Labeling may decrease opposition to genetically engineered food

On July 1, 2016, a Vermont law went into effect requiring labels on all foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But the labels were required only until July 27, 2016, when a U.S. federal law superseded it, requiring the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) to determine when GE-containing foods must be labeled. This 27-day period, in which food products containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients had to be labeled as such, has given economists a window into how the mandatory labeling could affect consumer attitudes. A study published in Science Advances suggests that mandatory labeling may improve consumers’ support of GE foods.

Jayson Lusk, distinguished professor and head of Purdue University’s Dept. of Agricultural Economics, and Jane Kolinsky, professor and chair in the University of Vermont’s Dept. of Community Development and Applied Economics, gathered data on consumer attitudes toward GE foods in the months leading up to and after the law. Kolinsky surveyed Vermont residents to rate their level of support for GE foods on a one-to-five scale, with one being very supportive and five being very opposed. Lusk has long collected monthly data on consumer food issues for the entire United States. In those surveys, consumers were also asked a similar question.

Before the July 2016 Vermont labeling law went into effect, concern in the United States over GE foods averaged 3.156, or slightly more concerned than not. After the law, the concern index increased to 3.23. In Vermont, the average resident before the law took effect gave GE foods a support score of 3.597, closer to the opposed end of the scale. After July, that dropped to 3.077.

Models using data collected before the law went into effect predicted that people in Vermont would be slightly less supportive of GE foods had the label law not been enacted. Those models predicted the average Vermont consumer after July 2016 would have a support score of 3.671.
Comparing the expected support to actual, Vermont opposition for GE foods declined about 19%.

“This is really the only place in the United States that has had mandatory labeling. It was a good, natural experiment to test some of these competing hypotheses about what labels would do,” said Lusk. “One of the concerns many people, including myself, expressed about mandating GMO labels is that consumers might see the label as a type of warning signal and increase aversion to the label. This research shows that this particular concern about mandatory GMO labels is likely misplaced.”

It isn’t clear why consumers would become more supportive of GE foods after the law, but Lusk thinks it might have to do with seeing the labels on brands consumers already trust. “Companies have spent billions of dollars on advertising and building trust in their brands,” said Lusk. “I can imagine a consumer sees a brand they’ve come to enjoy or trust with this label and they think ‘if genetically engineered ingredients are OK with them, then it’s OK with me.’”

Study