Frankenfood: Is it worth the hype?

BY ANNEKE TAYLOR

Do you really know what’s in your food? Are you comfortable eating food that has had its DNA manipulated in a laboratory? Are we all eating Frankenfood injected with fish DNA and who knows what else? Questions like these, frequently posed by organic food companies and organizations, often lead individuals with little or no practical understanding of biotechnology to fear genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (1). Many people strive to eat organic and to avoid GMOs without really thinking about why they are doing so. Many consumers cite vague concerns over negative health effects or environmental dangers, but often lack evidence and specific examples (1). Others simply think that the idea of genetically modified food is gross or unnatural, and believe that “scientists” should not be involved in growing their food. Most Americans know very little about basic genetics and biotechnology, and often overestimate their knowledge of it when questioned on the subject (2). Despite most respondents claiming a “good” understanding of food science, only 41% of a representative group of Americans were even aware that genetically modified (GM), foods are currently available in supermarkets and have been for over two decades (2). A 2004 study found that “only 15% of the respondents were sure that the incorporation of a catfish gene into a tomato would not produce a fishy tasting fruit and, even worse, only 9% of the respondents were confident that tomatoes contained any genes at all” (3). If they have such limited knowledge of biotechnology, why are so many Americans concerned about GMO risks?

ABOVE: Stereotypical caricature of a ‘genetically modified’ tomato

In reality, the GMO industry is far more regulated than many believe. There is currently a scientific consensus among biotechnologists that genetically modified crops hold no human health risks (4). Some members of the public cite concerns over the intellectual property rights of GMOs, especially when they are sold in poorer countries by powerful American companies like Monsanto (3). Some also express concern over possible environmental side effects, but thanks to regulation and testing, environmental damage directly due to GM plants is unlikely (4). These concerns do have some basis in science and politics, and should be carefully considered as part of decisions on GMO regulation and distribution. However, entirely unscientific concerns about human health effects and worries about the unnaturalness of “lab-grown” food are far more common among the average consumer (5). Why then are so many consumers willing to make the choice to avoid genetically modified foods when the available alternatives often come with a much higher price tag? In “Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States,” John Lang and William Hallman argue that in a world where it is impossible to be educated on every scientific development that touches our lives, we must choose to trust in authority—whether it be an individual, an organization, or the “scientific process” itself—since we cannot realistically spend the time and effort to deeply understand every issue ourselves (1). However, with complex issues such as genetic modification in agriculture, in which every different GMO has a different purpose, creator, and set of possible risks, it can be very difficult to decide whom to trust (1). Many studies confirming the safety of GMOs are funded by GMO-producing corporations, and many anti-GMO advocacy groups are funded by health food companies which benefit when consumers seek to avoid GM food (1). Confronted by a plethora of arguments and organizations pushing their own agendas, consumers may feel forced to assess the risks of consuming GMOs by themselves.

Let’s imagine that Susan, a white, middle-class mother, has read on the back of an organic cereal box that it is “GMO-free.” Organic foods are healthy, Susan thinks, so if it is good that the organic cereal doesn’t have GMOs, GMOs must be bad. She then reads on the internet that GMOs are made by moving DNA from one organism to another, which sounds somewhat dangerous and unnatural, like something from a sci-fi movie. Susan then talks to her friend Karen about GMOs, and Karen tells her that the mutant DNA from GMOs can get into your bloodstream and go inside your body’s cells and into your DNA, which could then cause you to become infertile and all sorts of other bad things. Susan isn’t sure about what she heard from Karen, since she realizes she must have been eating GMOs for many years without knowing and nothing bad has happened to her. While she perceives the likelihood of real harm as very low, she still chooses to purchase only non-GMO foods in the future.

Why do so many people, like or unlike Susan, make a similar choice? In Risk Perception, Behavior, and Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Organisms: Toward Understanding American and European Public Reaction, Carl Nelson uses economic and psychological models of consumer choice to analyze how consumers might make decisions when assessing the potential risks of GMO foods (6). Using the “risk matrix,” a game theory and psychological model, he analyzes the behavior of the public vs. the scientific community when assessing risk.

While there are many other variables that go into how we decide what to buy, this type of risk analysis helps us understand why people of different backgrounds make such disparate choices, despite seeing the same level of risk. Nelson argues that in cases where one option carries extremely small but very serious risk probabilities, such as the use of genetic modification in agriculture, some people make choices which don’t conform to standard cost/benefit analysis (6). Instead, they assume that a possible harmful outcome is almost certain, even when the probability of such an outcome is negligible, rather than focusing on both benefits and drawbacks. This is called the “certainty effect” (6). Unusual choices caused by the certainty effect comprise cell 2 of the risk matrix, while carefully weighed cost benefit analysis is represented in cell 1 (6). Biotechnologically literate people begin in a neutral mindset, cell 1, where they weigh risks and benefits according to the real probabilities of each risk and the utility of each benefit, due to their access to scientific data and previous knowledge of the subject (6). On the other hand, due to a poor understanding of biotechnology and probability, many consumers base their risk assessment on the assumption “better safe than sorry,” because the risks they perceive are far outside of their comfort zone (6). This danger-focused risk assessment leads many consumers to believe that it is better to avoid GMOs entirely or to advocate for bans, rather than to allow the scientific process to continue (6). Susan knows she will probably be fine if she eats cereal made with GM soybeans, but Carol’s warning is so severe that she chooses to avoid the risk, even though it is a small one. The tiny risk of harm essentially becomes a certainty in terms of her cost/benefit analysis. The risk matrix shows us that when people lack scientific education and are forced to make their own risk assessments rather than trusting conflicting messages from authority, the most severe and least likely outcomes can often become overblown in the public imagination. This poor risk assessment can lead misinformed ideas, like those of Carol, to become widespread and to form the basis for the decisions of many individuals.

ABOVE: Example Risk Matrix. Image by Lexus Sullivan, adapted from Nelson 2001.

The spread of misinformation about genetically modified foods is just one example of how individual worries and poor risk assessment can lead to unfounded cultural movements and myths which in cases like this one can hold back important scientific progress. As popular anti-GMO sentiment has grown, images such as tomatoes with syringes in them and buzzwords like “frankenfood” encourage people to act on gut responses rather than educating themselves on the issues and have further perpetuated public misunderstanding of biotechnology (7, 8). This does not mean that there is no truth in some public concerns--the GMO debate is an extremely complicated issue, and every type of GMO deserves an individual assessment of risk (4). Ultimately we all have to make our own choices on what to consume, but we can always do our best to make sure those choices are founded on something more substantial than Carol and Susan’s latest whim.