The question of what constitutes “naturalness”—and consumers’ attitudes about it—lies at the heart of a research study published in the Annual Review of Nutrition. The researchers discovered that after more than 20 years of growth in genetic engineering in agriculture, consumers largely remain skeptical, even to the point of being “grossed out” by the idea.
“It’s an overview of where we are,” said study author Sydney Scott, assistant professor of marketing in the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis. Scott has previously published research on the “moralization” of genetically modified foods and the role of consumer “disgust” in their consumption. “It’s looking at the state of what’s been done in the regulatory landscape and the research in understanding attitudes,” she said.
“In some contexts, people view nature and naturalness as sacred and genetically engineered food as a violation of naturalness,” the authors wrote. The prevailing research also shows that consumers follow “the magical law of contagion”—the idea that the slightest contact between natural foods and something else contaminates it.
Through their review of the literature, the researchers noted that prior work identified four governmental approaches to regulating genetically modified crops, ranging from promotional to permissive to precautionary to preventative. For example, the United States tends to have a permissive approach, grows a lot of genetically modified crops, and says they are “generally recognized as safe.”
By contrast, the European Union is restrictive in its approach, allowing only two genetically engineered crops to be grown commercially—potatoes and maize—and even those are not grown for human consumption “due to consumer resistance,” according to the research paper.
Yet globally, the increase in genetically engineered crops has grown to cover half of U.S. cropland and 12% of total cropland—mostly in North and South America and Asia. At the same time, worldwide sales of organic food have climbed from about $15.2 billion in 1999 to $90 billion in 2016.
A key aim of the research team’s work was to expose the gap between advocates of genetically engineered foods and opponents. “This won’t be solved by just taking into account the scientific information,” said study author Sydney Scott, assistant professor of marketing in the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis. That, he says, shows genetically engineered foods have no adverse effects on the environment or human health. “When we’re communicating with people about this technology, to have a successful conversation, we have to realize that.”