performed by Eleni Galata Bickell, PhD, University of Missouri-Columbia, also investigated how genetically modified crops are portrayed in the media, compared to how they are reflected in the scientific community. The study that analysed over 300 articles published by the New York Times and the Washington Post between 2000 and 2018 revealed a large disconnect between the tone and complexity of the American media and the consensus among scientific media and experts.

“Our research helps us better understand how information can affect our decisions about food technology. Most of us have no direct exposure to how food with new technology is produced. Therefore, we rely on the information sources of the media to understand our food better,” Bickell said.

A third study, titled ‘Risk perception and attitudes predict brain response to food technology infographics’, used functional magnetic resonance imaging to understand how parts of the prefrontal cortex (involved in day-to-day cognitive and emotional processes) determine how people process infographics about food technologies, and their positive attitudes and risk perceptions. Understanding the neural underpinnings of risk perception can help people design more effective communication campaigns, to improve attitudes about food technologies.

Behavioural science indicates that the human mind evolved for action and reaction, not for thinking critically about risk. Therefore, research indicates that society must develop communication skills to inform people who are not prepared to think critically about risk, to reduce the dissemination of misinformation on social media.

Image credit: ©stock.adobe.com/au/anetlanda