The GMO debate: Science vs. consumer perceptions

At a Chicago Section IFT dinner meeting that took place February 13 in Des Plaines, Ill., two food industry professionals faced off in a debate focused on the controversial issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The relevance of the subject was underscored by the high attendance at the meeting with more than 170 Chicago-area food industry professionals.

To kick things off, moderator Benjamin Howard, laboratory director at Certified Laboratories, highlighted the results of a pre-debate survey to attendees, which showed that the majority of the audience (66%) said they are pro-GMO. While 70% believe that GMO ingredients are always or mostly safe, 52.5% said that the number one priority should be “further studies to better understand the public health implications.” Similarly, 51% responded that their biggest concern regarding GMO foods is the lack of data available to the public, private, and governmental sector to make informed choices.

To begin the debate, each side was given time to state his/her platform before a Q&A period in which both participants had the chance to answer questions from the audience. Sunny Gilbert, project scientist with Cofactor Genomics, represented the pro-GMO side and opened the debate by stating that while she believes GMOs are beneficial, it wasn’t her goal to convince the attendees but instead to give them the information and knowledge in order for them to form their own opinions. As Gilbert elucidated, “The FDA has approved the growth and consumption of GM food, and there were 448.5 million acres of GM crops planted globally in 2014.”

According to Gilbert, the reason that GMOs have become so controversial is because people believe there is a lack of data surrounding them. She stated that because the safety of GM crops is a non-issue, she wanted to address the benefits of GM crops. She went on to cite the Artic apple, which was genetically modified to reduce the polyphenol oxidase enzyme, resulting in an apple that doesn’t brown. Gilbert argued that this helps reduce food waste. Another example of a beneficial use of GMO technology is the Golden Rice—rice modified to contain beta-carotene to address vitamin A deficiency. Gilbert cited World Health Organization data that 2.7 million lives each year could be saved by a product like Golden Rice. Gilbert concluded her argument by stating that GMOs can reduce insecticide use, decrease food waste, and increase economic and social development.

On the anti-GMO side, Joel Warady, chief sales and marketing officer of Enjoy Life Foods, prefaced his presentation with the disclaimer that he is “a sales and marketing guy … not a science guy.” His goal for the debate was to express why he is passionate about non-GMOs. As a part of a “free-from” company—producing products free from allergens, preservatives, artificial ingredients, gluten, and GMOs—he expressed that their consumers told the company that they wanted non-GMO products. He went on to state, “I don’t know that GMOs are bad, but I will challenge anyone who says they are good because there isn’t enough evidence.”

Warady also posited that while there is no proof that GMOs are behind the increase in food allergies, consumers believe they are and “we aren’t going to convince them otherwise.” As he expressed, parents are searching for a solution to the increasing prevalence of allergies and for them the solution is in the food. According to Warady, this is one reason that Enjoy Life Foods is a big believer in the idea of labeling GMOs. “At what point will you believe that this [GMO labeling] is what the consumer is seeking?” he asked the audience. He concluded his presentation reinforcing consumers’ wants: “It’s not about us and how we grow our business. It’s about them [the consumers], and making sure we can help children live a normal and healthy life.”