Would you eat genetically modified food if you understood the science behind it?

Summary: Learning the underlying science behind genetically modified foods generates more positive attitudes toward them, a greater willingness to eat them, and a lowered perception that GM foods are risky.

Source: University of Rochester

Jonathon McPhetres, a newly minted PhD in psychology from the University of Rochester, admits he’s “personally amazed” what we can do with genes, specifically genetically modified food—such as saving papayas from extinction.

“We can make crops better, more resilient, and more profitable and easier for farmers to grow so that we can provide more crops around the world,” he says.

Yet the practice of altering foods genetically, through the introduction of a gene from a different organism, has courted controversy right from the get-go. While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are considered safe by an overwhelming majority of scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association, only about one-third of consumers share that view.

One reason for the divide is that critics of genetically modified food have been vocal, often decrying it as “unnatural” or “Frankenfood”—in stark contrast to a 2016 review of published research that found no convincing evidence for negative health or environmental effects of GM foods.

A team of psychologists and biologists from the University of Rochester, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and Cardiff University in Wales, set out to discover if the schism could be overcome; that is, to see if consumers’ attitudes would change if the public understood the underlying science better.

The short answer is “yes.” The team’s findings were recently published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.

“Political orientation and demographics inform attitudes and we can’t change those,” says McPhetres, the study’s lead author.

“But we can teach people about the science behind GMOs, and that seems to be effective in allowing people to make more informed decisions about the products that they use or avoid.”

Previous research has shown that more than half of Americans know very little or nothing at all about GM foods.

In a series of studies, the team discovered that people’s existing knowledge about GM food is the greatest determining factor of their attitudes towards the food—overriding all other tested factors. In fact, existing GM knowledge was more than 19 times higher as a determinant—compared to the influence of demographic factors such as a person’s education, socioeconomic status, race, age, and gender.

The team replicated the US findings in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where opposition to modified food has tended to be higher than in the United States, and where GM food is highly regulated in response to consumer concerns.

In one study, using a representative US sample, participants responded on a scale of 1 (don’t care if foods have been genetically modified), 2 (willing to eat, but prefer unmodified foods), to 3 (will not eat genetically modified foods). Next, the team asked 11 general science knowledge questions—such as whether the universe began with a huge explosion, antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria, electrons are smaller than atoms, and how long it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. In study 2, participants took an additional quiz about their knowledge about the science, methods, and benefits of GM foods and procedures.

The team found that specific knowledge about GM foods and procedures is independent of a person’s general science knowledge—making the first (GM knowledge) a nearly twice as strong predictor of GM attitudes.

Gentically modified food: A guide to overcoming skepticism

The researchers followed up by conducting a five-week longitudinal study with 231 undergraduates in the US to test, first, if a lack of knowledge about GM foods could be overcome by teaching participants the basic science behind GM technology, and second, if greater knowledge would alter attitudes. McPhetres worked with Rochester colleague Jennifer Brisson, an associate biology professor, who vetted the students’ learning materials.

The team discovered that learning the underlying science led to more positive attitudes towards genetically modified foods, a greater willingness to eat them, and a lowered perception of GM foods as risky.

Their findings, argues the team, lend direct support for the deficit model of science attitudes, which—in broad terms—holds that the public’s skepticism towards science and technology is largely due to a lack of understanding, or absence of pertinent information.

This shows a big potatoe
A team of psychologists and biologists from the University of Rochester, the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and Cardiff University in Wales, set out to discover if consumers’ attitudes toward genetically modified food would change if the public understood the underlying science better. The short answer is “yes.” The image is adapted from the University of Rochester news release.

The team’s online modules avoid confrontational approaches “which threaten preexisting beliefs and convictions,” suggesting a relatively simple guide for how to overcome skepticism about GM foods: focus on the actual underlying science, not the message.

For McPhetres, the studies tie neatly into his larger research focus on people’s basic science knowledge and general interest in science—and how to improve both.

Knowledge and appreciation of science—“that’s the kind of information that people need to make informed decisions about products they use, and the food they eat,” say McPhetres who’s now heading to Canada for a joint post-doctoral appointment between the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

About this neuroscience research article

University of Rochester
Media Contacts:
Jonathon McPhetres – University of Rochester
Image Source:
The image is adapted from the University of Rochester news release.

Original Research: Closed access
“Modifying attitudes about modified foods: Increased knowledge leads to more positive attitudes”. Jonathon McPhetres, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Netta Weinstein, Jennifer A. Brisson.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.012


Modifying attitudes about modified foods: Increased knowledge leads to more positive attitudes

Genetically modified (GM) foods are often met with harsh public opposition, though little research has attempted to understand why this is. The research that does exist has focused on identifying the role of immutable beliefs, such as morality and politics, which are difficult to change. Therefore, research may benefit from identifying mutable predictors of science rejection—predictors which can be modified through interventions—so efforts can be made to increase public support for scientific advancements. Here we present four studies in which we investigate a lack of domain-specific science literacy—literacy of GM technology—as a strong and unique predictor of GM food skepticism. Results from Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that knowledge of GM technology is a unique predictor of GM food attitudes above general science knowledge and demographic controls. Study 3 (preregistered) demonstrates that the unique predictive value of GM-specific knowledge replicates in the US, the UK, and the Netherlands. In Study 4, we sought to overcome this lack of knowledge by teaching people the basic science behind GM technology using a five-week, longitudinal experimental design. Results showed that learning about the science behind GM technology leads to more positive explicit attitudes towards GM foods, greater willingness to eat GM products, and lowered perceptions of GM foods as risky. Thus, the present results provide some support for the deficit model of science attitudes within the context of GM foods. These results also provide a relatively simple mold for future interventions to overcome GM skepticism, suggesting that researchers and scientists may wish to focus on communicating the basic science behind GM technology and increasing science literacy.

Feel free to share this Neuroscience News.
Join our Newsletter
I agree to have my personal information transferred to AWeber for Neuroscience Newsletter ( more information )
Sign up to receive our recent neuroscience headlines and summaries sent to your email once a day, totally free.
We hate spam and only use your email to contact you about newsletters. You can cancel your subscription any time.
  1. Closed access to the research and no information as to the qualifications of the researchers indicates to me that they have either been brainwashed or well paid.
    GMOs are destroying the gut microbiome, causing unbelievable health problems in pursuit of the mighty $$$.

  2. What this “study”, and most discussion son the topic of GMOs misses is that the issue is NOT the relative safety of the techniques in general, it is how these techniques are used, and to what purpose. In particular, of all the currently marketed genetically modified plants used for human and animal consumption, despite the grand pronouncements about increasing nutrition, adding disease fighting, health enhancing agents, etc. almost 100% instead merely exist to increase resistance to a particular pesticide that just happens to also be marketed by the company that created the resistant organism. I.e., the sole driver of these modifications is NOT greater public health, or societal benefit, but corporate profit.
    In addition these organisms are then patented, and laws passed to prevent poor farmers from saving and planting the seed of the previous year’s crop, thus locking farmers, and especially poor farmer, into a cycle of dependency rather than self-sufficiency.
    Until this reality is confronted and addressed, the claim that anyone is actually dealing with the true specter these organism represents is disingenuous, at best.

  3. No, I wouldn’t eat gmo food even if I understood the science behind it. The reason is, there’s no way to know before consuming the food whether my physiology will be able to handle it. What if I have an allergic reaction or if my body reacts to it like a poison? Get back to me when you have effective ways to test people for compatibility with things like foods and medications.

Comments are closed.